Am I making the right choice?

[elizpage]

I have approximately $1.5k to spend on lens equipment for my Canon 60D. I want to get some really versatile lenses to use at concerts among other things. I'm looking for the most versatility first with a capacity for low aperture. I don't wanna to be confined!

These are my options:

Canon 85mm f/1.8 $420
Canon 35mm f/2 $600
Canon 40mm f/2.8 $200
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 $1,300
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 $300
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 $500
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM $900


I'm leaning towards the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 because it seems like the 17-55mm f/2.8 would be a good walk around lens, whereas the 85mm f/1.8 could get some killer close-ups. Then I could technically buy the 40mm f/2.8 as well, since I'd be under my budget, just to test it out, since it's tiny and cheap.

What do you guys think? Am I making the right decisions?

I really need something versatile and the 17-55mm range is what I usually shoot in.

I already own a 50mm f/1.4 [ a favorite of many, including me] and a 24mm f/2.8 which I also love.

 

[Ido]

For concerts, I think a 70-200mm f/2.8 or Sigma's 50-150mm f/2.8 would be good choices, though it depends on the spot you're shooting from.

 

[Usul]

Since you have 50 mm I see no reason to buy 85mm and 40 mm. Personaly I prefer 85 mm for portraits even on crop-sensor DSLR but 50 mm is long enough too. 17-55 is the best lens if you looking for versatility I have Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and it's on my camera 90% of time but as you're going to shoot concerts something like 70-200 f2.8 would be more usefull.

 

[gsgary]

I used to shoot concerts with a 300f2.8L

 

[iolair]

The 17-55mm f/2.8 is an amazing lens; used it for a wedding and got clear shots in every situation; great colour rendition, very effective stabiliser.

As above, I agree that the 40mm is somewhat pointless when you already have the 50mm f/1.4

For ultrawide, it's worth considering Canon's new(ish) 11-18mm; looks like great value.

What kind of concerts? (i.e. ... how far are you likely to be from the action). The 85mm f/1.8 is a really nice choice, but may not always be long enough.

 

[goooner]

I've been looking at the Sigma 17-70/ 2.8 recently. I think it would be another lens you could add to your list. If you plan to go full frame sometime in the future you might have to start looking at EF lenses.

 

[Ido]

I've been looking at the Sigma 17-70/ 2.8 recently. I think it would be another lens you could add to your list. If you plan to go full frame sometime in the future you might have to start looking at EF lenses.

Sigma doesn't make a 17–70mm f/2.8. There is a 17–50mm f/2.8, and a couple of 17–70mm f/2.8–4 lenses, meaning that by the time you reach the 70mm end of the zoom range, you can't open up any further than f/4.

 

[greybeard]

I have approximately $1.5k to spend on lens equipment for my Canon 60D. I want to get some really versatile lenses to use at concerts among other things. I'm looking for the most versatility first with a capacity for low aperture. I don't wanna to be confined!

These are my options:

Canon 85mm f/1.8 $420
Canon 35mm f/2 $600
Canon 40mm f/2.8 $200
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 $1,300
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 $300
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 $500
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM $900


I'm leaning towards the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 because it seems like the 17-55mm f/2.8 would be a good walk around lens, whereas the 85mm f/1.8 could get some killer close-ups. Then I could technically buy the 40mm f/2.8 as well, since I'd be under my budget, just to test it out, since it's tiny and cheap.

What do you guys think? Am I making the right decisions?

I really need something versatile and the 17-55mm range is what I usually shoot in.

I already own a 50mm f/1.4 [ a favorite of many, including me] and a 24mm f/2.8 which I also love.

What you have listed is in the wide to normal range and nothing in the tele range. If what you really need is like a 17-55mm then go with the Canon. I'd look for a good used one because when you buy good used Canon you can turn around in a year or 2 and get all of your money back.
CANON 17-55MM F 2.8 IS USM EF-S MOUNT LENS FOR APS-C SENSOR DSLRS 77 - KEH Camera

 

[TCampbell]

At concerts I use my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and my 135mm f/2L.

A 70-200mm f/2.8 would be very versatile. Canon's will be above the $1500 budget, but there are some good 3rd party options.

The 17-55mm f/2.8, while attractive, is going to require that you be somewhat close to get good shots.

Here's a sample using the 70-200 (at 200mm) in low light

 

[Gary A.]

If you're shooting clubs ... you'll need very fast lenses. If your shooting concerts/performances/larger venues you'll do quite well with f/2.8. The longer the better for those tight shots.

200mm (APS-C)

200mm (APS-C)

200mm (APS-C)

200mm (FF)

200mm (APS_C)

200mm (FF)

 

[AKUK]

I too would suggest you look at a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, preferably with image stabilization, as few lenses will offer greater versatility. If you're in a pit chances are you aren't going to have that much room to move and if shooting in a club venue, where you can move about, the ability to zoom in is going to be far quicker than trying to rush across a room to frame a shot with an 85mm prime.

For the money you have available, you will be able to pick up the Sigma or Tamron offerings. Out of the two, I would go with the latter. If you wanted to save a few hundred bucks you could pick up a used copy and put the remaining funds towards another lens.

 

[CanonFob]

If you are looking for a wide angle.....Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is an incredible lens. I own it and love it! Very well made.

Amazon.com Tokina 11-16mm f 2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II Digital Zoom Lens for Canon EOS Cameras Camera Lenses Camera Photo

 

[TheFantasticG]

What's the "among other things" part?

I was thinking 11-16 and 17-55, but 70-200 seems better for concerts... So what's the other uses you intend?


Sent from my iPhone using Telekenisisisisis