# Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.



## TRIPL3try (Jul 2, 2012)

*Too long; didn't read:* what's a good, somewhat cheap, zoom lens to compliment the 40mm 2.8 pancake?

Newbie here,

Last week I got my first DSLR (t4i) with the 40mm 2.8 lens. 

I don't know much about photography or lenses for that matter, and I was wondering...what zoom lens would make a good compliment to the 40mm?

I'm going to school for video, so keep that in mind. Sadly, I can only spend about $500 tops on a lens, since I spent the rest on camera gear. I wish I could get a 70-200mm :'( 

I was thinking this one...anyone have any opinions on it? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/169267-GREY/Canon_6473A003AA_75_300mm_f_4_0_5_6_III_Autofocus.html

I would mainly be using it at sporting events, concerts, etc. I don't necessary need a zoom that long, either. I was also considering: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689620-REG/Sigma_583101_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

^but that's if you guys really convinced me. I wasn't blown away with the continuous AF with the STM lens (I'm probably just using it wrong), so I figured any focusing I'll really be doing with the t4i will be manual.

As always, thank you for the advice and enlightenment.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 2, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> *Too long; didn't read:* what's a good, somewhat cheap, zoom lens to compliment the 40mm 2.8 pancake?
> 
> Newbie here,
> 
> ...



18-200mm EFS canon would be a good choice or the Newer 18-135 STM IS.


----------



## TRIPL3try (Jul 2, 2012)

I was originally planning on getting the STM zoom lens, but any idea when it is coming out? This month? Sometime this summer? I can be a pretty impulsive buyer, that's why I came here.


----------



## preppyak (Jul 2, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> I'm going to school for video, so keep that in mind. Sadly, I can only spend about $500 tops on a lens, since I spent the rest on camera gear. I wish I could get a 70-200mm :'(


If you're going to school for video, and you plan on using the camera to shoot your stuff, then I'd spend your money on a few primes rather than on a tele zoom. You'll want something to cover the wider range, and probably something in the more traditional portrait range.

I guess a 17-55 zoom would cover your wide needs; something like the Tamron non-VC, or that Sigma lens. As for the portrait side, something like Canon's 85mm f/1.8, or the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 would cover you. The Samyang lenses are a great value for video use, since you'll be manually focusing anyways. Another option is to use some older lenses (Nikon AI, older Contax/Zeiss, etc) with adapters.

The 18-135 (either the older one or the new STM) would cover general needs, but, you'll find it limiting for video use if you want shallow depth of field. I would avoid impulse buying, you already have one good lens that is useful for getting to know the camera (which is the most important part); you can find out once classes are going what you'll need more of in terms of focal length


----------



## TRIPL3try (Jul 2, 2012)

Hmmm...so just save my money? It isn't critical I get one now, but I would like to have something with a zoom.

What will a prime lens do? Yeah yeah yeah, laugh it up.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 2, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> Hmmm...so just save my money? It isn't critical I get one now, but I would like to have something with a zoom.
> 
> What will a prime lens do? Yeah yeah yeah, laugh it up.



Prime lenses are lenses that don't zoom. Your 40mm is a prime.

If you want awesome low light capability for less $$$, Primes are the way to go.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> What will a prime lens do?



A prime lens is any natural lens who's focal length is evenly croppable only by a factor of 1.6 and itself.


----------



## Fleetie (Jul 2, 2012)

Very droll, Neuro!


----------



## unfocused (Jul 2, 2012)

If your primary interest is video, then consider the new EF-S 18-135, which seems to be optimized for video with the t4i.

The best available low-cost long zoom is the newer Tamron 70-300mm VC for about $350. It's no "L" lens, but it is sharper and cheaper than the Canon 70-300mm IS consumer lens. 

Also, don't dismiss the 55-250mm EF-S lens. It is very sharp, although the build quality is less than stellar and it doesn't have USM (which means it focuses more slowly, but not noticeably so under most circumstances). For the price, it can't be beat. Next to the 50mm f 1.8 it is probably the best lens bargain Canon offers.

Thinking about this a little more, I really would recommend waiting until the 18-135mm comes out and there have been some reviews on the lens. For your purpose (video) it might be worth the wait and extra money. It has the advantage of a moderate wide angle to moderate telephoto zoom range, which you can't get with any of the other lenses.


----------



## LSV (Jul 2, 2012)

I'm a newbie too and because the confidence is not there yet to buy used lenses, I've gone the refurbished route with Canon Direct Store to save money. I got a virtually new Canon 15-85mm with a recent promotion of 20% off and free shipping. With tax, the total is about $550 and I'm very happy with the quality of the lens. According to CanonRumors price watch, this lens goes for around $700 for new. I'm sure someone more savvy could get a better deal on Ebay or elsewhere, but for now, I'm very satisfed with the refurbished route and I hope that helps.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 2, 2012)

LSV said:


> I'm a newbie too and because the confidence is not there yet to buy used lenses, I've gone the refurbished route with Canon Direct Store to save money. I got a virtually new Canon 15-85mm with a recent promotion of 20% off and free shipping. With tax, the total is about $550 and I'm very happy with the quality of the lens. According to CanonRumors price watch, this lens goes for around $700 for new. I'm sure someone more savvy could get a better deal on Ebay or elsewhere, but for now, I'm very satisfed with the refurbished route and I hope that helps.



You may be a "newbie" but you are quite savvy if you are going the refurbished route with the extra promotional savings. People pay crazy prices on eBay to get a used lens "as is" with no warranty. Refurbished lenses have a warranty and you know Canon tech has tested them out.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 2, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> Hmmm...so just save my money? It isn't critical I get one now, but I would like to have something with a zoom.
> 
> What will a prime lens do? Yeah yeah yeah, laugh it up.



Single focal lenght lenses, they generally have larger appatures than zoom lenses(or allow you to get those appatures more cheaply in a smaller package) which will have the advanatge of offering shallower depth of field/focus and less need to use higher ISO in low light hence cleaner video.

I'v not used them but Sigma produce some prime lenses in the wide range with large appatures within that budget like the 20mm and 24mm f1.8's.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 2, 2012)

I'd hold off until your class teacher tells you what to get. Youy have conflicting wants here, a video lens for class, and a sports lens which might be a long telephoto.

You are going to want some other accessories as well for video, the cost of the camera is about 10% of the total beginning expense. hopefully, the school will have some of the lighting, microphones, audio recorders, tripods, video heads, etc, but wait and see. Odds are that a beginner level video tripod and head will eat up $500.


----------



## TRIPL3try (Jul 2, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> hopefully, the school will have some of the lighting, microphones, audio recorders, tripods, video heads, etc, but wait and see. Odds are that a beginner level video tripod and head will eat up $500.



Yeesh, that's what I was looking at. I worked as a production assistant a couple years ago and fell in love with glidetracks. I really want to get one, but I don't know what kind of video head it requires. I was probably going to chat with some B&H guys tomorrow.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. It is so greatly appreciated. So from the sounds of it, maybe I should hold off for the new STM 18-135mm? Does anyone know when that is hitting the market?

That's kind of what I thought a prime was...a lens with a low aperture and fixed range. I thought there was something far more special to it, though.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 2, 2012)

Hi,

I think you may be using the word "zoom" to mean "telephoto." 

As mentioned above, a zoom lens is just one that can zoom in and out, even if it's just a little bit. 

Telephoto would be a lens that brings far-away things in close, such as in sports or birding, but it could be either a zoom or a fixed-length (PRIME) lens.

Wide-angle lenses are the opposite of telephoto, and they also come in both zoom and prime flavors. They allow you to get a wider view of the world into one shot, but none of it is terribly close-up looking when you are done, and in fact if you take the shot from very close-up your subject might end up looking distorted (big nose and comical forehead).

As you may need this for a specific purpose, I agree with Mt Spokane when he says to find out from your classes what it is that you need. Especially as you are a student on a budget, it would be painful to guess wrong and blow your entire budget and not get what you need.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 3, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > hopefully, the school will have some of the lighting, microphones, audio recorders, tripods, video heads, etc, but wait and see. Odds are that a beginner level video tripod and head will eat up $500.
> ...



Well, there is rather a lot more to it if you can find an Optimus Prime, which can turn into a robot and a talking Mack Truck.


----------



## HeWhoShoots (Jul 3, 2012)

"Thanks for the feedback, everyone. It is so greatly appreciated. So from the sounds of it, maybe I should hold off for the new STM 18-135mm? Does anyone know when that is hitting the market?"

Best Buy says within a month.

However, I would get primes. If you want a zoom for now, go and pick up a kit lens (if you're going to be working where there is decent light). It'll hold you over until you can find out what you really want/need.


----------



## canon816 (Jul 3, 2012)

I didnt read the entire thread, so I don't know if this was already mentioned or not but Canon makes a 70-200 F4L lens for $700 brand new. You might find one second hand for your $500 budget range.

It does not have IS, but optically it is one of the sharpest lenses canon currently produces. I would not hesitate at all to get this lens. IS is great, but if you are going to shoot at at least 1/200 or faster at max focal length on this lens and develop steady handling you certainly don't need it. 

Just my 2 cents worth....


----------



## kdsand (Jul 3, 2012)

I guess I pretty much agree with what every one said.

One thing to remember is the super zooms sacrifice quite a bit for the convenience they offer. 

Regardless of the make just be prepared to have to have your lens calibrated - especially if you can't adjust af in your camera :'(.
I love my new sigma 17-50 2.8 is. I was prepared to need calibration but I was good out of the box .

Canon refurbished from Adorama come with a great warranty by the way. I have three refurbished from them and its true they seem brand new.


----------



## Halfrack (Jul 3, 2012)

That 40mm F2.8 pancake will be everything you want to start off with. If you were to get a lens, literally grab the EFS 18-55 kit lens for no more than $80ish. Zoom with your feet, meet your classmates and see what they have (_you will be popular with the 40mm lens_). Just remember, on the t4i, the 40mm lens acts like a 64mm lens.

Find out what you can borrow from the school - remember that with video, you may be building/buying a rig, brace or tripod.


----------



## TRIPL3try (Jul 3, 2012)

kdsand said:


> Regardless of the make just be prepared to have to have your lens calibrated - especially if you can't adjust af in your camera :'(.
> I love my new sigma 17-50 2.8 is. I was prepared to need calibration but I was good out of the box .



What does it mean to calibrate a lens, anyone? Seems like something important I should know if I want to extend the longevity of my gear.



Halfrack said:


> (_you will be popular with the 40mm lens_)



Ha ha ha, woo! 8) I think the pancake looks so silly. I'm excited to get my shotgun mic/shoulder mount in the mail this week. Last two things on my list (for now): battery grip + polarizer.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 3, 2012)

If your primary focus is video, you should look into a few manual focus prime lenses. You can pick up beautiful Nikon manual glass for next to nothing. Add an adapter and you are good to go. Nikon AI-s lenses are great, E-Series are cheap as dirt.

Primes will help you become a better photographer, are more affordable and can offer you larger apertures (also good for video)

I don't know what advantage a cheap zoom gives you. The Canon Rebel 18-55 kit lens at least will give you a decent/ affordable wide angle lens.

Just my .02


----------



## kdsand (Jul 3, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> kdsand said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of the make just be prepared to have to have your lens calibrated - especially if you can't adjust af in your camera :'(.
> ...



The af or auto focus can be calibrated to optimize or better match your lens focus to your camera. It doesn't really affect the longevity.


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jul 3, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You are going to want some other accessories as well for video, the cost of the camera is about 10% of the total beginning expense. hopefully, the school will have some of the lighting, microphones, audio recorders, tripods, video heads, etc, but wait and see. Odds are that a beginner level video tripod and head will eat up $500.



For 500 clams, you better be getting something better than "Beginner level." You can get a brand new Manfrotto tripod and fluid head, both more than sturdy enough for a DSLR, for about 200. You can also get a set of used sticks and buy a decent fluid head separately for about 150- just make sure it's compatible with the thread. It isn't exactly as nice as a Connor, but as long as you have the sticks secured, you won't have problems and it's 99.9% as effective. Despite what most people seem to think, you don't need a shotgun to kill ants.


----------



## lopicma (Jul 3, 2012)

For my 2 cents, I can recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with vibration control, and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS. I paid $450 for the Tamron (Simply Electronics) and $190 for the Canon lens (Amazon).

Both of these lenses are good for stills, and I don't know about video as my _Rebel XS _can't perform the feat.

Take some classes as suggested, and go out and shoot everything and anything. I have started schlepping my camera everywhere, and looking for an excuse to photograph stuff. Go to events, feed birds, visit the zoo, line up your family members for mug shots. LOL Take pictures of the moon... 

Take pictures of flowers, bugs, anything... and be prepared to throw out a lot of shots. I took 270 frames at the local nature center last weekend, and only kept 31 of them. Last month I took photos at a military rein-actor event and only use my 50mm prime. I took pictures of an indoor tennis match, and the lighting sucked, as did my 18-55mm kit lens (f/3.5-5.6), so I shot it all at 800 and 1600 ISO.

Most important is to have fun and enjoy your new camera.


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Jul 3, 2012)

my vote would be a used tamron 28-75mm f2.8 you can find them on ebay pretty reasonably priced. 
its got amazing quality and goes a little wider than your 40mm and gives you some zoom too. 

D


----------



## TRIPL3try (Jul 3, 2012)

lopicma said:


> For my 2 cents, I can recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with vibration control, and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS. I paid $450 for the Tamron (Simply Electronics) and $190 for the Canon lens (Amazon).
> 
> Both of these lenses are good for stills, and I don't know about video as my _Rebel XS _can't perform the feat.
> 
> ...



Why thank you! I've been learning a lot in the last few days but I know it is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I took the t4i to the beach and to a fireworks show yesterday and had some fun with it.

My main issue is learning how to play with manual settings, mainly ISO/aperture. Hopefully I'll learn a lot in my photography course next semester (which I'm praying isn't just how to use Photoshop).

Thanks again, everyone, for the much-needed advice. I know I could have Google'd a lot of this stuff but I would rather have personal opinions from people who have a far better understanding of photography than me. =]


----------



## TRIPL3try (Jul 3, 2012)

I know this is slightly off topic at this point, but would it make any sense for me to get a 50mm 1.4 if I already have a 40mm 2.8? Will I really gain much with that depth of field?


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 3, 2012)

If you're a beginner, hold off on getting that next lens. Instead, use your 40mm to help you become a better photographer. Then, at some point in the future, you'll be able to make a better decision about your next lens.


----------



## HeWhoShoots (Jul 3, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> I know this is slightly off topic at this point, but would it make any sense for me to get a 50mm 1.4 if I already have a 40mm 2.8? Will I really gain much with that depth of field?



Right now, don't worry about that lens. If you want to experiment with shallow(er) depth of field, get the 50 1.8. It's one of Canon's best buys, and if you can get by its plasticy feel, its image quality will make you very happy. That's a sharp lens and a third the cost of the 1.4.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 3, 2012)

For reasons you won't yet comprhend, for video you will need:

A zoom with a fast constant max aperture. That means an f2.8 zoom.

You will need a zoom with a filter thread that doesn't rotate.

You will need a zoom with a nice tactile long throw focus ring.

Such a lens will be really good for your photography, but will really really help your video.

You won't be using AF if you are doing video seriously. People may take issue with this, but they are wrong. AF cannot pinpoint what you want in focus (that is the subjects eye) and cannot track fast enough.

So really forget AF.

You have $500 and a short telephoto.


I would therefore suggest a sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro or the same but with OS (not the f2.8-4 version or anything else that sounds similar) can be found used with lots of change, you may be lucky and find a non-OS verison new, and certainly this is the best bang per buck.

18-50 is also a good walkaround lens, decent wide angle, and ok tele. Would be a good interview and GV lens (thinking video) Also has good close focus, it isn't a true macro, but for practical purposes, unless you work in a lab, you wouldn't need a seperate macro lens with this.

I have one and so can recommend it.


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jul 3, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> For reasons you won't yet comprhend, for video you will need:
> 
> A zoom with a fast constant max aperture. That means an f2.8 zoom.
> 
> ...



The 18-50 is probably one of Sigma's best lenses. Don't knock the 17-70 2.8-4 OS, though. Slightly less sharp, but about 200 bucks cheaper, and does well with video.


----------



## preppyak (Jul 3, 2012)

HeWhoShoots said:


> That's a sharp lens and a third the cost of the 1.4.


Normally I'd agree with that advice, except, we are talking video here. The 50mm f/1.8 is practically useless when it comes to video focusing, unless you are setting focus for interviews and not changing it. The focus ring is awful.

The 40mm will probably be equally annoying, so I agree with the above poster when he mentions getting a lens that has a convenient ring for AF. Whether its primes or a zoom, you'll regret not getting a lens that makes that aspect convenient


----------



## HeWhoShoots (Jul 3, 2012)

preppyak said:


> HeWhoShoots said:
> 
> 
> > That's a sharp lens and a third the cost of the 1.4.
> ...



I agree with what you're saying, but he'll have a rig as he's mentioned, and that'll make it easier. I've used both the 1.4 and the 1.8, and while the 1.8 may not have the best focus ring, it more than makes up for it in value. Also I've used it for interviews/fixed focus situations where youre right, the ring is a non-issue.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 3, 2012)

@adamdoesmovies


> The 18-50 is probably one of Sigma's best lenses. Don't knock the 17-70 2.8-4 OS, though. Slightly less sharp, but about 200 bucks cheaper, and does well with video.



Hi Adam, I'm sure it is a good lens, for video I would argue venhemently against a lens with a variable max aperture, can make shot matching -particularly in low light- tricky.

The non-OS version of the 18-50 f2.8 (the version I have) cost about the same, or even a little less than the 17-70, and for me the constant fast max aperture was just more useful.


----------



## daniemare (Jul 4, 2012)

I will not recommend anything specifically other than talk about my experience.
Starting with the 18-55 kit, I got the Canon 18-200 as a do it all walk around lens. I was very new to photography so got it based on salesperson recommendation. And boy, that lens is horrible in all accounts.
Indoor use - forget it to slow
Telephoto - well it basically stops zooming at 170mm or so and just turns to 200 on the barrel
Portrait - no bokeh and not very sharp

So if you really want that range just go for the Tamron and save a bunch

What I did - as I am on a budget as well:
Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS - helps indoors (with a bit of ISO bump), Useful range for walk around. Use it 90% of the time (crop sensor) and I believe the price vs quality beats the canon hands down
Canon 70-200 F4L (no IS) for $450 used. Gives you the range and awesome colour and sharpness.

When it comes to Canon L lenses, do not hesitate to go used. The lenses are well built, and from experience, people who pays thousands for lenses do take care of it.


----------



## TRIPL3try (Jul 4, 2012)

Excellent feedback all around on page three. Thank you kindly, everyone.

So would that Sigma lens I originally posted be a decent choice for now? I don't need to make the decision ASAP, but would like to grab a telephoto lens by the end of the summer.

From what I've gathered from the veteran experience here, either wait for the STM 18-135mm or one of the Sigma 2.8's? Which one of these would suit me better, the fixed aperture or the ranged aperture? I know someone mentioned both above me but I'm kind of on the road at the moment (not driving!)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689620-REG/Sigma_583101_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670047-REG/Sigma_668101_17_70mm_F2_8_4_DC_Macro.html


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 4, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> Excellent feedback all around on page three. Thank you kindly, everyone.
> 
> So would that Sigma lens I originally posted be a decent choice for now? I don't need to make the decision ASAP, but would like to grab a telephoto lens by the end of the summer.
> 
> ...



With the 17-40, if you start shooting at f/2.8 and 17mm and then zoom to 40mm (or much of anything inbetween), your exposure will change from f/2.8 to f/4 and the image will now be underexposed by a stop. Your only choice would be to change exposure while you zoom (not going to happen in a single video shot) or to limit yourself to f/4 at the wide end.

With the 17-50, you can start shooting at f/2.8 and it'll stay there no matter what focal length you use. 

I imagine there might still be T-stop changes over the focal length range, but it's going to be a while before you're going to care about that sort of thing, and a loooooooooong while before you'll be able to afford gear that deals with it.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## TRIPL3try (Jul 4, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> With the 17-40, if you start shooting at f/2.8 and 17mm and then zoom to 40mm (or much of anything inbetween), your exposure will change from f/2.8 to f/4 and the image will now be underexposed by a stop. Your only choice would be to change exposure while you zoom (not going to happen in a single video shot) or to limit yourself to f/4 at the wide end.



That sort of went over my head. So basically, when I zoom in, my exposure will change due to the ranged aperture? That's why I want a fixed aperture?

*So, bottom line: buy the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 or wait for the Canon 18-135mm STM? I would get either toward the end of August.
*

And yes, it will be at least two years until I graduate and can afford some serious L glass or mucho expensivo primes. Paying college tuition sucks.  I'm trying to make the smartest and most reasonable buys, though...once again, why I am here.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 4, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > With the 17-40, if you start shooting at f/2.8 and 17mm and then zoom to 40mm (or much of anything inbetween), your exposure will change from f/2.8 to f/4 and the image will now be underexposed by a stop. Your only choice would be to change exposure while you zoom (not going to happen in a single video shot) or to limit yourself to f/4 at the wide end.
> ...



a constant aperture zoom will be better for video than the 18-135 STM since the 18-135 is variable aperture
I'd probably suggest going with the sigma f2.8 for starters


----------



## kdsand (Jul 4, 2012)

I bought my sigma just this spring. 
I will 2nd the opinion or is it 4th - that the sigma 17-50 is a great buy & value & huge improvement over kit lenses. 
When it was first released it apparently often needed to be recalibrated but based on reviews in the last year that is now much less an area for concern.

I would buy the canon if it was $100 bucks more but not at around $500 more (  bad canon bad ).
Sigma also throws in (for free *gasp!*) a very nice hood & an awesome case.

Thankfully my nifty new Shorty 40 is giving me some hope for the words Canon & value belonging together in a conversation, minus a _lens hood of course _ :.


----------



## revup67 (Jul 4, 2012)

> With the 17-40, if you start shooting at f/2.8 and 17mm and then zoom to 40mm (or much of anything inbetween), your exposure will change from f/2.8 to f/4 and the image will now be underexposed by a stop. Your only choice would be to change exposure while you zoom (not going to happen in a single video shot) or to limit yourself to f/4 at the wide end. With the 17-50, you can start shooting at f/2.8 and it'll stay there no matter what focal length you use.



Trumpet power - these are excellent points no doubt but I might add 2.8 might not necessarily always fit the bill with its narrow DOF and lesser IQ if I am understanding your point correctly or was that just an example? Also, even if the OP did use the 17-40, set the camera on Aperture Priority @ F4 (or Manual) with Auto ISO perhaps that might be an alternate solution no?

On a side note, didn't see anyone mention the 15-85mm Canon EF-S. Just take a look at http://www.the-digital-picture.com and compare that lens with others even the 16-35 L and it holds up quite well especially in the corners its razor sharp as I am a previous owner and hesitantly sold that lens when I got the 5DMK3. The lens is around $650 new but have seen it for less used.

Mt Spokane is right. $500 is on the low end for a tripod with a fluid head. The Manfrotto 701HDV is very reasonable fluid head at around $170. Love the secondary security lock on the plate which stops the camera from accidentally sliding off the head - a gear saver no doubt. Very smooth as well and can easily sustain the weight load. A great buy. PS Loads of good fodder in this thread!


----------



## Matthew19 (Jul 4, 2012)

isn't the canon 70-200 f/4 non IS like $500?


----------



## robbinzo (Jul 4, 2012)

I like the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. It's less than $500.
It's relatively inexpensive, auto-focuses quickly and is nice and sharp. I have no hesitation in recommending this lens.
It suffers from zoom creep, isn't a "fast" lens and is obviously not top end. It does have image stabilisation which will help for hand held shots and video.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 4, 2012)

@revup67


> Trumpet power - these are excellent points no doubt but I might add 2.8 might not necessarily always fit the bill with its narrow DOF and lesser IQ if I am understanding your point correctly or was that just an example? Also, even if the OP did use the 17-40, set the camera on Aperture Priority @ F4 (or Manual) with Auto ISO perhaps that might be an alternate solution no?



Constant max aperture lens is easier to shot match. F2.8 is more versatile than F4. On the note of shot matching, then a shot at say ISO 400 cut with a shot at ISO 800 is going to look visually different, in terms of noise at least. Video needs manual controls.



> On a side note, didn't see anyone mention the 15-85mm Canon EF-S. Just take a look at http://www.the-digital-picture.com and compare that lens with others even the 16-35 L and it holds up quite well especially in the corners its razor sharp as I am a previous owner and hesitantly sold that lens when I got the 5DMK3. The lens is around $650 new but have seen it for less used.



15-85 is a slow and variable aperture lens. The 16-35 is a constant F2.8. And if I was looking for a paragon of sharpness I wouldn't look an an UWA.



> Mt Spokane is right. $500 is on the low end for a tripod with a fluid head. The Manfrotto 701HDV is very reasonable fluid head at around $170. Love the secondary security lock on the plate which stops the camera from accidentally sliding off the head - a gear saver no doubt. Very smooth as well and can easily sustain the weight load. A great buy. PS Loads of good fodder in this thread!



701HDV is a toy. No counter-balance. Limited drag controls (head is either locked or unlocked) 
The 501HDV has a limited counterbalance and drag controls. Although not fluid (teflon disc based) for the little more it is far better. The MVH502 is about the best in the budget range.

I use pro vintens and sachtlers for my ENG camera, and a sachtler ace for my HDV and DSLR cameras. There is nothing like the ACE for the cash. Variable counterbalance, 3 horiz and vertical drag settings.

A counter balanced camera is easier to turn tilt and ramp. It is one of the most misunderstood aspects of a decent tripod. Without counterbalance you are fighting against gravity and whiplash. The 701 is probably ideal for spotting scopes. if you are serious about video it is a waste of time, when there are far better heads for only a little more.


----------



## adamfilip (Jul 4, 2012)

Good and inexpensive don't go together in photography
its like saying.. cheap gas


----------



## TRIPL3try (Jul 4, 2012)

paul13, you seem to know a lot about fluid heads. That's a whole new can of worms but I plan on getting one around the same time I get a new lens.

Do you have one you would recommend that would be compatible with a Glidetrack? I'm know we use the 701 or 501 at school. Theirs is in crappy shape, though.



adamfilip said:


> Good and inexpensive don't go together in photography
> its like saying.. cheap gas



Well you're no help.


----------



## HeWhoShoots (Jul 4, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > With the 17-40, if you start shooting at f/2.8 and 17mm and then zoom to 40mm (or much of anything inbetween), your exposure will change from f/2.8 to f/4 and the image will now be underexposed by a stop. Your only choice would be to change exposure while you zoom (not going to happen in a single video shot) or to limit yourself to f/4 at the wide end.
> ...



Everything trumpet power said about zooming and the aperture adjustment of zooming is true. The thing is though, and you'll see this fairly quick, is that zooming with a lens on a dslr looks like shit, due to the cmos sensor. Rarely does a zoom on a photography lens look good, at all. This is one of the main reasons people keep saying to get a prime and use your manual zoom (feet).


----------



## HeWhoShoots (Jul 4, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> paul13, you seem to know a lot about fluid heads. That's a whole new can of worms but I plan on getting one around the same time I get a new lens.
> 
> Do you have one you would recommend that would be compatible with a Glidetrack? I'm know we use the 701 or 501 at school. Theirs is in crappy shape, though.



This is off topic, but I figured I'd throw in my opinion...since that's what this forums for. Anyway, tripods come in handy for plenty of stuff, but I never ever think about them first. I think they're a waste of money if you spend over a couple hundred bucks. The surest way to make sure that your footage looks exactly the same as your peers is to use a tripod. Tripods are stale. You're getting a rig. Use it every chance you get to add a human element to your shots. 

(Obviously if you're shooting an interview with 2+ cameras, a tripod is somewhat needed, but you dont need one with a head worth wasting money on.)


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 5, 2012)

@HeWhoShoots


> Everything trumpet power said about zooming and the aperture adjustment of zooming is true. The thing is though, and you'll see this fairly quick, is that zooming with a lens on a dslr looks like S___, due to the cmos sensor. Rarely does a zoom on a photography lens look good, at all. This is one of the main reasons people keep saying to get a prime and use your manual zoom (feet).



Primes are great. However fast aperture zooms are more workable in terms of overall range.

I have 3 f2.8 zooms covering 11-200mm on APS-C. That would take a lot of primes. It also means I spend less time changing lenses and more time shooting (I work with a producer, thats the crew, pretty much run and gun, trying to shoot an interview with varying frame sizes would be very difficult without zooms)

Whilst I don't want to live zoom, I often want to change shot size without changing lenses. 

So don't write of zooms entirely. But if you are going to shoot with a zoom lens, make sure it's constant max aperture (on a 18-55 lit lens for example your shot is 3 times darker at f5.6 than at f3.5... ) and if you can afford it make sure that that max aperture is f2.8.

There are times when you won't want to add any more ISO. And as your shutter is best locked at 1/50th or 1/60th for regular recording... the extra aperture is invaluable.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 5, 2012)

@TRIPL3try


> paul13, you seem to know a lot about fluid heads. That's a whole new can of worms but I plan on getting one around the same time I get a new lens.
> 
> Do you have one you would recommend that would be compatible with a Glidetrack? I'm know we use the 701 or 501 at school. Theirs is in crappy shape, though.



Just as I've said. Get one with counterbalance at the very least. The 501 HDV. The MVH502 is a newer design with better fluid cartrdges, and is only a little more. It's a standard tripod 3/8th mount, so should fit any slider.

A good tripod should be in every kit. Rigs have their place, so do tripods. All the cool dudes with shooting on a rig at f1.4 don't realise that every other cool dude is shooting on a rig at f1.4. Sometime you need a focal length that is longer. Sometimes you have a longer record run time. Sometimes you need a fluid repeatable movement (see the sachtler ACE for steppable drag) sometime you shoot timelapse. Sometimes you shoot an interview.

Different hammers for different nuts. When I hear folk writing off tripods, I just think, 'fools'.

Rigs are not for everybody, and even for the folk who they are for, they are not for every occassion.


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 11, 2012)

adamfilip said:


> Good and inexpensive don't go together in photography
> its like saying.. cheap gas



Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, <$500UDS. And now, apparently, the new Canon 40mm, at ~$200. Both are very good, and reasonably inexpensive.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 11, 2012)

I picked up a 50 f/1.4 for $369. The color rendition outdoors shooting ISO 50-200 is just magical.


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 20, 2012)

Matthew19 said:


> isn't the canon 70-200 f/4 non IS like $500?



A little under $700USD, from what I can remember. I bought it a couple of years ago. Fantastic glass for the money, depending on what you need it for. I do mostly landscapes, so that IS or f/2.8 version of this same lens doesn't do me a lot of good. However, if you're shooting inside sporting events, or need to go wider than f/4 for some reason, it might not be the best choice. 

Also regarding OP: Do NOT get that Canon 75-300, the one with the silver ring you'd mentioned in the first post. That lens will do more harm than good in terms of holding you back as a photographer. The IQ is quite poor.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 21, 2012)

canon816 said:


> I didnt read the entire thread, so I don't know if this was already mentioned or not but Canon makes a 70-200 F4L lens for $700 brand new. You might find one second hand for your $500 budget range.
> 
> It does not have IS, but optically it is one of the sharpest lenses canon currently produces. I would not hesitate at all to get this lens. IS is great, but if you are going to shoot at at least 1/200 or faster at max focal length on this lens and develop steady handling you certainly don't need it.
> 
> Just my 2 cents worth....


I would agree with that.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jul 21, 2012)

The best advice I ever received from a Camera friend is to "use the equipment you have and learn how to use it well."

Buy the best equipment you can afford that best suits your needs and be happy with your decision. 

It's not the cheapest lens Canon makes nor is it the most expensive but one I would recommend without question is the EF 70-300 IS USM. It is easy to carry and has a great focal range. I have gotten thousands of beautifully sharp images from this lens on everything from my XTi to my 7D and my new 5D2.

The IS is well worth having as well as the focal range for the savings over an "L" lens.

This discussion is like an 18 year old buying an 8 passanger van because he hopes someday to get married and have a family. Down the road you can always upgrade your glass if needed. I have "L" lenses now but I still use my 70-300. It's a great lens and you won't be disappointed with it.

D


----------



## K-amps (Jul 21, 2012)

TRIPL3try said:


> I'm going to school for video, so keep that in mind. Sadly, I can only spend about $500 tops on a lens, since I spent the rest on camera gear. I wish I could get a 70-200mm :'(



Be enlightened... 

70-200 f4 is $567 on Canon's refurb lenses. Right up your alley.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 21, 2012)

@Richard8971


> It's not the cheapest lens Canon makes nor is it the most expensive but one I would recommend without question is the EF 70-300 IS USM. It is easy to carry and has a great focal range. I have gotten thousands of beautifully sharp images from this lens on everything from my XTi to my 7D and my new 5D2.



I had this lens a few years back and was very impressed with it, optically at least. I hated the extending zoom and rotating focus thread. In hindsight I wish I had just spent the extra 25% on the 70-200 f4 non-IS instead.

However, the lens is capable of excellent shots, but the 55-250 IS lens isn't far behind in any sense and significantly less pricey... provided again that the concessions to cost in the construction aren't too much of a barrier.

The variable max aperture, and overall slow aperture might just be a killer for video applications though... f2.8s. Primes over zooms if you can't run to f2.8 zooms.
The wild card may be a used sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG HSM....


----------



## archangelrichard (Jul 22, 2012)

you didn't mention price range

for around $300 you can find the 17 - 85, 28 - 135 (these are actually the same lens body with different glass; better build quality than the) or the 18 - 135 on craigslist

Here's the simple facts: The longer the zoom range the less sharp it will be at the ends - zooms are CONVENIENCE lenses, they have the make compromises to work so they use lots of pieces of glass (each of which lowers the sharpness of the final image) HOWEVER the longer zoom range lenses let you get "some picture" which is better than "no picture". These are "walking around" lenses for when you can't be prepared with the proper lens. There are many good quality 135 F 2.8 lenses with 4 pieces of glass (the Canon has 7 pieces of glass for 500 new on Amazon), in a zoom that will be $1250 for a Canon 70-200 F 2.8 with (wait for it ..... ) 23 pieces of glass to create that similar quality of focus

That is why people are suggesting primes - better image quality at a lower price ... BUT it depends on your usage as to whether this would work for you

should you be able to afford it, there are people making HD movies (for the theatre) with the Canon 5d and the 70 - 200 - so you can buy the lens now and upgrade the camera later (even find a used 5D Mk II which is what people have been using

go to http://blog.planet5d.com/ to see people doing videos on Canons (not just the 5D but mostly)


----------



## Videoshooter (Jul 23, 2012)

HeWhoShoots said:


> Anyway, tripods come in handy for plenty of stuff, but I never ever think about them first. I think they're a waste of money if you spend over a couple hundred bucks. The surest way to make sure that your footage looks exactly the same as your peers is to use a tripod. Tripods are stale. You're getting a rig. Use it every chance you get to add a human element to your shots.



You've obviously never shot wildlife or surfing with a 600mm lens on a 1.6x crop body. 

A good tripod is essential to film-making. It is a necessity for using a slider properly, and that is something that will let your footage stand apart from your peers.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jul 23, 2012)

@Videoshooter

it was the bit... 


> @HewhoShoots
> I think they're a waste of money if you spend over a couple hundred bucks.



..that got me. I would say the polar opposite is true. They ARE a waste of money if you spend less than at least a few hundred dollars. 

Anyway, my opinions on the matter are well versed by now, no point repeating.


----------

