# Recommendation for a small budget?



## Synomis192 (May 28, 2012)

Well, I just completed my first year of college. I had to put down my photo stuff for about 3 months to concentrate on school. BUT, I'm ready to start shooting again. 

So, as a "good-job-on-not-dying-after-your-first-year-in-college" present, my family is letting get any lens. As long as it's around $1000-1200.

This is the criteria:
1. Great IQ
2. Covers a good range (wide angle-telephoto range).
3. Works well with a crop camera *Canon T1i*

I've been eying the Canon 24-105mm f/4L lens but I don't want to just get one lens.
And I don't plan on upgrading to full frame in the future.
(I do plan on upgrading to a 7d in the near future though).

This is the combo that has caught my eye though.
- Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro

I'd to hear some other options I should consider from anyone


----------



## lexonio (May 28, 2012)

I personally like the Sigma's 17-70 OS. While it is not kicking the stars from the sky when it comes to IQ, it's very decent. It even has f/2.8 somewhere like 17-20mm, and it being 70mm on the log end allows you to leave it on your camera at all times. If you need a telephoto range, Canon's 70-300 IS (non-L) is a steady contender here.
But you can get one 24-105L for the price of these two lenses, and it would be my favourite. Its IQ is great, it's compact and lightweight, and while you will miss some WA, you will be rewarded with great IQ and constant aperture.

If you're looking for a luxurious kit, EF-S 17-55 and EF 70-300L is the way to go though.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## crasher8 (May 28, 2012)

Perhaps a Sigma 17-50, sharper than the 17-70 and less distortion on the wide end. Then add a Canon Refurb 70-200 f/4L. That would be about 1200.00 combined. You'd have 27-320 FL covered. Then you could save for a 10-22 EF-S.


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 28, 2012)

You have the general use range covered, so I'd go for a couple of cheap primes, perhaps a 28mm f1.8 which would be a good walkabout prime on a crop, plus an 85mm f1.8, which would be a great portrait choice. The 10-22mm is a bit niche to be honest, but you won't tire of bokah ! The 50mm f1.4 is nice too, but I find it a tad too long indoors and not quite long enough outside :-/


----------



## RLPhoto (May 28, 2012)

Here is a good sharp and fast setup.

50mm 1.8 II

100mm f/2

10-22mm

Done, now go take some photos. ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 28, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Here is a good sharp and fast setup.
> 
> 50mm 1.8 II
> 
> ...



Uh, YES.


----------



## elflord (May 28, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> Well, I just completed my first year of college. I had to put down my photo stuff for about 3 months to concentrate on school. BUT, I'm ready to start shooting again.
> 
> So, as a "good-job-on-not-dying-after-your-first-year-in-college" present, my family is letting get any lens. As long as it's around $1000-1200.
> 
> ...



A couple of things to consider -- the Tamron 17-50 non-VC is quite a bit cheaper used (e.g. fredmiranda forums). 

Get at least one fast prime. I'd recommend the 50mm f/1.4, though you could get the f/1.8 if you were on a really tight budget.


----------



## Synomis192 (May 28, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Here is a good sharp and fast setup.
> 
> 50mm 1.8 II
> 
> ...



I like that option, interesting combo. But why is this a good combo? Please explain to a novice photographer haha.



crasher8 said:


> Perhaps a Sigma 17-50, sharper than the 17-70 and less distortion on the wide end. Then add a Canon Refurb 70-200 f/4L. That would be about 1200.00 combined. You'd have 27-320 FL covered. Then you could save for a 10-22 EF-S.


I would get a canon 70-200 f/4 L but I'm worried about the f/4 being to slow



elflord said:


> Synomis192 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I just completed my first year of college. I had to put down my photo stuff for about 3 months to concentrate on school. BUT, I'm ready to start shooting again.
> ...



The tamron non-vc was the lens I was considering hsshs


----------



## EOBeav (May 28, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> But why is this a good combo? Please explain to a novice photographer haha.



Because you've got some different focal lengths covered this way:

Wide (10-22mm)
Medium range (50mm)
closer range (100mm)

And they're all reasonably fast, so you should have some glass to use no matter what situation you're in. Unless, of course, you're planning on going to Yellowstone and shooting grizzlies from 500 yard away, but those lenses are a little out of your $1k budget.


----------



## Synomis192 (May 28, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> Because you've got some different focal lengths covered this way:
> 
> Wide (10-22mm)
> Medium range (50mm)
> ...



Oh, that does sounds like a good combo. I'll test out the 100mm and the 10-22mm,


----------



## elflord (May 29, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> I would get a canon 70-200 f/4 L but I'm worried about the f/4 being to slow



To some extent, there's a speed/price/zoom range tradeoff. What do you use the longer lenses for ? And what are your reasons for wanting faster lenses ? I ask because this would help us provide recommendations that suited your use cases.


----------



## DB (May 29, 2012)

For approximately your budget you could get 3 versatile lenses: (1) a Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM as your 'fast' prime and video lens, (2) a Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-63 with stabilization as your walk-around lens, plus (3) a Canon 85mm f/1.8 as your 'portrait' lens. All for about $1200 or thereabouts (maybe even cheaper)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/609113-REG/Sigma_880_101_18_250mm_f_3_5.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12182-USA/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2012)

since i love fast primes I say get 50mm f1.4 and 135mm f2 (then if you ever go full frame get yourself an 85)
both those together should come in under 1200

for landscapes etc keep using your 18-55 for now since stopped down to f8 or so its still sharp


----------



## RC (May 29, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> ...
> This is the criteria:
> 1. Great IQ
> 2. Covers a good range (wide angle-telephoto range).
> ...



Focus on quality instead of quantity. Based on your criteria, pick up a 17-55. Sell your existing lens and with your left over $1200, save it for a 10-22. Consider buying both lens used, maybe then you can squeeze in 2 lens. Or do get the 24-105 but only if you can get (or plan to get) the 10-22.


----------



## Jamesy (May 29, 2012)

RC said:


> Focus on quality instead of quantity. Based on your criteria, pick up a 17-55. Sell your existing lens and with your left over $1200, save it for a 10-22. Consider buying both lens used, maybe then you can squeeze in 2 lens.


I totally agree. I shot my 40D for four years and over 90% of all images were shot with the 17-55 and my other lens are and were 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135L, 70-200/4/IS.

I now have the 5D3/24-105 and prefer the image quality from my 17-55 - clearly the sensors are way different but the images from the 17-55 are super nice.

Get the 17-55 and you will be a happy camper.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 29, 2012)

Get one GOOD lens rather than multiple just ok ones. You will want a very good lens when you upgrade to a 7D, and may endup losing money to sell off the average ones.

Then, add more top quality lenses as money allows.

The 17-55mm ef-s is the best choice for a first high quality lens for someone who wants to keep with APS-C for three or more years.


----------



## pwp (May 29, 2012)

The 17-55 really is the most versatile, beautiful quality lens for an APS-C body. 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Mt Spokane's advice to get one good lens rather than a bag of rubbish is the best comment on this thread. If you get the 17-55, you'll probably have enough change for a good pre-owned 70-200 f/4 which would be a low cost, very high IQ perfect companion for the 17-55 f/2.8. 

Paul Wright


----------



## Jamesy (May 29, 2012)

You can pick-up a 17-55 for roughly $800 on the used market.


----------



## atvinyard (May 29, 2012)

No one asked you what you like to take pictures of. What do you like to take pictures of? I like a 35 prime on crop. I use my 35 f/2 most often. It's a great cheap lens. I can't afford a 35L and the 28 f/1.8 is overpriced for its image quality. If you're gonna go with primes I would recommend it. If you want a lot of background blur and/or to shoot in low light you're gonna need a wide aperture, which means a prime. f/ 2.8 on a crop has never been good enough for me in low light.

The 50 f/1.8 is good and the 50 f/1.4 is a bit better. 85 f/1.8 is a great value for portrait.

I like my 10-22, but it's more of a specialty lens, so unless you really plan on taking ultra wide shots, you won't miss it. The kit lens can do pretty wide.

That's pretty much my kit. I have the cheap 55-250 for the occasion where i want a zoom. I rarely desire to use it, but it's decent and super cheap.

None of these lenses are rubbish. They aren't L, but certainly not rubbish.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 29, 2012)

Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS, a must have lens for crop. Tacksharp even at 2.8. I wish the 24-70 v1 L is sharp as this lens, I would buy it instantly.

Too bad, I have v2 on pre-order.


----------



## Act444 (May 29, 2012)

If you want only ONE walkaround lens, either the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-105 4 would be solid choices. Depends on what you want to shoot, though. 

If you want wide, the 15-85 3.5/5.6 is worth a look as well. All three lenses are within your budget (even new).


----------

