Picking a first lens

[Jeremy Z]

Paris, for the telephoto zoom on a Canon, DO spend the extra on the image stabilizer. It will make the lens ever so much more capable when zoomed in. You'll be able to hand-hold it steady enough at least two stops slower shutter speeds than on a non-stabilized lens. As far as camera shake is concerned, it is like upgrading your f/5.6 lens to an f/2.8 lens.

This is the lens you should go for, in my opinion:
Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II

It will give you the equivalent of a 375mm telephoto, if my math is right, and it is stabilized.

Then, either this or the Sigma prime lens:
Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : EF 50mm f/1.8 II

That can wait though, as you won't have a use for that in the outdoors.

 

[belial]

Read the photozone reviews of the 55-250. Like your kit lens it got rage reviews for a consumer lens

 

[Tiberius47]

Hello!

Hello!

Im new here and fairly new to photography too. Im somewhat young (16) and have started competing in some photo events for my high school and got a bit into it! I have a canon 600d (t3i) and the standard kit lens. I have pieced together a portofolio and have taken an array of lovely pictures, however I desire to broaden my horizons and the different things i can do with photogrpahy. I have decided to get my first (real) lens! I want something a little more quality and a couple more options. Working on a 600d i have a APS-C crop sensor so i have been taking that into consideration. I have done a few weeks of research and earning money. I want a lens with a larger zoom range, but not with terrible quality. I also wanted a bit more of a quality image lens, so i decided i want to spend a decent amount of money on it but i also dont want to throw in a fortune(not that i can). So i decided to choose a tamron lens. The two i have narrowed down to are the Tamorn 28mm-75mm f/2.8 and the Tamron 18mm-270mm f/3.5-6.3. I have researched the crap out of both these lenses and i was hoping you guys could help me, a beginner, sum it all up.

Very wise. Upgrading your lens first is the best way to get better photos.

I lean twoards the 28-75 because Ive learned the smaller zoom length gives the picture a better quality. Also the smaller appeture is HUGE in my opinion. I really enjoy a nice bokah in the backround. another great thing about the appeture is that its constant through out the entire zoom range so i can use the f/2.8 at 28 all the way to 75 which is very appealing. Esspecially because i also enjoy filming. Ive also heard its a faster lens, which i really desire. I really want a fast lens. I heard it has very little, if any, chromatic abberation and vinnietting. Ive also picked up it works better on crop sensors than full frame(although not made for it). And lastly its about $100 cheaper. Only problem is that i think that the zoom length is just not enough. I want to be able to get really close to my subjects. At lesat 140mm or so. but 75mm is just way too short

When I upgraded my standard kit lens, I went for the Tammy 17-50mm f2.8. The constant wide aperture is a big plus.

On the other hand i love the 18-270. The zoom range is so much better and offers so much more that that feature in itself makes me crave it. the sample picture ive seen of upclose wildlife(my favorite to photograph) among other asspects of photography make me go crazy! The bad thing about it is that is a bit more expensive, I heard it has small chromatic abberation and vinnieting, though only at the extremes of the zoom(18 and 270), and the appeture is larger. The thing about the 270 is that it is made specifically for crop sensor camera and everywhere i look i only get positive feedback. They say its a great "all in one" lens that you wont have to take off your camera. I both like that statement and dislike it. I like it because i wont be able to afford a million lenses and ill probably only have a zoom lens and a prime lens, for portraits(canon 50mm 1.4 or something). I dislike it because there is no such thing as the perfect lens. And therefore the image quality wont be as good. However you can fix that in photo shop.

Not really. You can't get detail that isn't there. If the lens doesn't put the image data on the sensor, all the photoshop in the world won't get it back.

And the longer zoom range means that the lens will have to compromise more.

Anyways i really do apologize for the long paragraphs, I am just really at a loss for this lens! And i do take it as a large ordeal because i probably wont be getting another for a while or who knows. Anyways thanks for any feedback!

-Paris

If it was me, I;d go for the f2.8 lens.

 

[Joey_Ricard]

As mentioned by the other person

Canon Digital 17-50 F2.8 TAMRON ASPHERICAL DI II SP INTERNAL FOCUS LD XR (A16) (67)(APS-C) WITH HO DIGITAL SLR ZOOM SUPER WIDE ANGLE LENS - KEH.com


I can vouch for this lens - I use it frequently on my crop bodies and full frames right along with my "L" glass, I do not hesitate to use it for my professional work as well as casual shooting.

 

[CreativeOrgin]

Most of the shooting i do revolves around the 35mm-150mm range. give or take a little bit. Im lucky enough to have to opportunity to use some great lenses though. The only friend i have that is into photography happens to have a dad who is a professional photographer. And it so happpens he trusts us! So when we go shoot he lends us his canon 24-105 L series and 100-400 tele zoom and 100mm 2.8 macro L series. So I gained some idea of what id prefer. I like taking shots around the 100-150ish range when im outdoors, but i also enjoy the 20-80 range - which is my normal kinda of preference.

Its difficult because i do want something that can get a decent amount of bokkah. thats fast but also a good range. But im not going to get that. the 50mm 1.8 is a must have and is definatly next, but i want to get a real zoom lens first. The thing i really crave though is a lens i can let sit on my camera and one i can really get used to and love. One that has quality though. I know the canon 55-250 is all plastic with a plastic mount and no USM. I want something a bit higher quality.

I went into local cmaera store and the guy was kinda an ass. Like he knew more than anyone. He did point out a few things though. First he said that the 18-270 is as sharp as any lens and the only ill be sacraficing is the speed. I do want something with a low appeture but thats just not something im going to get on a super zoom. The most ideal choice is to get sepreate lenses but thats when the budget issue comes in.

I looked into the 28-75 and the sigma 17-70. now the sigma is something that really nice and makes me smile. Its 2.8-4. so not super fast but its definatly faster. It covers 15mm more than the kit lens im using now. But i feel that that might not be enough. The 28-75 by tamron is made for a full frame. That means that when its on my camera itll be more of a 40-110ish type. Which is perfect for me on the tele end i believe but it falls short on the wide end. That would mean id probably keep my kit lens for those wide shots. That mm is quite awkward but it definatly works. and whats even more beautiful is that it has constant 2.8.

The guy in the store did recommend the 17-50 just like everyone else. The only thing, again, is that it just doesnt cover my range of shots.

I appreciate the help guys. It just looks as though now its really up for me to make my choice. I rulled out the 55-250 for being a bit too cheap and not having a USM and being all plastic, though i dont doubt the image quality. The 17-50 is beautiful but doesnt cover my range. And again i come full circle back to the 18-270 or the 28-75 (44.8-120). I found the 28-75 used for $300 in my town on craigslist. When its normally $440. And the 18-270 goes for around $540.

In the end im sure ill be happy. Thanks
-paris

 

[CreativeOrgin]

Oh and also the sigma 17-70 2.8-4f. Which is great but im not sure if it extends far enough. might have to go for the canon 75-300 as well! which might be a good choice...