What lens would you get?

Senor Hound · Jun 6, 2008

So, someone gave me two Canon lenses. One of them isn't the best, as its a 35-80mm kit lens (still worth about $40). But the other one, a 100-300 ultrasonic (with a metal mount ring... score) sells for about $150 on eBay! I don't know why it was given to me, but it was and I'm happy!

So... I have an issue. 35mm isn't really very wide on a digital body (I'm gonna buy a DSLR soon), so I'll probably need a new zoom lens to replace the 35-80. So what would you get? I was looking at a 28-80, cause they're cheap (and I'm really really poor), but I didn't know if its worth twice the money to get a 28-105. Is that 25mm really worth double the cost? I know the 80-100 is a sweet spot (128-160 on a digital) most people like to have, but for the cash-strapped individual, is it a must have?

Anyway, I'm just curious. I've pretty much ruled out the 18-55 lens because having no lens between 55mm and 100mm would SUCK. But pretty much any idea that doesn't cost an arm and a leg is open to me!

Steph · Jun 6, 2008

Senor Hound said:
Anyway, I'm just curious. I've pretty much ruled out the 18-55 lens because having no lens between 55mm and 100mm would SUCK.

That is a non-issue! Photographers with prime lenses have massive gaps in their focal ranges and can still take good pictures. The gap between 55 and 100mm is not that big and you can zoom with your feet...

Steph · Jun 6, 2008

Also, I think a lens starting at 18mm on a camera with a APS-sized sensor is much more useful than one starting at 28mm.

Alfred D. · Jun 6, 2008

Imo, you're out of luck then, Senor, because I don't think it's possible to acquire quality glass for peanuts. You generally get what you pay for.

Having said that, I think you make a mistake excluding the 18-55. Because with the crop factor that one will give you 29 to 85mm (in 35mm film equivalent), which is considered 'medium wide angle to short tele'. A very useful range!
OTOH, a 28-80 will work out to 43 to 105mm (in 35mm film equivalent), and the 28-105 to 43 to 165mm (in 35mm film equivalent). Neither has a very useful wide angle!

What use is it if you can afford something that doesn't solve your problem?

keith204 · Jun 6, 2008

Steph said:
Also, I think a lens starting at 18mm on a camera with a APS-sized sensor is much more useful than one starting at 28mm.

The 18-55 is an excellent piece of plexiglass. It gets ignored because of the cheap build, but for the money it's really a great starter lens. You can pick one up used for $60-70...or get it with the XT or XTi kit.

18 is a much more usable wide end, as Steph mentioned.

Village Idiot · Jun 6, 2008

$600 - 70-200 f/4L

Even less used. It's probably one of the best lenses you can buy for well under $1000.

Or just go all out and get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. It's only $1600ish new.

Dao · Jun 6, 2008

Although the 18-55mm kit lens is not at good as others, but still very useful. I will keep using it until I replace it with a better optical quality one.

Please note that when people said it is not good. They are comparing it with the good quality lenses. Is Honda Civic good? I say yes. But when you talked to someone only drive luxury cars, they may said that is a junkie car.

Since you have the longer range one, I will agree with others that picking up a 18-55mm (used around $60) is a pretty good choice. And always remember the famous 50mm f1.8 is also pretty decent for the optical quality (esp for the price). And I am sure you know about it. How could a person not knowing about that after visiting TPF for few months, right?

And yes, I can tell, by looking at the un-edit photos, that if the photo was taken by my 18-55mm or 50mm f1.8. The one that took with the 50mm prime is much better.

plentygood · Jun 6, 2008

I've heard reviews touting the new kit lens (18-55 IS) as being loads better than the older kit lens (18-55 non-IS) as far as sharpness. It only goes for $170, so if you can afford it, I'd go for that.

Here's a comparison:
http://www.photographybay.com/2007/12/11/canon-18-55mm-is-lens-compared-to-18-55mm-kit-lens/

Senor Hound · Jun 7, 2008

plentygood said:
I've heard reviews touting the new kit lens (18-55 IS) as being loads better than the older kit lens (18-55 non-IS) as far as sharpness. It only goes for $170, so if you can afford it, I'd go for that.

Here's a comparison:
http://www.photographybay.com/2007/12/11/canon-18-55mm-is-lens-compared-to-18-55mm-kit-lens/

Not yet. But soon I think. Right now I'm really poor. I'm scrapping together really cheap DSLR components because even a crappy DSLR is tons better than my point and shoot. The idea now is to spend as absolute little money as possible. Until a graduate, then I can start upgrading and modifying and whatnot.

I might go with an 18-55 since I HAVE the 35-80. DUH! Or I could get rid of the 35-80, and get a 28-90. I saw them and they're pretty cool. Most of the time that I take shots with my camera, I find myself zooming in to about 50mm equivalent. So wide angles aren't used much for me...but that may change as I develop a style, you know? Right now, wildlife is what's cool, but it may change to landscape photography (though I doubt it... I like things that are alive)

patrickt · Jun 7, 2008

I bought most of my lenses the first year I had my DSLR. They're all good lenses and some rarely leave their drawer. The reason is that although they are fine lenses they don't fit what I shoot. You really need to consider how you will be using your camera. If your interest is general strolling around taking photos a mid-range zoom is great. One of my really common ones is a 24-90mm zoom. A friend loves taking pictures of birds. He's usually up around 300mm. Another friend likes portraints and he's in the 50-70mm range. Another friend likes landscapes and he goes wide, of course.

Having every mm covered isn't necessary. I certainly won't buy a 500mm lens because I might, someday, want a picture at that range. I probably wouldn't have the lens with me anyway.

Most of my shots are strolling. I'll leave home with either the 24-90 or a 50-200 on the camera depending on what I expect to encounter. If I'm going to a large archeological site, I'll have my 12-24. At dusk, I put a 35mm f/2 on the camera to catch more light. If I'm shooting newborn pictures I'll have my 50mm f/1.7 so I don't have to use a flash. It's good for mom and baby, too. If I'm doing portraits of an individual I'll be more likely to use my 77mm.

If you like photos of birds, field sports, or car races, you'll want some telephotos.