# What other lenses for my 60D



## cinq1 (Apr 12, 2011)

Helle guys,

Julien from paris.

i have a canon 60D since 4 months now, i love it.

So far, i have a sigma 8-16mm, canon 100mm macro L, and a 30mm F1.4 sigma.

I would like to have a lens that i can use most of the time, i quiet like street photography.

So, i wonder, should i take,

Sigma 17-50 OS HSM F2.8 ?
canon 17-55 F2.8 ?
Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC or not VC ?

one day, i will go i think on full frame, so instead of those lenses, maybe i should think about the red ring?

What about to change the sigma 30mm for a sigma 50mm F1.4 ? if i take some thing in between 15-55mm ?

Thank you for your help.


----------



## daniemare (Apr 12, 2011)

I am also considering that focul range to add to my kit as a walk around lens.

I will through in the Tokina 16-50mm F2.8. Less common and without IS not that straight forward of a choice. But if you have used an Tokina ATX Pro lens you can't ignore the build and feel of these lenses.

My problem with the Canon is its price. You can add some decent filters (ND, Polarizer) to your kit and still be left with some change if you go for any of the 3rd party option.

So I am looking forward to people's suggestions, especially on the IS importance

For full frame, when is the question. On a crop body, I am certainly looking for hat 16/17mm wide end, and for street, zoom is important. So if you are not upgrading within the foreseable future, stick with one of these choices, and sell them when the time comes. You do not want to feel short changed at the wide end while you want to take pictures NOW


----------



## ronderick (Apr 13, 2011)

My 2 cents. (I'm not familiar with the 3rd party lens, so I'll leave that to others...)

With a 1.6x crop body, your choices would be slightly bit different from those of an FF body. Buying a 24-105mm f/4 would work if you are considering the switch to FF later on, but in the mean time you'll have a "missing link" between ur 8-16 and this one. 

Of course, you also have the option buying the L lens at the time you switch to the FF system. Who knows, maybe you'll see a 24-105mm successor couple years down the road by the time you do it. 8)

Since you've already mentioned the 17-55 f/2.8, I'll just add two more from the EF-S lineup that would work as possible choices for walk-about lens: the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6. The good thing is all these models have IS, so you don't have to worry about that.

Basically:

Affordable - 18-135mm> 15-85mm> 17-55mm
Reach - (you'll have to decide here; 18-135 has the longest range, while 15-85mm is the widest out of the 3)
Speed - 17-55mm >>>> 15-85mm/18-135mm

As for picture quality, you might have to ask people who actually owns the lens, but I think it's safe to assume that 18-135mm will be at a disadvantage when compared to the other 2.

Another note is that 18-135mm lacks USM among the 3. With USM, you'll have less noise and faster focusing time.

PS: If you are really considering to buy a lens that would work now and at the time you move to FF, the choice IMHO would be 17-40 f/4L. The UW lens could work as a standard zoom if push comes to shove (roughly 27- 64mm equivalent for the 60D). But you won't have the IS, so that should be taken into consideration.


----------



## Osiris30 (Apr 13, 2011)

cinq1 said:


> Helle guys,
> 
> Julien from paris.
> 
> ...



I'm personally used the Canon and Tamron (non-vc) options. The Tamron wins hands down in terms of price performance. For the price, I found the Canon disappointing. The only thing I thought it did better than the Tamron was be quieter focusing. That said, my Tammy 28-75 2.8 is my favorite lens. I have the Canon kit lens to cover 18-28 if I need it (where the little kit lens is at it's best), after that the Tammy takes over and is fantastic, before yielding to the 85 1.8. 

Oh and the Tamron has a bit worse CA than the Canon (in the interest of fairness), but it's easily cleaned up by LR3.


----------



## martinelliminimo (Apr 13, 2011)

i have a tamron 17-50mm VC for my 7D. The lens frickin rocks!!


----------



## branden (Apr 13, 2011)

ronderick said:


> Buying a 24-105mm f/4 would work if you are considering the switch to FF later on, but in the mean time you'll have a "missing link" between ur 8-16 and this one.


You may be "missing" a 20mm focal length, but I doubt that anyone will notice anything missing when it comes times to actually take photos. Any shot that should be framed at 20mm, can easily be framed at 16mm or 24mm without much difference.

Also, I own a copy of the much-maligned EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens, and while I haven't compared it against the other EF-S lenses you mentioned, it's not shy on performance when you're shooting outdoors during daytime, which is what that lens was designed to do. It's solid, easy to use, and reasonably free of distortion, especially when considering the price point and the incredible range of the lens.


----------



## cinq1 (Apr 13, 2011)

thank you for your answers guys.

i think, i will go for a 17_50, canon ? sigma? or tamron, don't know yet 

Cheers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2011)

I highly recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, if your budget allows. If you haven't seen them, the Canon 17-55mm and the Tamron lenses have some detailed commentary HERE.


----------



## Kuscali (Apr 13, 2011)

cinq1 said:


> thank you for your answers guys.
> 
> i think, i will go for a 17_50, canon ? sigma? or tamron, don't know yet
> 
> Cheers.



Personally, I think that if you budget lets you, get the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 full frame cousin, the 28-75mm f/2.8, and it is a good lens, but it is slow to focus in low light, there is a Tamron version with VC (Tamron nomenclature for IS), but this lens is no where as sharp as the non-vc version let alone the Canon. The Sigma version has a ultrasonic motor like the Canon focus well in low light, and it has OS (Sigma nomenclature for IS), but it is not as sharp as the Canon in the corners at f/2.8, at f/4 it is as sharper than the Canon across the frame.


----------



## KBX500 (Apr 13, 2011)

How much can you spend on the lens ?
What are you are primarily shooting as a subject ?
What conditions are you normally shooting under ?
How willing are you to sacrifice IQ in order to save money ?
Is the 60D is your first SLR ?
How is it you don't have a standard zoom yet ?

Requesting recommendations without including that info isn't going to yield too many truly useful suggestions.

And why don't you have a telephoto zoom ? It's quite alright that you don't have one if you're otherwise happy with the lens selection you have, but with all the beautiful architecture in Paris you'll be missing a lot of great photos.

So, here's another vote for the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. Before I bought it I shot a few dozen frames with both the Canon 17-55 and the Tamron 17-50 non-VC in a camera store and the parking lot with my 40D. I thought the Canon handled better, was quieter, focused quicker and more accurately, and when I got home and downloaded the pics I felt the Canon had better bokeh, color and sharpness - it just made better photos and did it with less annoyance. These are all pretty much subjective qualities and you'll have to judge for yourself. I can say that the Tamron was close in every regard. 

The store also had a VC version of the Tamron, but I didn't even mount it due to numerous online reports, by actual users and "experts", that it was not as good as the non-VC. 

I've never used the Sigma 17-50, so no help there.

Fortunately, I found a very nice, used Canon 17-55 at a price that I can resell it for at anytime. Essentially, I'm using it for free and that is by far the best deal of all. 

Keith


----------



## remy.brooks (Apr 26, 2011)

My 24-70 is soooooooooooooooo good and with the mk ii coming out it will be a good lens but with a price. if its too expensive get a 17-40, because you have a cropped body it will make a good general purpose lens


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 26, 2011)

I just want to add that unless your upgrade to FF is imminent, the best strategy is probably to get a good APS-C lens and then sell it when you upgrade. You get much better quality for the price, and in some cases (e.g. the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS) there is no FF lens that will serve you as well on APS-C. When it comes to lens choice, I've used the Tamron (non VC) and it's optical quality is superb. The only downsides were that I found the AF noisy and I was often missing the VC/IS (for low light), so I eventually upgraded to an EF 17-55/2.8 USM IS, which is a bit heavier and much more expensive. The second-hand value for the EF 17-55/2.8 USM IS is very good, however, so if you get it yourself second-hand, you can probably sell it for a similar price when the time comes for FF, and not loose to much. If the Tamron had VC at the time, I probably wouldn't have upgraded to the EF-S, although USM is very nice.


----------



## rideincircles (May 13, 2013)

I am on the fence of what kind of lens to get next for my 60d also.

My usual pictures involve abandoned buildings and I have a Canon 18-135 f3.5-5.6 and a Canon 50mm f1.8. The 18-135 has major issues with low light focusing and the 50mm is too zoomed for shooting buildings. I may get a full frame later on, but not this year.

I was thinking of 3 options

Sigma 30mm f1.4 HSM DC
Canon 28mm f1.8
Canon 17-55mm f2.8
The Tamron 17-50 was an option, but was leaning towards the Canon if going that route.

I was planning on buying my next lens this week and was leaning towards the sigma 30mm f1.4.

Wasn't sure how well it compares to the Canon 28mm f1.8, but low light is a priority with this purchase.

Thinking of this Sigma package for $400

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Autofocus-Canon-Cameras/dp/B00805T0LW/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1368460460&sr=8-7&keywords=canon+sigma+30mm+f1.4+hsm

Any thoughts?

Here are some of my pictures from the abandoned baker hotel to give an idea of what I will be shooting.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157633055357175/


----------



## rideincircles (May 13, 2013)

Considering the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art lens is coming soon, is there any info as to when that will be released? 

I can hold off on it for a little while if needed or get another lens. Reading up before impulsively buying anything.

Edit: It is available already, just not many reviews. Sounds like the corners may be sharper, but its $100 more at $500. First amazon review had a focus issue that needed to be recalibrated.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-f1-4-Lens-Canon/dp/B00BQXL8BU/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1368476018&sr=1-1&keywords=canon+sigma+30mm+f1.4+art

was there a forum post on this lens already?


----------



## Random Orbits (May 13, 2013)

rideincircles said:


> Considering the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art lens is coming soon, is there any info as to when that will be released?
> 
> I can hold off on it for a little while if needed or get another lens. Reading up before impulsively buying anything.
> 
> ...



Haven't seen all that much about the sigma 30, but the initial reviews indicate that it is closer to the previous sigma 30 in IQ rather than Sigma's 35mm f/1.4. The link below shows a sample crop comparison between those two lenses. There is also a drop down menu that allows you to compare the new sigma 30 with the old one or see the second link (harder to compare because the scaling is different). If the Sigma 35 f/1.4 is wide enough for your purposed, that might be a better choice.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=838&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=838&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=405&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## polarhannes (May 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I highly recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, if your budget allows. If you haven't seen them, the Canon 17-55mm and the Tamron lenses have some detailed commentary HERE.



I'll second that - I owned that lens back when I still had my 7D and it performed very good! In my opinion, it should deserve the "L", but L's unfortunately are limited to full frame lenses. Dust got sucked in, but besides of that it simply was great!

Besides that, your 60D is not capable of AFMA (at least afaik, could be wrong on that) so I'd be careful with 3rd party lenses.


----------



## rideincircles (May 14, 2013)

For the most part, I am either thinking the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 or the new Sigma 30mm f1.4. I wouldn't mind a good fixed prime lens that is not extremely narrow.

I would like to see how much better they are than my current lenses, but will probably have to find out on my own when I get my next lens. I am leaning towards the Sigma since it's cheaper and the 18-135 is already my zoom lens, but image quality should improve greatly with the 17-55mm.

This site allowed comparisons of lenses to see the differences also.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

Based on this review, the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 has many improvements over the previous version, but is still rough around the edges at f1.4. Low light photography is a major point on what I buy next. I try to avoid using flashes generally.

http://www.lenstip.com/370.1-Lens_review-Sigma_A_30_mm_f_1.4_DC_HSM_Introduction.html

Still deciding...


----------



## Satya (May 14, 2013)

For street photography...

The older Sigma 17-70 (no OS) works well with my XTi, especially for outdoor use. I think the new OS HSM (C) version may be better. For full frame, 24-105L kit lens.

If looking for a prime lens, for my style I would use 35mm on FF. There is no equivalent for APS-C. I would try the 24mm f/1.8 or f/2.8 IS.


----------



## FTb-n (May 14, 2013)

I own both the 60D and the 7D. Best two lenses for these bodies are the 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. Of course, this all depends upon what you shoot. Of the three that you suggest, I highly recommend the 17-55 f2.8.

So, what if you move to FF? If you're considering such a move soon, then consider the 6D with the 24-105 f4. This is the "FF counterpart" to the 60D and 17-55 f2.8, only better -- better low light, better color, greater focal range.

(FWIW I recently added a 5D3 with the 24-105 to my kit. I don't regret having the 17-55 that can only be used on the crop bodies, it makes a good backup system to my 5D3 if I need it. It also makes a good system for my daughter and potential apprentice who's interest in photography is growing. More importantly, for the past year that I've owned the 17-55, I got images that would not have recorded with a slower lens.) 

The 24-105 is often a great buy as a kit, anywhere from $200-300 less than buying it solo. Buy it now and you'll spend a few hundred extra in preparation for the move to FF.

So if you plan to use the 60D for a while, then get a lens that works well with the 60D, you'll get more use out of the 60D. The 24-105 is a good lens on the 60D/7D, if you don't need the wide end and always shoot in lots of light. But, the extra stop of the 17-55 is big asset. If you move to FF, you can sell the 17-55. Sure, you may lose some money in the process, but it should be a near wash compared to the higher cost of the 24-105 solo (assuming this is your lens of choice for FF).

Also, for price, consider the Canon refurbished store.


----------



## pj1974 (May 14, 2013)

I have a 7D, and the Canon 15-85mm. I am biased to the benefit of having those extra few mm on the wider angle, as I love doing landscapes. 

And most of my landscapes are in good light (thanks to living in awesome Australia) - or I use a tripod.

So for me, the extra 30mm (85mm vs 55mm) is also significant.

When I travel I either like to go with that 1 lens, which has a great focal range. And at times I will put a 'specialist' lens alongside, eg a bright prime (I don't consider f/2.8 that bright!).

But definitely both the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM are great candidates to add to the lenses you already have, for the 60D.

Paul


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (May 14, 2013)

VC, or not VC... that is the question...

I would say Tamron 17-50VC, I was a silly little duck and went with the 17-40L instead though I have used them both quite heavily. I am considering upgrading to the 16-35L here in the next few months, but I know the Tam Tam still does well on a cropped frame cam cam. Wow, it's getting late, but for you over in Paris, I assume it's sunshine and roses. I'm just blabbering now...

Have fun in Paris while I have fun in OKLAHOMA!!! Woo hoo!!! I hope to visit one day. Have a good night/morning, Julien.

-Tabor


----------



## tntwit (May 14, 2013)

> Still deciding...



Looked through your pictures of the hotel.

If this is typical, looking at your lens settings, I'd say the 30 mm will not be wide enough.

Also, I'm not sure how beneficial a fast aperture will be for those shots as you will be sacrificing depth of field.

Are you shooting handheld? Personally I would use a tripod for those shots but given the environment you may not be willing to carry a tripod. A monopod is a great option for such situations.

It all depends on the look you are after, but for that type of shooting I would want a long exposure, long enough to require a tripod. For some, HDR would be ideal (again, depends on what you are after). I don't know the screen name, but there is someone on here that shoots incredible HDRs of old buildings like that hotel, but they are out west somewhere.

If you are shooting handheld, then probably the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. You definitely want IS if you will be shooting handheld. The 2.8 might still get you enough depth of field and will buy a little over a slower lens. If you are shooting on a tripod then the fast lens and IS don't mean as much.

Also, the slow focusing in low light shouldn't be much of an issue with architecture as you can manually focus it since they are static objects.

Another thought is that I don't think the Sigma 30 mm is stabilized and most of your exposures were below 1/50 sec meaning you would need a tripod (or monopod).


----------



## rideincircles (May 14, 2013)

Noted. Everyone seems to be pushing me towards the 17-55mm f2.8. I am trying to find it gently used for around $800 or less. I know the refurbished one is $868 shipped currently, and new its $1060. Been trying to find a deal for a while. I really want the 17-55mm for general use and the 30mm for shooting detailed objects (50mm is just too small a window), but it sounds like I could do both easier with the 17-55mm. Both are on my list, but I will see what I can find as far as a good deal goes. I also want to get something quickly so I can go exploring some more with an upgrade.

On my pictures, I was using a tripod for quite a few of the shots, but not everything. I need to get a better one than the old one I found in storage. I hope I didn't piss off the ghosts in the baker hotel after clunking that thing around exiting down the dark stairwell.

The 70-200mm f2.8 is out of my league anytime soon. I would get a full frame before that one. The 15-85mm seems like a much better upgrade than the 18-135 f3.5-5.6, but can be covered with the range I have for now. No clue which full frame I would get yet, but that's another issue for another time.

I also would shoot some concert photos occasionally, which the 17-55mm f2.8 should be good with. I tend to take all sorts of pictures, but want a good setup for urban exploration.


----------

