# Lens combos under $1000



## TeenTog (Oct 22, 2012)

This topic is mainly out of curiosity to see what people think, and hopefully it will also help some budget-restricting people!


Say you just spent $1000ish on a 60D, and now you need some lenses, but TOGETHER They need to be under $1000. What would you choose?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2012)

I'd beg or borrow another $60 and get the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM.


----------



## TeenTog (Oct 22, 2012)

I can definatley see the 15-85mm, I really want it myself but.......Why the 85?


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 22, 2012)

This would be my setup

5Dc

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
100mm 2.0

I could do 90% of all my work with that setup.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2012)

TeenTog said:


> I can definatley see the 15-85mm, I really want it myself but.......Why the 85?



The weakness of the 15-85mm is that it's got a slow aperture. It often works well to combine a fast prime for portraits (better subject isolation) and low light with a slower zoom for versatility and cost savings. The 50/1.4 would work as well - the 85mm just suits my style better as I like tight portraits. 

FWIW, I prefer the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS to the 15-85mm, but that one lens costs about the same as the other two, and the combo is more versatile, IMO.


----------



## TeenTog (Oct 22, 2012)

> works well to combine a fast prime for portraits


thanks, I didn't think about that


----------



## gmrza (Oct 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd beg or borrow another $60 and get the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM.



My reaction would have been the 15-85 plus the 50 f/1.4 - as you point out a few posts further, the choice between the 50 and the 85 is probably a matter of style.


----------



## hsmoscout (Oct 22, 2012)

I'd say 18-55mm IS, 55-250 IS, 50mm f/1.8 II, and 100mm Macro.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 22, 2012)

I have a 60D and while I have upgraded to the 24-105mm, 100mm F/2.8L Macro, the 50mm f/2.8, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... I had to slowly climb the ladder starting with the 18-55.

First, I'd suggest buying used or even better refurbished. And if you can be patient, you can get 15-20% off most lenses, and if you are crazy lucky, you can get 30% off great lenses, but I wouldn't hold your breath on those. 

Here's a best case scenario (presuming you live some place without tax).

24-105mm f/4L IS for $643. Leaving you with $357.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_263354_-1

It's not the widest option on a crop sensor, but it is a great lens that is often underrated because of the 24-70 and the performance of primes. 

Next, a 40mm pancake lens or the 50mm f/1.8. The 50mm f/1.4 actually outperforms it's L series f/1.2 counterpart, but it can have some AF issues if it takes a fall. 

The 40mm pancake can be found for $200 and compares favorably to as the younger brother to some L lenses... Not quite as good, but also 1/7th the price. The 50mm f/1.8 is findable at $100... and is the best value lens out there. It's shallow depth of field can take your shots from simply photographs to pieces of art that should be hung from your walls. At this point.... I'd lean towards the 40mm, but I was sad when I eventually sold my 50mm when I upgraded to the f/1.4. After the $200... you have $157 left.

And finally, I'd suggest getting a 55-250mm IS. It's not ideal for all settings, but for outdoor photography it is an amazing value lens. The 70-300 can be found (if you are lucky) for around $300, but really it normally is around $450 or so. The 55-250 can easily be found for $150 used or even knew (the last one I had to sell was new and I sold it for $170). There are upgrade options, but I don't think they are worth discussing unless you are willing to not get the 40mm and downgrade the 24-105. And you have $7 left to get some cheap hoods from Amazon to protect the glass. I prefer doing that over UV filters. 

Now here's the problem, the 24-105 usually sells for around 850 to 800 from ebay without a real warranty. It has dipped to as low as 750. But Canon is sold out and so you are probably out of luck getting it at the crazy amazing price. 

But you can get a 15-85mm which is a near tack sharp lens and a great lens for an entry level non L. 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B002NEGTTM/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1350876853&sr=8-1&keywords=15-85mm+canon&condition=used

You can get a used one for 560 in like new condition leaving you 440 left.

If you get the 55-250 for 150, that will leave you around $300. And then you can possibly find a 50mm f/1.4 for around 300... though $350 is more likely. I wouldn't buy that one used because of the AF issues, but if you buy it new and then put on a hood, I think you are good to go. 

And now back


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 22, 2012)

And I guess I wasn't really thinking about it initially, but you are going to have lighting issues indoors. At 4, you can get a decent shot with an iso of around 1250... but at 5.6 you are going to lose 1/2 of your light compared to the 4 and when the 60D goes to 3200 iso or higher... it gets crazy grainy. 

So I'd suggest maybe downgraded the 50mm f/1.4 to either the 40mm or the 50mm f/1.8 and then getting either a Yongnuo manual flash for $70 or maybe a used 430ex II for $200. Then learn how to bounce the flash off walls ceilings and even floors. Light will also be the most important factor in your shots... so don't ever thinking that a longer shutterspeed will solve all of your problems.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 22, 2012)

TeenTog said:


> This topic is mainly out of curiosity to see what people think, and hopefully it will also help some budget-restricting people!
> 
> 
> Say you just spent $1000ish on a 60D, and now you need some lenses, but TOGETHER They need to be under $1000. What would you choose?


 
It really depends on your type of photography. I have a 15-85 which I love, but a longer telephoto might be nice too, Canon has the refurb 55-250 IS for $167, which would let you pickup the refurb 15-85 and a inexpensive 50mm f/1.8. There is a 30% off sale goiing on for a couple of days, so take a look.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductListingViewAll_10051_10051_-1_22751


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 22, 2012)

I would go for a used combo on Craiglist:

1. 17-55 f2.8 IS ==> general shooting
2. 50mm f1.4 ==> portrait


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 22, 2012)

I'm going to be a bit different and say

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 about $500
Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake $199
and Canon 85mm f1.8 $379

ok so it went over the $1000 slightly but
the tokina is good for wides stuff and nice and fast
the 40mm pancake is sharper accross the frame than the 24-70 f2.8L mk1 at f2.8 and is a great all round lens
the 85 for nice fast aperture portraits


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 23, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I'm going to be a bit different and say
> 
> Tokina 11-16 f2.8 about $500
> Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake $199
> ...



I know there are gaps in focal range but I can guarantee you that you would not miss the gaps.


----------



## discojuggernaut (Oct 23, 2012)

i would try to squeeze in under $1k with some used CL purchasing

tamron 17-50 2.8 non IS
nifty 50mm
canon 70-200 f4 non IS


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 23, 2012)

How about a used 24-105, and one of the Samyang 14mm lenses for the missing wide side? I think you could do that for $1k used. 

-Brian


----------



## Chicorob (Oct 23, 2012)

discojuggernaut said:


> i would try to squeeze in under $1k with some used CL purchasing
> 
> tamron 17-50 2.8 non IS
> nifty 50mm
> canon 70-200 f4 non IS



^^ perfect.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 26, 2012)

discojuggernaut said:


> i would try to squeeze in under $1k with some used CL purchasing
> 
> tamron 17-50 2.8 non IS
> nifty 50mm
> canon 70-200 f4 non IS



I've played with the 70-200 f4 non is twice and each time I was unimpressed. I think a solid 55-250 is just as good in well lit environments. I know, blasphemy.


----------



## aroo (Oct 26, 2012)

TeenTog, if someone's starting from scratch, they would do well to get the exact stuff listed in your signature (18-55, 55-250, nifty 50, 430ex). Then take a lot of pictures to see what gets used most and what's missing.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 27, 2012)

aroo said:


> TeenTog, if someone's starting from scratch, they would do well to get the exact stuff listed in your signature (18-55, 55-250, nifty 50, 430ex). Then take a lot of pictures to see what gets used most and what's missing.



One small sidenote. If someone pays full retail for the 55-250, 50mm, and 430ex, they are looking at 600 to 650. If they buy used, they are looking at 450 and they can sell it for roughly that same amount, so they aren't losing anything in the long run.

Having said that, if they buy high end lenses used, they will also not lose anything in the long run even though their initial investment is much larger. 

It's kinda like taking up golf with clubs from the 80's. It's hard to make a decision on whether you are any good if you don't have quality gear. But unlike golf clubs, lenses don't depreciate nearly as quickly.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 27, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I would go for a used combo on Craiglist:
> 
> 1. 17-55 f2.8 IS ==> general shooting
> 2. 50mm f1.4 ==> portrait


Good way for a inexperienced photographer to end up with expensive problems that end up costing more than new.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Nov 4, 2012)

So I have a crop body and $1000 - go spend it. The 18-55 is better than it ought to be (about $150). The next
purchase is the 55-250 (about another $150 although the "list" is closer to $300) That makes a super all-around
combo that covers most focal lengths and situations on a budget. It's also a good kit for travel because both of the lenses are mostly plastic and very light. The rest depends on personal preferences. First I'd grab a 50 f1.8
(about $125) because it's a super lens for the money. The next choice is $400-450 and strictly style related - 
either the 28mm f2.8 or the 35mm f2.0 if I prefer wide angle and landscapes or the 85 f1.8 or 100 f2.8 if I need something a little longer. Whichever I choose, my preference in the other category is my next purchase. These
four lenses take up $850 to $900 of my spending spree leaving me a good budget for lens hoods, filters, a small
bag (lenses don't do you any good at home) with some careful planning. UV filters for the lenses, ND set, and hoods should take about $75, leaving me enough for a bag, tripod, and incentive to save for a flash.


----------



## robbymack (Nov 4, 2012)

For crop, id look for a used 17-55 2.8 $750 or so, plus used 85 1.8 $300. That's maybe a little over budget but IMHO a great set up. Then save up for either a 10-22 if you like the wide end or one of the 70-200's if your more into the tele end.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 4, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I would go for a used combo on Craiglist:
> ...



HOW?....I don't see why you shouldn't get this used combo on Craiglist(USA) for around $1000.

I believe the two I mentioned are the top-best for crop.


----------

