# Which Canon 60D Kit Lens? (Plus 550D)



## Josh11 (Jul 5, 2011)

Hi, 

Long time site/forum visitor first time poster! I'm looking to get my first proper DSLR camera and because I'm wanting it primarily for it's video capabilities I've narrowed it down to the 550D or 60D, and of course I know I want a Canon.  
I'm a student so budgets very much a factor but the 60D's drawing me in enough to want to spend the extra cash I think.
Though I know most there is to know in terms of the cameras I'm not too up on the lens, so I'm really wondering what kit lens I should go with for the 60D, it's going to some time before I can afford more lens' so I'm looking for one thats going to provide the best all round image quality and versatility. 
Guessing that rules out the basic 18-55mm kit lens, so it's probably between the 17-85mm or the 18-135mm.

17-85mm: Jessops
18-135mm: Jessops

Thanks for any help!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2011)

Josh11 said:


> I'm looking for one thats going to provide the best all round image quality and versatility.



If your budget will cover it, I'd recommend one not on your short list - the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (along with a body-only camera). Optical quality is substantially better than the other lenses, and the focal range is excellent for general-purpose use. It's only 'handicap' is one shared by all the other lenses on your list - a variable/narrow aperture, meaning fine outdoors but not as good indoors. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is another excellent lens that is faster (wider aperture), but substantially more expensive. Instead, you might consider supplementing the 15-85mm (or 17-85mm/18-135mm) with the EF 50mm f/1.8 II (aka nifty-fifty, a fast prime that's decently sharp although not well built, and is the cheapest lens in the Canon lineup). Also, consider an external flash (light from the pop-up is harsh, and IMO pictures taken with that look like they could have been taken with a point-and-shoot) - get one that allows you to bounce the flash off a ceiling (e.g. 270EX II, although I recommend the 430EX II if possible). Finally, consider a decent tripod - IMO, Manfrotto is the optimal compromise between value and quality (getting a cheap tripod just isn't worth it); although they are commonly used with ballheads, a fluid head will be better for video.

If you haven't run across The Digital Picture yet, there are great, informative reviews of Canon products there. Here's the link to the EF-S Lens Review page, which has lots of details about the lenses you're considering.

Good luck with your decisions!


----------



## LuCoOc (Jul 5, 2011)

I'd go for the 17-85mm because of the USM. Although USM isn't neccessary for video it has FTM (full time manual).
If you need faster lenses for video you could also get some used M42 mount lenses. I got my 35mm + adapter for less than 20â‚¬ from ebay. I'm sure you can get a 35mm + 50mm + 85mm for about the price of a EF 50 1.8 II. They will have better build quality including better manual focus rings for video.


----------



## Clint Johnson (Jul 5, 2011)

I would suggest you take the 18-135mm off your list if you are primarily looking at it from a cinema perspective. It does encompass the focal lengths used in 99% of cinematography, the most popular sets usually consist of a range of fixed lenses in 18, 25, 35, 50, 85 and 135mm. Besides being hard to use manually and having a noisy non-USM autofocus, this lens has mechanical focus issues. When you change direction of a rack focus the lens assembly shifts slightly side to side and up/down depending on which directing you are changing to. It also has another lens assembly shift that takes place during a one direction rack. All this is fine for stills but it handicaps the lens for motion capture.

I did get that lens with my 60D because I needed a Canon video capable DSLR immediately for a job and it was the only one in stock- while the lens is not good for cinematography, it is my walkabout lens for stills and opportunity videos.

I haven't tested the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 but I have heard that it is almost up to the image quality of the L lenses, if not their build quality. I will second the suggestion for the 50mm f1.8 II - it has an exceptionally good image quality despite the unbelievably cheap construction and low price... I've had one "rapid unintended disassembly" from a bump that would have left an L lens un-blemished. Also keep in mind that it will be very hard to hit focus when wide open, especially on a moving target.

I have a selection of Canon's L lenses that are much better for motion and a set of old Nikon manual lenses with an EOS adapter that are better yet for all manual use if you have a 1st AC pulling focus as well as a camera operator... or if you are an ambidextrous master at multi-tasking and can do both.

That said, some great movies have been made with worse lenses and no matter which lens(es) you get, if you really learn the strengths and weaknesses of your lens, good images can be captured by any of them. It is just a matter of how difficult it will be to bend the lens to your will and how many compromises you will have to make in the images you want to create.

Reiterating the good luck,
Clint


----------



## akiskev (Jul 5, 2011)

If you are interested in video, get the 17-85.
It is way better in manual focus mode.


----------



## EYEONE (Jul 5, 2011)

The focus ring on my 18-135mm was very loose and "jiggly". I don't think it would be ver good for focusing manually.

I think the 17-85mm is clearly the better choice.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 5, 2011)

I'd seriously recommend stretching your budget to the 15-85mm, I bought one on the strength of comments on here and been really pleased with the results from it with the IQ much better than the 18-55mm kit lens I have. It's a good walkabout lens, you can add a longer range zoom later if you really need it, but I found I use my 70-300mm very little, but needed a low f lens, so added a f1.4 50mm and been really pleased with that too. 85mm is ample for most tasks on a crop body and the 15mm is surprisingly more useful than you would imagine the extra 3mm would be. Go try it in the shop, trust me, you will part with your cash on the spot !

Also, try an independent photo store, I bought mine without the box as the unwanted kit lens from a 7D kit, saved me about Â£75 last October.


----------



## dstppy (Jul 5, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Josh11 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking for one thats going to provide the best all round image quality and versatility.
> ...



I second (third) the 15-85. It's a superb lens and I've gone back to it as my go-to lens.

If you're stretched for cash but want something now, get a 50mm and a body; avoid the kit lenses.

If you have to choose between the t2i and 60D and you're on a budget, get a nicer lens and the T2i.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 5, 2011)

Another thing to consider is to just get the 18-55 kit lens, if that is available, and buy some old Olympus OM or Nikon Manual focus lenses and adapters. The adapters and lenses are relatively inexpensive.

They will be fine if you use a tripod. If you want to do handheld video, IS will help, but you will also pickup noises in the audio, so will beed a external microphone and possibly a recorder if you are serious.

A 60 d is really not a camcorder, there is no autofocus while doing video. If I were doing video, i'd go to a camera store and look at both the 60D and a Nikon D7000, which has limited AF during video and see if its usable. Nikon has a refurb store in the USA as well as Canon, but in the UK they list refurbs on ebay, I believe. A refurb is a good way to get a virtually new camera for a decent discount.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jul 5, 2011)

I agree on getting the basic kit lens and then branching out with older inexpensive primes. If you're taking the time to set up the shots, you'll use them more than the zoom anyway. If you only want one lens that does it all, I'd do the 15-85mm. If it's out of your budget, go with the 17-85mm. The 18-135mm is a stronger lens than the latter optically, but lacks the quiet autofocus (though the focus is still fast and the manuel focus works just fine).


----------



## Josh11 (Jul 5, 2011)

Thank you all for your very insightful and fast replies! 

After reading through them all I thought the 15-85mm lens sounds perfect and will definitely try stretch the budget if it's a bit more, but looked it up, over Â£550, sadly thats pushing it too much at this stage.
Currently think the best bet for me is to probably go with the 17-85mm USM one and expand later, might go for the 50mm 1.8 prime too at that price.
So many little things to reply to, will do a few: 

- Thanks for the site link neuro, a fluid head Manfrotto tripod is the one I'd look to get at some point yeah. Thanks for the flash advice too, will look into those at a later point. 
- LuCoOc, not familiar with the M42 mounts, will look into it, sound rather cheap? Which one/s did you get? 
- Clint, thanks! Consider the 18-135mm off the list, convinced me =)
-Haydn1971, Ahh making me wish I had extra budget for that, bet the extra 2/3mm is useful too!
- dstppy, I think I'd feel limited without some sort of zoom lens for general shooting, though will try get the 50mm soon as. Kinda got my heart set on the 60D over the t2i/550D though.
-Mt Spokane, I'm very much aware its not a camcorder and it has no in shoot auto focus, though it would be very nice/handy it's not something that is needed. 
- Eagle Eye, good advice, pretty much what I'm gunna do I think 

These replies have been seriously helpful thanks a bunch! Just found out my grandfather has an old film Canon he doesn't need anymore, only has 2 lenses and are the old FD mounts which is a shame.


----------



## thejoyofsobe (Jul 5, 2011)

I ran into a similar decision last month and went the Canon USA refurb store route. 

Refurb 60D Body $799.00 USD
Refurb 24-105mm f/4 L $919.00 USD


If the online currency converter I used is correct for both it was around Â£1066 before taxes. Got any trustworthy American friends and don't mind a 90 day US-only warranty?


----------



## dstppy (Jul 6, 2011)

thejoyofsobe said:


> I ran into a similar decision last month and went the Canon USA refurb store route.
> 
> Refurb 60D Body $799.00 USD
> Refurb 24-105mm f/4 L $919.00 USD
> ...



Canon refurb store usually eats up all it's price benefit with shipping and tax 

Honestly, I've got the 24-105mm L and the 15-85mm EF-S and I have to say the latter has been my choice for shooting.


----------



## dstppy (Jul 6, 2011)

Josh11 said:


> Thank you all for your very insightful and fast replies!
> 
> After reading through them all I thought the 15-85mm lens sounds perfect and will definitely try stretch the budget if it's a bit more, but looked it up, over Â£550, sadly thats pushing it too much at this stage.
> Currently think the best bet for me is to probably go with the 17-85mm USM one and expand later, might go for the 50mm 1.8 prime too at that price.
> ...



Honestly, the difference in a picture between a good (super) lens with an adequate body . . . and a good (excellent body) and a poor lens, will be day and night; respectively.

Seriously, get an XSi and a super lens instead of spending all your money on a body and getting a crap lens.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 6, 2011)

Add another vote here for the *15*-85 IS USM.
furthermore, if you're only going video and not photography, save the money from the 60D and get a 600D (ie, 600d + 15-85 > 60d + 17-85). Actually, for a starter who won't do sports and birds, i'd recommend that for photography too.
Or also the 17-55 f2.8 is a bit more again, but that decision is pure 'extra light' vs 'extra length'.



LuCoOc said:


> If you need faster lenses for video you could also get some used M42 mount lenses. I got my 35mm + adapter for less than 20â‚¬ from ebay. I'm sure you can get a 35mm + 50mm + 85mm for about the price of a EF 50 1.8 II. They will have better build quality including better manual focus rings for video.



i'm also an MF-prime fan, especially M42. But not all of them are good, and the good ones aren't cheap. SMC Takumar are one of the best non-zeiss you can get, the 50mm f1.8 and f2 should be less than $50 shipped. But go up to the 50/1.4 and you're well over the price of a niftyfifty (which has AF).

on the fast wide end there's nothing cheap, 28/1.8 are dime-a-dozen from a heap of different companies, but watch out for the quality of some unkown-names.
faster than that: zeiss 35/2.4 flektogon go for $200 and up, and takumar 35/2, nikon 35/2 & 28/2, OM 35/2, MIR 24N&M 35/2 all go for upwards of $100-150. (trust me, i search on ebay every week for something cheap in this range). still cheaper than the ef 35/2 and better IQ than a fast sigma prime though.

85 f2 look for a Jupiter9 soviet built, again lucky to get one under $100, otherwise spring for the EF 85/1.8 (or a mamiya 645 80 f1.9 MF for maybe the same price).

i suppose it depends what you call 'fast', if you expand it to f/2.8, then you can get a lot more range and a lot cheaper. but i'd spring for the 18-55 f/2.8 and not bother with the primes in that case...


also, forgot to say, and i don't think anyone's mentioned yet, if you're interested in video: Microphone.
even if it's an old crappy thing, just the act of getting the microphone away from the body will get rid of any AF motor or IS sounds, external mics can have a wind-sock put on too. Doesn't have to be a classy Hot-shoe Rode or Sennheiser, although they are better. Try pick up and old sm58 from a music hire-shop, they take beatings for years and live to tell about it. (kinda depends what you're filming though, more directional is probably more versatile)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2011)

I bought a Olympus 50mm f/1.7 last weekend for $15. Since we were talking a 15-85mm IS lenses at $800, $50-$100 is cheap.

The Nifty 50 is a good lens, but, for video, its manual focus, and if you have ever done much manual focusing with the 50/1.8. you would be very happy with the feel of a vintage manual focus lens.

The low resolution of 2K video does not require a super high resolution lens unless you are doing it for the big screen.


----------



## Josh11 (Jul 6, 2011)

About the body choice, I agree a 550D + better lens would give the better picture, but I'd rather get myself the 60D with a lesser lens then can add more in the future. I kinda ignored the 600D based on the price isn't all that far away for the 60D so would rather just stretch a bit further.


----------



## AG (Jul 6, 2011)

Honestly there is not that huge a difference between the 60D and 600D, Not for video.

If i had to choose between either of them and the 500/550D id grab the 60/600 any day.

Personally i'm using the 60D (w/ Tokina 11-16 2.8 Lens) atm and it works fantastically for video. The articulated screen is a life saver at times and allows for a lot smoother hand held footage thanks to not needing to occasionally move the camera to see the screen on the 550D.

As for lens again as others have said the 50mm is the best all round for video. If your budget allowed then try go for the 1.4 instead of the 1.8. 

But don't kid yourself ether. If you want a camera for video then buy your equipment for that reason. Don't try to buy something that you think will be handy as an all round lens etc because it will just gather dust. 

The kit lenses are a waste of money (if you can buy the body cheaper) but if you had to go for one mainly for video use then the stock 18-55 is not great but not too bad. But on saying that it is a really cheap and noisy lens. 

People will tell you to buy what they like, others will tell you to avoid particular model numbers and others again will tell you to try and extend your budget.

For me i say as long as it shoots 1080p/24 it should be able to cover your needs for video (and all lower formats too eg 720p/60). Then spend that bit more on decent EF grade glass. That way if you decide to upgrade down the track the lenses can come with you and the body didn't put you too far out of pocket.

But thats just my choice. End of the day its your wallet


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2011)

Josh11 said:


> About the body choice, I agree a 550D + better lens would give the better picture, but I'd rather get myself the 60D with a lesser lens then can add more in the future.



The usual advice is glass before body. The 550D and 60D use the same sensor - no IQ difference. As AG points out, most of the features that distinguish them (e.g. better AF system) do not matter for video (the articulating screen might, though - suggesting the 600D). 

There's an article about choosing a tripod that makes good points that apply to other gear - the idea is that if you buy the cheapest, low-quality options at the start, you end up spending more money in the long run. So, you start with the 18-55mm kit lens, which is Â£70 in the kit. But you want more reach, so you later add the 18-135mm for Â£400. But the IQ isn't a match for your growing skills/needs, so you get the 15-85mm for Â£630. Then you figure out that the slow aperture is hampering your creativity, so you end up with the 17-55mm for Â£800. Along the way, you'd have sold the other lenses and taken a loss each time, probably summing up to ~Â£300, so in the end you could have just spent the Â£800 at the outset, instead of the cumulative Â£1100 for an Â£800 lens. 

The point is to identify your needs at the outset, to the extent possible.

Also, keep in mind that you'll likely go through a few camera bodies over the duration you own a particular lens. 

Not to contradict what I just wrote, but starting off with a better body is not a bad idea. The 60D also has better ergonomics than the xxxD line, and that can make a big difference. If you really don't know what you want, you may be better off just getting the cheapest kit lens (18-55mm) and saving up for a better lens.


----------



## dstppy (Jul 6, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I bought a Olympus 50mm f/1.7 last weekend for $15. Since we were talking a 15-85mm IS lenses at $800, $50-$100 is cheap.
> 
> The Nifty 50 is a good lens, but, for video, its manual focus, and if you have ever done much manual focusing with the 50/1.8. you would be very happy with the feel of a vintage manual focus lens.
> 
> The low resolution of 2K video does not require a super high resolution lens unless you are doing it for the big screen.



Okay, let's look at same-priced options:
60D $900 + $17 lens
Costco, get a T2i (18-55mm & 55-250mm) $849.99 + tax

Which do you think a non-pro is going to get more mileage out of for all around use?

I think you need to consider the audience; $17 is nice, but no zoom or AF is pretty much a deal breaker for anyone starting into photography. 

Your suggestion has merits, but when most entry-level DSLR shooters don't even exit auto mode . . . recommending Manual Focus Only options seems like it will fall on deaf ears.

-----
Now that I look at it, you could score $200 on the two kit lenses there and have a 15-85mm for $560 providing you felt like working for a deal.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2011)

dstppy said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I bought a Olympus 50mm f/1.7 last weekend for $15. Since we were talking a 15-85mm IS lenses at $800, $50-$100 is cheap.
> ...



You missed the point. earlier in the thread, I suggested that he consider buying the camera with kit lenses and since they are not that good for video, to add some cheaper 3rd party manual focus lenses as a alternative to the $800 15-85mm lens which other posters as well as myself think would be a good choice..

If he wants to save some money, take a old broken Canon film SLR or a powershot and call Canon customer loyalty program to get 20% off their refurb prices.

Using the CLP, a refurbished 60D with kit lens would cost $832 plus tax and shipping with that deal.

Their cameras available come and go weekly, so check frequently http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_29252

They also have discounts on refurb lenses, but no CLP trade in.


----------



## AJ (Jul 6, 2011)

Hunt around a little and you may find a 60D + 15-85 kit combo.

Here's one in my city, Calgary Canada. I know it doesn't help you being over in the UK, but you may find something locally.
https://www.thecamerastore.com/products/kits/canon/canon-eos-60d-15-85mm-f35-56-usm


----------



## kkt262 (Jul 7, 2011)

Read this http://flickfire.com/forum/tid/39

Get the 550d (aka t2i) and be happy =)


----------



## dstppy (Jul 7, 2011)

kkt262 said:


> Read this http://flickfire.com/forum/tid/39
> 
> Get the 550d (aka t2i) and be happy =)



You could save hundreds more by installing CHDK on a SX30 IS -- that at least will let the camera shoot RAW, which will make a difference in post processing.  Then you'll have an articulating screen.


----------



## Josh11 (Jul 7, 2011)

kkt262 said:


> Read this http://flickfire.com/forum/tid/39
> 
> Get the 550d (aka t2i) and be happy =)


I'm aware of the Magic Lantern software.

Reasons I'm more looking at the 60D is:
- Screen
- Body is of pretty much the same size/shape as the 7D or 5D
- Manual Audio (yes, ML could add that to the 550D)
- Better build quality

Anyone know whether the 600D has manual audio control? I'd guess it does seeing as they're released together but not read it has.


----------

