# Lens choice advice please??



## lego_boy (Dec 15, 2012)

Hi all,

I'm relatively new to photography, and I've realised that to get the most out of the camera I really need to up the quality of the lens. With so many brand names and focal lengths to choose from, I could really do with some advice on what to buy please. I'll give you a bit of background on where I am at.

I've always shot with the stock 18-55mm but could never quite get the quality of image I'm happy with, and with not always having a tripod to hand I always seemed to struggle with motion blur. I haven't had chance to test the the new stock lens with the 650D that I've bought, but even with IS...I cant imagine it will make that much of a difference will it? Hence the reason for wanting a new lens.

I have begun to do a fair bit of research...and clearly the faster the lens the better....but with that comes a price. One lens that is raved about is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. For the price, and quality of image it can produce...it seems a really good buy...and almost went out and bought one straight away. My only problem is that it is 50mm....great for portraits etc....but to be honest, I do take a photographs of landscapes/buildings (being an architecture student)....so the 50mm is a nice to have, but a wider angle is what is needed...but unfortunately my budget it is tight £150 ish (i know that isn't a lot at all, and if i have to wait and save some more money I might have to but I am looking for a second hand lens). This means that I could really help with you guys getting me the most for my money.

I have also seen the really cheap (usually foreign imported) screw on lens additions to the 18-55mm (not quite sure what to call them) they come with a macro part and a wide angle part....what are peoples thoughts these?

Apologies for the long post, but any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 16, 2012)

If you are on a Crop, and your kit lens doesn't quite cut it for you, and you want a faster wide angle lens, the bottle neck becomes your rather small budget. Wide angle lenses in general, and good quality fast ones in particular, are notoriously expensive.

If you are hard set on Canon EF lenses, one of the lenses that would somewhat come close to the £150 budget and is a wide angle lens would be the older EF 24mm f2.8 in the used market. It is still a decent lens, of course recently superceded by the f2.8 IS version. On your crop it would not be really wide, but will be wider than the 50mm. I think the older EF 20mm f2.8 is a tad more expensive and is not great on image quality front compared to the 24mm f2.8. I occationally dust off the 24mm 2.8 as it is one of the most compact lenses in the line up before the pancake came along. The new 40mm pancake, while cheap, will not be really all that wide compared to the 50mm on a crop body. The other option may be the 28mm f1.8. We will not even go near the 24L or other wider primes or zooms given the budget. 

Even for the used Canon EF 24mm f2.8, or EF 28mm f1.8, you may need marginally a few more dollars ...I mean pounds. Even if you can garner £50 more, and get up to £200 total, on the used market you can easily grab one of those or get a third party lens.


----------



## LostArk (Dec 16, 2012)

1. Never, ever use screw-on lens "additions" 

2. 18-55 is fine for landscapes and architecture. For those types of photography a tripod is 100% mandatory anyway.

3. As you stated, the 50 1.8 is the best value for the money if you need a faster lens. 

4. The 50 1.8 is the only logical option given your camera and budget. 

5. The 50 1.8 is a fine lens regardless of budget, and it is my 50 of choice even though I have the budget for the L. 

You're welcome!


----------



## pwp (Dec 16, 2012)

You are thinking in the right direction with primes as an upgrade over your kit lens. There are OK copies of the 50 f/1.8 but most don't start looking good until f/5.6 and don't tend to last too long in regular use. But at $85 what do you expect? How about the brilliant little Shorty McForty? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-40mm-f-2.8-STM-Pancake-Lens-Review.aspx

-PW


----------



## Policar (Dec 16, 2012)

I love the 18-55mm IS, but it does have its weaknesses (corners). In my experience the 50mm f1.8 is a mixed bag because build quality is poor and there's a lot of sample variation. I have a terrible sample that's very bad on APS-C but brilliant on FF, even wide open. My favorite lens on my Mark III because it's small and light and fast and I love the FOV. It's not the sharpest and bokeh sucks stopped down, but it is quite good! On APS-C, it's an awkward focal length and the softness becomes an issue.

I love the 17-55mm f2.8 IS but it's not that much better on the wide end than the kit lens. The rest of the mid-priced Ls are kind of mediocre on FF, worse than either of those two except in terms of build quality. If you can afford a 24-70mm II I'm sure that's amazing, but if you can afford that why are you shooting APS-C?

For architecture you really need to go T/S, but the 17mm is $2000, I think. The easiest way to fake it is getting an UWA (11-16mm Tokina is awesome or the 10-22mm Canon is maybe better, never used it) and correcting for keystoning in photoshop or shooting with the horizon level and cropping. Architectural photography all-but requires perspective correction. You lose a lot of resolution this way, but perspective correction is crucial for architectural photography.

Others have found otherwise, but I think the 18-55mm IS is nearly world class if you get a decent sample and shoot at normal stops. Get a tripod, maybe. I don't know what to say; if the IQ isn't up to snuff it's a lot of money to do significantly better, but significantly better stuff does exist. It's also much more special-purpose; the kit lens is a very multi-purpose lens. If you want shallower focus that's easy, though. Get the fast fifty or 30mm f1.4 Sigma or even the pancake.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 16, 2012)

My first prime was the *EF 28mm f/1.8 USM* that I used with my 30D and 40D. I still love that lens. Versatile for both crop and FF. It's effectively a 45mm on a crop and is good in low light. Much easier to use indoors than a nifty 50 (= 80mm) on a crop. Yes it's more expensive than the nifty 50 but it's a lens that could be used for years with satisfaction. I think they go for around ... oh. I just checked eBay and they've gone up. I guess the new IS lenses have driven up the used prices. Oh well....


----------



## LostArk (Dec 16, 2012)

pwp said:


> You are thinking in the right direction with primes as an upgrade over your kit lens. There are OK copies of the 50 f/1.8 but most don't start looking good until f/5.6 and don't tend to last too long in regular use. But at $85 what do you expect? How about the brilliant little Shorty McForty? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-40mm-f-2.8-STM-Pancake-Lens-Review.aspx
> 
> -PW



The 40mm only gives 1 stop over the kit lens and it's 50% more expensive than the 50mm. Yes, the 50 1.8's build quality doesn't inspire confidence, but I slammed mine in my car door once (was clipped to my belt in a neoprene pouch and I forgot about it) and it took it in stride.


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 16, 2012)

35mm f/2 is great on a crop sensor. I used that lens on my 7D more than any other lens. It isn't wide, but not too tight. It also focuses close and gives nice shallow DOF, anything wider gets more expensive.


----------



## LostArk (Dec 16, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> 35mm f/2 is great on a crop sensor. I used that lens on my 7D more than any other lens. It isn't wide, but not too tight. It also focuses close and gives nice shallow DOF, anything wider gets more expensive.



Difference in field of view between 35 and 50 is minimal, and certainly not worth the price difference. If you can afford a 35 f/2, you might as well save a little more and get a 28 1.8. 

As I see it the 50 1.8 is really the only logical option given the OP's parameters.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 16, 2012)

Motion blur can be caused by a subject moving, IS will not help, you must use faster shutter speeds. Even with IS and a still subject, you need to keep a reasonable shutter speed, I'd keep it near 1/100 sec with the kit lens.
The 18-55mm IS is quite sharp. The low price comes it is made with low cost materials. You should be able to get very sharp images with it. The same is true of the 50mm f/1.8.
One of the things that can go wrong, is that the lens is not focusing accurately. You can easily check this by placing the camera on a tripod and very carefully take 5 or more shots while setting the lens to infinity between shots so that it has to refocus for each shot.

Then, without moving the setup, place the camera in liveview being sure you are using live autofocus (very slow) and repeat the 5 shots.

Live autofocus is almost always perfect, and if the images taken that way are a lot better, the camera and lens needs to go to Canon for adjustment. The 7D and the FF bodies have autofocus micro-adjustment capabilities built-in, but only Canon can adjust the Rebels and the 60D.

You really need to get to the bottom of your issues before buying a new lens, only to discover that it doesn't help. Once you are getting good sharp images from the kit lens, you can consider buyin a nicer lens. The Canon direct refurb store has refurbished lenses, and often has sales going on.


----------



## Policar (Dec 16, 2012)

LostArk said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > 35mm f/2 is great on a crop sensor. I used that lens on my 7D more than any other lens. It isn't wide, but not too tight. It also focuses close and gives nice shallow DOF, anything wider gets more expensive.
> ...



I strongly disagree. The difference in FOV between 35mm and 50mm is very significant--although I find both to be not so great on APS-C. On FF, for instance, I love the 50mm focal length and can't stand 85mm for most purposes (I like 135mm). You ask an experienced DP like Roger Deakins and he claims he wishes he had a prime lens for every 3mm difference toward the wide end (21, 24, 28, 32, 40, 50, etc.). I can't tell the difference at those extremes, but it illustrates a point. It boils down to personal preference and you might like 35mm and 50mm equally well (I love them both on FF quite a lot), but on APS-C I find 50mm to be a tricky focal length to love and 35mm a lot better but still just a bit long.

The 50mm f1.8 is a nice lens, but I'd rather get the 28mm f1.8 or 30mm f1.4 Sigma (neither of which I've used, but a useful focal length trumps sharpness by a lot) on crop.

For architecture, of course, none of these lenses are particularly appropriate. For that it's UWA and perspective correction in post or T/S. That's really the only way to do it well. And a tripod, of course.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 16, 2012)

For an APS-C normal lens, a 28mm or a 35mm should be enough. For me, I'd rather have the 28mm F1.8. My copy is sharp even wide open though with some CA. PP takes care of this for me. I've tried the Sigma 30mm F1.4 and I'm immediately turned off because the very first copy I've tried doesn't work. I suspect Sigma's quality. I've also tried the original 28mm F2.8 but AF is not so fast. 50mm is not a normal lens for an APS-C. It's too tight to be a normal lens.


----------



## phoenix7 (Dec 16, 2012)

Gees does no one ever actually read and understand the original poster's post? I see that SO much
that it finally got to me that I had to register and stop lurking; to which I will be going back to momentarily.

Currently 150pounds is about $235 US. In that range there is no new canon EF or EF-S lens he could
purchase. That is about the current cost of his 18-55mm.

I think this is the sort of thing you were asking about: (or something like it I would guess)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/DIGIFLEX-58MM-Wide-Angle-Canon/dp/B003VNF116/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1355629529&sr=8-10
Do not buy these sort of auxiliary lenses at all.

The one most of the other useless replies are mentioning is this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-28mm-1-8-USM-Lens/dp/B00007EE8N/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355629684&sr=8-1
Too expensive for your budget though a very nice lens.

What you will have to try for you budget is winning something like this:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Carl-Zeiss-Jena-1Q-Zebra-Flektogon-20mm-F4-20-4-M42-mount-ultra-wide-angle-lens-/121034957518?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c2e3ee2ce
Zeiss are always good and getting an adapter shouldn't be more than another
10 to 20pounds. Though nearly any M42 screw lenses will fit a Canon EF camer lens mount.
If you want to be more sure look through this list:
http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/index.htm
and then choose a lens and check ebay for price and availabilty.

Hope that helps lego_boy. Happy shooting!


----------



## Policar (Dec 16, 2012)

phoenix7 said:


> Gees does no one ever actually read and understand the original poster's post? I see that SO much
> that it finally got to me that I had to register and stop lurking; to which I will be going back to momentarily.
> 
> Currently 150pounds is about $235 US. In that range there is no new canon EF or EF-S lens he could
> ...



The issue is he's asking for something impossible. The 18-55mm IS is a reasonably fantastic lens and the best cheap wide angle available for anything, really. At f8 it's quite strong across the frame. Wide open it's decent, too.

What he's looking for is a 17mm TSE and FF body for $200. Something wider, sharper, and appropriate for architecture (lens movements). That's $4000 minimum. Either you can ignore his price concerns or what he wants to use the lens for...

I'd recommend a tripod, honestly. If you're getting image shake that can help, and then you can stop down all you want to improve image quality. Or saving up for the 11-16mm or 10-122mm (for architecture) and fixing distortion in post. Or getting the 30mm f1.4 Sigma (or 28mm f1.8 Canon) as a general purpose lens, though it is not great for architecture.

The $12 fotodiox macro tube is nice for macro, though. That's one thing that's cheap and useful.


----------



## Zorfunk (Dec 16, 2012)

Sell your 18-55 on EBay or Amazon for $85-$100ish (USD) and pick up a used Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. That should be pretty close to your budget and a decent upgrade. It'll give you some dof control, better low light, and better sharpness.


----------



## robbymack (Dec 16, 2012)

For what you have to spend the 50 1.8 is really the only option or a cheap speedlight, actually the latter will probably do more for your photos long term than the 50 at this point so my vote goes to a flash.


----------



## lego_boy (Dec 16, 2012)

All, thank you so much for your advice so far.

I suppose the reality is I just cant afford a FF, so has to be APS-C unfortunately.

So, looking at the feedback I'm moving towards either:

- Used Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 - Used approx. £180 eBay.
- Used Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 - Used approx. £130 eBay.

A Used Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 - Used approx. £70 eBay. : Agreed, on an APS-C, this isn't particularly wide so likely to give this a miss, despite seeing the multitude of nice images from this lens.


I understand there are many other brands (SIGMA, Older lens needing adapters), my only problem is that I just wouldn't know where to start, what brand to trust. Am I right in thinking...stick to Canon because I know I can trust them?

Also, I do understand my budget is tight for what I want so sorry if this is a little frustrating, but we all want to make the best choice for the money we spend don't we....the biggest bang for our buck!

Thanks once again!


----------



## phoenix7 (Dec 16, 2012)

Re: Policar
Yes, would be great to have a 17mm TS-E or even the Zeiss 21mm I keep reading about. For those
prices though it had better grow arms and legs, walk out and pose every dang tree and bush for my
landscape photo, walk back, mount itself on my camera body and reach back and hit the shutter release.

Of course that's fantasy and it's nice to hear about those sorts of lens but they are totally impractical
for lego_boy's or my budget. Currently I'm about at about his budget going towards a EF 20mm 2.8 early next
year.

I would have to greatly disagree that his or my own budgets make getting a lens impossible. Challenging
perhaps but not impossible at all. I've been doing quite a bit of research and I'm still looking at adapting
an M42 mount, for $50US and $10 for an el cheepo adapter it's right in the price range my wallet likes.

As for other options; the 2 lenses I've also been looking are the old-ish Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and the
Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5. Both seem like decent lens from what I have read. When they are available
the Tamron is less than $200US (about 130GB) and the Canon less than $275US (about 180GBP).

Don't be intimidated by having to adapt and old style lens. Canon's EF mount being as verstile as it is and
in our budget range it's actually a very real option.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 16, 2012)

lego_boy said:


> All, thank you so much for your advice so far.
> 
> I suppose the reality is I just cant afford a FF, so has to be APS-C unfortunately.
> 
> ...



Yup, most logical wider angle choices given your crop body and the budget! And what's more, when you do move to FF, they both will still work and are rather decent lenses. EF 28mm f1.8 also has a cult following recently since video came along, so all things considered both are good choices. Good luck!


----------



## elflord (Dec 17, 2012)

lego_boy said:


> All, thank you so much for your advice so far.
> 
> I suppose the reality is I just cant afford a FF, so has to be APS-C unfortunately.


You can afford a film camera - maybe not what you're looking for but it's a way to get the FF experience on the cheap, and you can get one that works with EF lenses. 



> So, looking at the feedback I'm moving towards either:
> 
> - Used Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 - Used approx. £180 eBay.
> - Used Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 - Used approx. £130 eBay.



I tried the 28 f/1.8 and found it pretty awful at large apertures though it was pretty decent at f/4. Looking at photozone's tests, the 24mm f/2.8 gives pretty decent optical quality. So I'd lead towards this -- wider and probably better IQ than the 28mm. 

The non-VC Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 has a good rep for image quality and is pretty cheap used and you'll get wider coverage.

The Samyang 14mm is another option for a cheap wide angle. 



> I understand there are many other brands (SIGMA, Older lens needing adapters), my only problem is that I just wouldn't know where to start, what brand to trust. Am I right in thinking...stick to Canon because I know I can trust them?



Not really. Canon make some really good products and some products that aren't really good. Same with most other brands. Canon lenses tend to sell for a premium, so if you're on a tight budget the alternatives might be a better choice.


----------



## EOBeav (Dec 17, 2012)

LostArk said:


> 1. Never, ever use screw-on lens "additions"



MCP, anyone?


----------



## Policar (Dec 17, 2012)

phoenix7 said:


> Re: Policar
> Yes, would be great to have a 17mm TS-E or even the Zeiss 21mm I keep reading about. For those
> prices though it had better grow arms and legs, walk out and pose every dang tree and bush for my
> landscape photo, walk back, mount itself on my camera body and reach back and hit the shutter release.
> ...



The 17mm TSE isn't very expensive for what it does. Compared with a Master Technika and a 65mm LF lens ($12,000) and $6 per frame to shoot and $200 to scan for LF or a tech camera and MFDB (which could run $60,000+ for a decent set up) a 17mm TSE and 5D II is an incredible deal. 

Granted I'm not a very good photographer and don't want to give the impression that my gear snobbishness correlates with an ability to get much out of it, but I still can't see how an UWA with T/S can be replaced with a cheap, not terribly wide zoom without any lens movements. (Unless you're shooting FF, in which case 17mm is legitimately UWA, but still lacks lens movements and sharpness.) If you're taking pictures of buildings then that's fine… if you're serious about architectural photography I just don't know how you can make this work. Maybe a panoramic head, stitching and perspective correction in post, but I couldn't pull it off. More power to you if you can. 

That said, if you're not worried about having the sharpest print and are willing to recompose a bit in post, any very wide lens could work for architecture. Just stop way down to give infinite focus and fix perspective in post and it's as good as T/S.Or if you're in an area where you can back up really far from the subject, even a not-so-wide lens could work. I just wouldn't want to rely on it professionally. 

Fwiw, the 14mm Samyang, while dreadfully full of distortion, is a great deal and could pull this off with a lot of post work. The 10mm f2.8 Samyang (when it's released) might be a very viable option so long as you're okay with fixing perspective in post.

I'd take the 28mm f1.8 or 30mm f1.4 but not for architecture. Of the lenses you've listed in your price range none are even close to as good for it as the kit lens (but you'll still need to fix perspective in post). For architecture, I'd get a tripod.


----------



## lego_boy (Dec 20, 2012)

Thanks again for all your input!

Just to note; I'm not looking to photography as a profession, merely a hobby. But because of what I do, I end up photographing a lot of buildings and it is incredibly annoying when you can't quite fit it all in. 
That's usually been with the old stock 18-55, so still pretty wide. Hence the reason for wanting wider and with always wanting better quality I was looking at primes.
I understand this is where it gets tricky. Primes at this range are £1000's so even if I could afford it its not worth it on an aps-c.
Also, with being just for a hobby, a range of lengths is probably more suited.
So looking at a suitable zoom range: an efs 10-22mm seems appropriate, unfortunately this is £350+, the tamron 17-35mm as suggested by phoenix, however this isn't much wider...is it considered at better than the canon 18-55 is?
Sorry to swing this back round, but you guys have far more experience than I have.


----------



## phoenix7 (Dec 21, 2012)

I don't know if that old lens is all that great. Just something I came across in your price range.
I've read good things about the 10-22mm aps-c, it's basically 16-35mm full frame.

As I said the 18mm you have now is ~28mm full frame. So if you get at 28mm lens you are
seeing what that would show on full frame, but then you have to take into account 1.6x crop
so it's ~44mm. That's why I was trying to mention other options smaller than 28mm.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 21, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> lego_boy said:
> 
> 
> > All, thank you so much for your advice so far.
> ...



Go for a 28mm F1.8 + 50mm F1.8. They are nice combo with APS-C. The 28mm isn't soft if you stop down to at least F2.2. Here are some sample pictures with the 50mm and the 28mm:

50mm @ F1.8







28mm @ F2.2


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 21, 2012)

Get a cheapo tripod and stop down your kit lens for landscapes and still get that 50mm 1.8.


----------



## m8547 (Dec 21, 2012)

lego_boy said:


> ...
> 
> I've always shot with the stock 18-55mm but could never quite get the quality of image I'm happy with, and with not always having a tripod to hand I always seemed to struggle with motion blur. I haven't had chance to test the the new stock lens with the 650D that I've bought, but even with IS...I cant imagine it will make that much of a difference will it? Hence the reason for wanting a new lens.
> 
> ...



I can't tell if you are referring to using the old 18-55mm non-IS lens and not having tried the new 18-55 IS yet. If so, the non-IS one was optically bad (that might be a bit harsh but it's the best way to describe it), whereas the new IS version is optically very good and an outstanding value. And IS will help quite a bit if you don't have or don't want to use a tripod.

In addition to the 18-55 IS, I have the 50mm f/1.8 for my T3i, and I'm very happy with it. Although it sounds like it's trying to smash itself to pieces when it autofocuses, it works well enough and takes great photos, especially in low-light. The 50mm focal length is a bit limiting, but I can work around that.

So I would recommend trying the 18-55 IS or 18-55 IS II (they are the same) if you have the 18-55 non-IS. If you still aren't happy with photos from the 18-55 IS, you probably need better technique.

If shaking is the problem, there are many things you can try. You can use a tripod more often, or you can try to always find a way to brace the camera. Try bracing the camera or your body on something solid like a wall or a railing. Always hold the camera close to your body with two hands. You could also make a string monopod http://www.instructables.com/id/String-Tripod/.

If you simply aren't happy with the "look" of the pictures, it could be any number of things, such as the camera settings (mainly aperture, shutter speed, and ISO) or how you process the images, or your composition. You might read a few books such as "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson or "The Digital Photography Book Volume 1" by Scott Kelby.


----------



## jp121 (Dec 21, 2012)

i've read the original post over and over.

Motion blur: shoot at faster shutter speed to eliminate the problem. An internet search can provide you with a list of suggested shutter speeds to achieve the right amount of blur or eliminate it altogether.

You have the 18-55mm and a crop sensor body. You want to shoot landscape and architecture. You said that the problem is that you can't fit it in the frame. Additionally you can't afford the 10-22mm.

New lens is not going to help you. The only options are:

1. take a step back or more.
2. photo stitch a panorama and correct in software.
3. shoot 'architectural' photographs. ie not the whole building but parts of the building that stand-out architecturally.


----------



## gigabellone (Dec 22, 2012)

As many others already told you, a tripod is mandatory for landscape and architecture photography. Get one as soon as you can.
I take landscape pictures with a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and i'm very happy with it. It is close to the Canon 10-22 regarding IQ, at 2/3 of the price. Stick with the kit lens until you can afford an ultrawide.


----------



## lego_boy (Dec 22, 2012)

I take your advice on getting a tripod.
I'll stick with the 18-55mm IS MKii for now, yet to try it out (got to wait for the 25th!), from what you all say it's much better than my old 18-55mm with the 350D. 

Like I've said though 18mm just doesn't feel wide enough. So I've realised that I'm going to have to spend a little more money. So, lenses I've been looking at are:
- Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6
- Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
- Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5

The reviews are just so varied that I'm not quite sure which to focus on. Thoughts? 

I am seduced by the 50mm, surely many of the best taken are from a full frame? Doesn't that mean a 28mm or 35mm is a substitute? I'm just finding it a little hard to justify it when my 18-55 covers the same range.

Thanks again!


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 23, 2012)

As for brand, I'm in the Canon only camp, especially with today's auto-focus systems. With third-party lenses, you risk focus software issues. In theory, they have been tested with current Canon bodies, but when you upgrade down the road, that third-party lens may hiccup with updated focus software on next generation bodies.

The 50 1.8 is a great lens. Mine is from a film Rebel G and has held up well despite it's plastic construction. With a crop body, I wanted a little wider lens and went with the 35 2.0. This is another great lens for crop (but soft in the corners on full frame). However, the 35 is almost three times the price of the 50 1.8.

My new favorite grab shot lens is the 40 2.8 pancake. With current rebates, it's only $150. You lose just over a stop in speed from the 50 and a stop from the 35, but you have to stop down both of these lenses to 2.8 to get close to the IQ of the 40. Both the 50 and the 35 are weakest in the corners which makes them great for crop bodies where the "corners" are "cropped" out. But, the 40 is sharper at 2.8 from corner to corner. 

The 40 equates to a 64 on full frame (or film), so it is a little long. Some may find it too long for indoor family gatherings, but I most often want to get a little closer and find this focal length to be very workable.

As for IS, it ALWAYS helps. Many suggest that it's unnecessary with faster shutter speeds, but I find that it gives you a bit more edge in sharpness. Everything you do to eliminate hand held movement is a plus. 

I prefer available light and often push the limits of ISO and f-stop on my lenses. As much as I like the 40, whenever shooting slower than an 1/60 of a second, I get more reliable results with my IS zoom. When shooting candids, I can often get good results with 1/30 second with IS on. If my subject is stationary, 1/15 will work.

For budget zoom, I'd recommend the 18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS, either the old model or the STM version.

For crop, my working lenses are the 70-200 f2.8L II (my absolute favorite lens) and the 17-55 f2.8 IS. But, neither is cheap.

Also, consider shopping the Canon refurbished store. I have full confidence in lenses and bodies refurbished by Canon.


----------



## kdsand (Dec 23, 2012)

http://www.amazon.com/Joby-GP8-BHEN-GorillaPod-Ballhead-bundle/dp/B003II3FD0/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1356227648&sr=8-15&keywords=gorillapod+slr


I always have my gorilla pod with me. The ball head is also surprisingly nice.


----------



## phoenix7 (Dec 23, 2012)

lego_boy said:


> Like I've said though 18mm just doesn't feel wide enough. So I've realised that I'm going to have to spend a little more money. So, lenses I've been looking at are:
> - Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6
> - Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
> - Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5
> ...



If you really want wide and you are upping your budget to consider those wide zooms you
might what to think of an 8mm fisheye. Heavy distortion but a fairly easy fix most photo
software. The Bower/Rokinon/et al 8mm f/3.5 might be something to look at. I've heard
good things about those Samyang lenses, esp. the 14mm UWA which I've considered getting
as well since it is fairly inexpensive. Also as for Tamron in general, I have the 70-300 Di VC.
Really nice tele-zoom so I wouldn't hesitate on a Tamron zoom at the other end personally.


I love my Plastic Fantastic. She's a great little lens. There are refurbs on Canon's online shop
for $80 right now. Primes are in a class by themselves. Less things mechanically to go wrong
in general. Also you get a fixed f-stop which is usually much larger than any sort of zoom. That
is why I suggested getting a m42 screw mount prime as my first choice for your situation and
budget. Those things are rugged and seemingly last forever.
And then there are lenses like this:
http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?p=133996


----------



## Zv (Dec 23, 2012)

Nothing wrong with the new 18-55 kit lens, if you use lightroom or ACR you can correct the color and distortion to give pretty good images. Sharpen using the smart sharpen in Photoshop and you will see a huge difference, almost like you bought a new lens. Some clever PP might be all you need. (assuming you shoot RAW). 

A tripod will help but good technique and IS can get you clean shots at relatively slow SS. At 18mm on crop, you could get away with 1/8s with good IS. You might have to take multiple shots but it is possible. Of course thats an extreme, you could just crank up ISO a bit and shoot around 1/30. 

If you do go tripod route, make sure to switch IS off, use live view with manual focus and mirror lock. Release the shutter with a remote or 2s timer. Make sure the tripod is weighed down. That will help you get sharper images.


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 23, 2012)

[/quote]


I'd recommend a tripod, honestly. If you're getting image shake that can help, and then you can stop down all you want to improve image quality. Or saving up for the 11-16mm or 10-122mm (for architecture) and fixing distortion in post. Or getting the 30mm f1.4 Sigma (or 28mm f1.8 Canon) as a general purpose lens, though it is not great for architecture.

The $12 fotodiox macro tube is nice for macro, though. That's one thing that's cheap and useful.
[/quote]

I agree that a tripod is what is needed here. Before I had my 17mm TS I often shot buildings and other architectural shots with regular lenses. If you have photoshop or photoshop elements, corrections are easy to do, just be sure that you have enough space around the building (becase as you are bending the picture, it 'cuts' away either at the top sides or the bottom sides). Another thing you could try in photoshop is stitching. If the focal lenght is limiting you, try shooting several shots of the object horizontally (with 25% or so overlapping to allow the software to find the information it needs) and let photoshop do the stitching. In my opinion that works well


----------



## lego_boy (Dec 23, 2012)

FTb-n:

With the 50mm; everyone raves about its clarity, beautiful bokeh etc, all for an amazing price.
I agree the 35mm is 3x the price....but that aside....do you still think it has the same qualities? 

I would consider the 40mm, but given it doesn't quite have the width I'd want from it, nor is it as cheap as the 50mm...if I'm paying more I may as well go for the 35mm and get close to the Nifty.(if you agree with my question above).

Again, this aside...this lens would only be an option if I thought my 18-55mm IS Mkii wasn't giving me what I need (or you guys said...."one of these primes will blow your mind...you have to get one!!!"). For now I think my money is probably best spent getting something wider and a I'll buy a prime if I find some money burning a hole in my pocket.

Given the non-canon thing aside (im willing to take my chance given the cost difference) do you not reckon much to those lenses? Which do you think is the best of the bunch??


phoenix7:

Yes, I am looking at upping my budget.....it seems I'm going to have to.... For some reason (maybe it's my naivety) but I have always disliked the "fish-eye" look....I have always seen distortion as a negative quality..and I agree you can improve this with Photoshop...but I think the less work you have to do the better. So I don't really feel I want SUPER-wider.....just wide enough.

You mention the Samyang 14mm over the lenses I'd suggested.....those were the 10-20mm ish...giving me quite a nice range...do you think the 14mm is far superior in quality than those to justify the increased range? Are those lenses not regarded as good?

That little lens is mind blowing....I need to take a trip to Russia to find me one of those!!
Yes sorry...I'd glanced over your M42 suggestion....Just because I wouldn't really know where to start with them...a quick ebay search throws up these (industar/pentax/Carl zeiss): http://bit.ly/UmIGne


Thanks again all for your various comments/advice....all noted...I've learnt so much over the past 2 weeks...(given that at the start I was at the level where I didn't fully know the difference between APS_C and FF)


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 23, 2012)

I have gotten some really good advice in here. If you want additional places to look, I would go to the review sites, and in this order:

photozone.de

the-digital-picture.com

Dpreview.com

And you have a bunch of other quite good places as well, such as the luminous landscape, or lensrentals.com

sometimes if I have the time, and or are bored, I even check out customer reviews on the B&H site. The latter is also a good place to know how much you should pay seccond hand, because B&H and Adorama with their riddiculous prices (low as compared to other places in the world) is a good point of reference. You should at least not pay more for second hand lenses than what you can get greymarket lenses for at B&H.

G.


----------



## Zv (Dec 23, 2012)

What you want really is the EFS Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, why not just admit it!  Save for that. Don't waste money on cheaper stuff, you'll regret it later. The Canon holds its value really well. Theres rumors of a replacement to the 10-22 so you could wait and snap up a second hand version one. At around 12mm and f/5.6 the Canon produces very nice sharp images. It is worth every penny and a must have lens on aps-c cameras IMO.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 23, 2012)

Both the 50 1.8 and the 35 2.0 have 5 bladed diaphragms which can (but not always) lead to pentagon looking bokeh. The 40 2.8 has 7 rounded blades that many consider more appealing in the bokeh department. Reality is sometimes different than head-to-head specs suggest.

I bought my 35 because I needed a low light lens wider than my 50 for a wedding and I wasn't ready to invest in the 17-55 f2.8 IS. (I wasn't the wedding photographer, I was the brother-in-law who couldn't leave the camera home.)

My subject matter is mostly people in less than ideal lighting situations so I often shoot wide open or close to it. I do find the larger aperture bokeh on the 35 to be quite appealing. Below is a shot from that wedding.

I love the 40 2.8. It's fantastically sharp, freakishly small, and focuses down to 12 inches. However, I won't part with my 35. There are times when I want the extra stop and it focuses down to 9.6 inches. I don't have much need for macro, but every once in while I find this quite handy.

Admittedly, part of the appeal to the 40 is it's size. The 35 and the 50 are twice as deep, but still rather small. Of the three, I do believe that the 35 2.0 is the most versatile. It offers the extra stop over the 40 and extra reach. Another minor consideration, wider non-IS lenses are easier to hand-hold at slower speeds.

My 50 is stored in the "mostly retired, but can't quite part with it" camera bin in the basement. Both my 35 and 40 are kept handy.

One note to be aware of. None of these lenses are USM. The 50 and the 35 each have noticeable motor noise when focusing from far to near and vice-versa. In practice, this isn't a big issue. Once you pre-focus, the little adjustments needed to track your subject is much less noticeable. But, the whir from quick grab shot of child or a pet could alert the subject. The 40 uses the new STM system which is almost as quiet as the USM.

As for third-party, I won't say don't buy, just know what your getting. I've read good things about Sigma, including the 30 1.4 (which compares to a 48mm on full frame). Frankly, a 30 1.4 is quite attractive on a crop body.

Check out www.The-Digital-Picture.com for lens reviews, both Canon and third-party. Also check out the head-to-head test tools such as the link below. Just be aware of which body is used in the test.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=122&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


Photo taken with Canon 60D/35 f2.0, ISO 3200, 1/30 sec at f2.0 (roughly 50% crop to get under 4 MB upload max and show bokeh in window):


----------



## phoenix7 (Dec 24, 2012)

lego_boy said:


> Given the non-canon thing aside (im willing to take my chance given the cost difference) do you not reckon much to those lenses? Which do you think is the best of the bunch??
> 
> 
> phoenix7:
> ...



given architecture as your main focus I wouldn't bother with a 35mm, or even the 50mm
tho if you want to take portraits (esp. posed) of friends and family the 50mm f/1.8 II is the one
to get on on a crop sensor. As I mentioned I've had enjoyed the one Tamron lens I do have
and so would recommend that brand. I haven't heard as many good things about Sigma until
lately, especially with customer service but that seems to be changing for the better as much
as their new 35mm appears to be changing their lens quality.

Yes, I'm not much for that fisheye look either; just threw that out for another option. Probably
have too many now. 

I think 14mm would be a good option, no fisheye though some distortion from what I've read
but nothing odd that can't be easily fixed, and it's fairly fast if you need the extra light. The only
cravat is manual focus only. That has been why I've hesitated. I still have issues getting focus
on AF lenses sometimes. 

Don't forget, you've already mentioned the fov was something you didn't care for at 18mm as
it is, so the tele end of those 10-20/22 lens aren't something you may use much. Of course that's
situational and with a tripod to help out you may find that it isn't as bad as you had thought.

Zeiss are good, new or old. But the first ones I heard about were the (Super)Takumar/SMC from
Pentax. http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=super+takumar&_sacat=0&_odkw=m42+50mm&_sop=1&_osacat=0&_from=R40
I keep lurking on ebay for one of the 28mm f/3.5 SMC.
http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/index.html#Pentax
Since there are 2 out of 3 types shown in the list are "green". I really want the radioactive 50 1.4...
just because. 



As an aside... wow https://store.canon-europe.com/ really sucks. Hard to navigate, not much
stock and no refurbs that I could find.


----------

