Next Camera Lens

Forums › Digital Imaging › Next Camera Lens

Krishant007

1403 posts

Uber Geek

#132238 14-Oct-2013 16:07

Hi all

I am looking to get a new camera lens for my Canon 550D before moving up and getting a new camera body. I thought I will get a new lens to get used to that lens and improve photography before investing in bodies.

So for the time being, I have the twin lens kit that everyone gets with their cameras and the nifty fifty (50mm prime).

I was thinking of two options:

Canon 24-105 F4.0

OR

a new 17-50mm F2.8 (Sigma or Tamron) lens to replace the kit lens.

I mostly do landscape and abstract photography (trying to get into sports and wildlife as well - but zoom lens is way out of the budget for the time being)

I can extend my budget to 1k, but would prefer to stick closer to the 500 dollar mark.

Can anyone recommend me a good next lens to buy.

Thanks!

1 | 2

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#914885 14-Oct-2013 16:11

What do you want a new lens to achieve or do for your photography?

If you have an 18-55 and 55-200 then your range is pretty good, and the quality is great for the price. The quality of the 17-50 or 24-105 will be a little better, but honestly you'd be looking quite hard to notice. It will be more flare resistant, maybe slightly better color and detail, but you'd be at 100% to notice it. You'd be better off investing in good lighting for abstract work, or training to help the most important equipment which is inside your head. Despite what fanboys say L lenses won't really make you say 'wow', plus F4 is a reasonably slow lens.

For landscapes I suggest a 10-22 lens, or similar, though be careful if you plan to change to full frame later.

Krishant007

1403 posts

Uber Geek

#914890 14-Oct-2013 16:17

Thought I will get an "everyday" lens. Something that I can replace my current 17-55mm with. So thought either a faster 17-55 or the 24-105 (since that is the standard kit lens for full framed bodies).

aros71

122 posts

Master Geek

#914892 14-Oct-2013 16:18

The 17-50 will be a better walk-around lens on your 550D, no doubts there.

The problem (for Canon users) is that Tamron lenses zoom "backwards" (ie the same way Nikon lenses do)

The 24-105 will be less useful (at the wide end) on your 550D, but it will give you compatibility with full-frame cameras, if your upgrade path is eventually heading in that direction.

also the Tamron is f/2.8 whereas the Canon is f/4. Lower is better.

For my money I'd get the Tamron.

Good luck

The Ambulatory Photographist

Krishant007

1403 posts

Uber Geek

#914896 14-Oct-2013 16:22

aros71: The 17-50 will be a better walk-around lens on your 550D, no doubts there.

The problem (for Canon users) is that Tamron lenses zoom "backwards" (ie the same way Nikon lenses do)

The 24-105 will be less useful (at the wide end) on your 550D, but it will give you compatibility with full-frame cameras, if your upgrade path is eventually heading in that direction.

also the Tamron is f/2.8 whereas the Canon is f/4. Lower is better.

For my money I'd get the Tamron.

Good luck

The Ambulatory Photographist

Thanks! One more question. I was considering between the Tamron and the Sigma. Any personal experiences with either/or, or any general comments. Here are the two that i was looking at:

Tamron

Sigma

The reason I am leaning away from the 24-105 is that is was released in 2005 and I have a feeling they will be updating it soon (next couple of years).

Thanks once more.

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#914903 14-Oct-2013 16:28

I expect you have an 18-55 F 3.5 - 5.6. The 17-55 F2.8 is a nice lens, though don't drop it, it breaks.

24mm isn't wide at all on a crop body, it'll be no good for landscapes, and it's also not much good in the dark - focus speed is slow.

It sounds to me like you just want a new toy, with no really good reason for it. F2.8 is two stops faster, which is nice to have, but not essential for most people. Getting a new toy's fine, but don't try to convince yourself it will help you all that much unless you need those capabilities.

There'll always be people around to help you spend your money. Suggest you think hard about what you really need before you spend your hard earned money.

aros71

122 posts

Master Geek

#914906 14-Oct-2013 16:30

Krishant007: Thanks! One more question. I was considering between the Tamron and the Sigma. Any personal experiences with either/or, or any general comments. Here are the two that i was looking at:

Tamron

Sigma

The reason I am leaning away from the 24-105 is that is was released in 2005 and I have a feeling they will be updating it soon (next couple of years).

Thanks once more.

I've used a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 in the past and I loved it. Very nice lens. Mine was the non-VC one though http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon

The Sigma I have no experience of. The review of that is here: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os

Word of advice I: Reviews on the internet are your friend, particularly Photozone reviews
Word of advice II: Treat the reviews on the-digital-picture-com with a grain of salt, that guy's a snob and hates anything that's not pro-spec
Word of advice III: Ignore ANYTHING Ken Rockwell says.

The Ambulatory Photographist

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#914910 14-Oct-2013 16:36

I've owned a number of Tamron and Sigma lenses, but these days I only use OEM lenses - Canon lenses on Canon cameras, Nikon lenses on Nikon bodies. They just work better, which is important for me as I get one chance to take most of my photos.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Krishant007

1403 posts

Uber Geek

#914916 14-Oct-2013 16:42

timmmay: I expect you have an 18-55 F 3.5 - 5.6. The 17-55 F2.8 is a nice lens, though don't drop it, it breaks.

Yup, thats the one I have got.

24mm isn't wide at all on a crop body, it'll be no good for landscapes, and it's also not much good in the dark - focus speed is slow.

Yup, thats the reason I dont want to get this just not either..dont have a full framed camera and it wont be wide angle on my 550D.

It sounds to me like you just want a new toy, with no really good reason for it. F2.8 is two stops faster, which is nice to have, but not essential for most people. Getting a new toy's fine, but don't try to convince yourself it will help you all that much unless you need those capabilities.

There'll always be people around to help you spend your money. Suggest you think hard about what you really need before you spend your hard earned money.

Actually I do have some plans for using the new lens, wont be just another new toy. It actually will be a replacement lens for my 18-55 F3.5-5.6 which I think I have learnt to use well. I actually do want to get a faster lens for those low light situations that one does come across now and then (eg Moon shots etc). There are actually times when I wish my lens was a bit faster but it cannot take quick shots all the time (action shots or when with people/parties) and you need that quick click.

Krishant007

1403 posts

Uber Geek

#914922 14-Oct-2013 16:46

aros71:

I've used a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 in the past and I loved it. Very nice lens. Mine was the non-VC one though http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon

The Sigma I have no experience of. The review of that is here: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os

Word of advice I: Reviews on the internet are your friend, particularly Photozone reviews
Word of advice II: Treat the reviews on the-digital-picture-com with a grain of salt, that guy's a snob and hates anything that's not pro-spec
Word of advice III: Ignore ANYTHING Ken Rockwell says.

The Ambulatory Photographist

Cool thanks. Yup I did have a read of that review as well as numerous Amazon user reviews as well just to get a feel of what people think. I do try to take all reviews lightly. I was hoping DPreview have something on these lenses but they didnt.

aros71

122 posts

Master Geek

#914927 14-Oct-2013 16:50

Krishant007: Cool thanks. Yup I did have a read of that review as well as numerous Amazon user reviews as well just to get a feel of what people think. I do try to take all reviews lightly. I was hoping DPreview have something on these lenses but they didnt.

Treat community/user reviews with a pinch of salt. If someone got a bad example they'll rant off that it's the worst piece of cr*p they ever saw. Likewise if they work for the manufacturer or distributor they'll sign up with any number of fake usernames and post glowing reviews.

dpreview is OK, but for my money, when I want to get some impartial info on a lens I'm considering, I find photozone reviews are a stand-out.

The Ambulatory Photographist

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#914949 14-Oct-2013 17:58

What are you trying to achieve?
Maybe then we can help

From your post the 24-105 will do nothing for you

The other lenses won't be much improvement.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#914950 14-Oct-2013 18:01

For big improvement you need like a 16-35mm L lens for landscape or a 70-200mm L something depending on your budget for zoom

If you still want to get those you mentioned it's up to you

Oblivian

7297 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#915014 14-Oct-2013 20:16

Keep in mind the moon = reflects light from the sun to appear lit.. Ala, its the perfect natural object, A faster lens wont help you any more than a kit one. Often you have to go 250-300/sec @ F5+ or you will simply blow it out and see no detail at all.

Stars however, another story. I recently got a Tokina 11-16 (16-35 on crop) F2.8 and its pretty cool. But as others say, its more a toy than any real use. Wide for star trails and aurora. Also good for my late night alter ego shooting bands on stage in a dingy lit area. But if you use it for landscapes and the likes you can often get blurred edges due to the way the wide angles work or distortion.

TinyTim

1042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#915214 15-Oct-2013 08:58

I use a 24-105L as my main lens on a crop body. As timmmay and others point out, it is a basically a telephoto lens; my next purchase will be something a little wider. It is also quite a heavy lens for a walkaround.

The big advantage of the 24-105 is although it's slow, the quality is good right down to f/4. You won't get that on cheaper lens - they work best in their 'sweet spot'. In fact, that would be my advice: if you're not sure what lens to get, keep using your current lenses until you find which boundaries you're pushing (e.g. you're frequently getting low picture quality because you're taking a lot of photos at wide aperture, or you keep wishing you could zoom out more, or focus closer, etc...) and that will tell you which new lens to buy.

Jaxson

8042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#915224 15-Oct-2013 09:16

timmmay: What do you want a new lens to achieve or do for your photography?

Honestly agree with Timmmays comments to you throughout this thread. You're looking at lenses that are slightly better than what you already have, and which fundamentally cover 'zoom' ranges you already have.

If you were presenting with "I can't get enough light in darker areas, and I'm not allowed to use a flash" etc then there would be an instant need for a wider aperture equivalent lens. It's your money, but we're also trying to help :-)

1 | 2