View Full Version : 450d next step, lens or body
Duane Pipe
29-09-2010, 5:01pm
Gday. After reading Kiwis thread on best and worst lenses I am now convinced that the canon kit efs 18-55 lens is not that good, I have used it for the past 2 years and am still not 100% happy with its performance, the same goes with the efs 55-250.
So I am asking for advice on what would be the best lens to replace the 18-55 lens, I cannot afford the L-series so whats the next best choice in lenses.
I would love to up to the 7d but the budget cant stretch that far so I am after a replacement for the 18-55 that will also go well with the 7d in the future. Thanks in advance. Cheers Dave :beer_mug:
RaoulIsidro
29-09-2010, 5:11pm
Have a look at the Canon EOS EF 28-135mm IS USM lens brand new.
It will operate like 45-215mm (44.8-216mm) on your current camera body.
It is a full frame lens which you can use should you decide to go FF in the future.
It goes between f3.5 to f4.5 which is a nice range of opening.
It's a great value for money.
Duane Pipe
29-09-2010, 5:45pm
Thanks Raou. I will check it out tomorrow, I have a early start 3am so I'm off to bed. Thanks for the prompt reply and advice, much appreciated:beer_mug:
Get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Not only is f2.8 max apeture throughout the zoom range, it is also fairly cheap, very very sharp (a lot more so than the kit lens) and you will have no regrets :)
JM Tran
29-09-2010, 5:54pm
Have a look at the Canon EOS EF 28-135mm IS USM lens brand new.
It will operate like 45-215mm (44.8-216mm) on your current camera body.
It is a full frame lens which you can use should you decide to go FF in the future.
It goes between f3.5 to f4.5 which is a nice range of opening.
It's a great value for money.
I wouldnt recommend that lens at all. Its actually an f3.5 to 5.6 lens, not the 4.5. It is an old lens with the first generation IS - possessing only 2 stops of IS and more noisy than current IS lenses.
It is optically the same as the very average 17-85 for APSC sensor, hell put the 2 lenses together and they look the same due to the build and construction. It is ok on a crop camera, and meh on full frame, I used to own one.
Its not great value for money at all, your money is better spent elsewhere honestly.
Gremlin
29-09-2010, 6:00pm
just got a tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC, awesomely happy with it over kit lens!
just got a tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC, awesomely happy with it over kit lens!
Exactly! It really is a fantastic lens :) Further to what I said before: the title of this thread is next step, lens or body. Put it this way: what is the point of getting a new body with higher resolution, if you don't have a lens to exploit the extra pixels? If you body is outresolving your current lens, then your current lens will be even worse on a higher resolution body.
So my vote is definitely new lens (and get the Tamron too!)
RaoulIsidro
29-09-2010, 6:49pm
I wouldnt recommend that lens at all. Its actually an f3.5 to 5.6 lens, not the 4.5. It is an old lens with the first generation IS - possessing only 2 stops of IS and more noisy than current IS lenses.
It is optically the same as the very average 17-85 for APSC sensor, hell put the 2 lenses together and they look the same due to the build and construction. It is ok on a crop camera, and meh on full frame, I used to own one.
Its not great value for money at all, your money is better spent elsewhere honestly.
Yes, that's right, it is f3.5 to f5.6. (was thinking of the 28-105mm non IS)
Still on sale brand new despite being one of the first IS stables of long ago.
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canonlenses.htm#28-135
Gremlin
29-09-2010, 7:17pm
Ive also got a 450D as well, and with the new lens its kinda given it a "new lease of life" if i can use that expression.
Allan Ryan
29-09-2010, 7:30pm
have a look here for reviews
there are all levels of lenses here and it makes for interesting reading
Maybe the 17-55 Warning near the price of an L lens :) but you can see it compared to others.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Gday. After reading Kiwis thread on best and worst lenses I am now convinced that the canon kit efs 18-55 lens is not that good, I have used it for the past 2 years and am still not 100% happy with its performance, the same goes with the efs 55-250.
So I am asking for advice on what would be the best lens to replace the 18-55 lens, I cannot afford the L-series so whats the next best choice in lenses.
I would love to up to the 7d but the budget cant stretch that far so I am after a replacement for the 18-55 that will also go well with the 7d in the future. Thanks in advance. Cheers Dave :beer_mug:
Duane, before recommending any lens to you, what do you find that you use the 18-55mm mostly for?
I've had a look at the photos you have post on the forum, and you seem to use the wider end much less than the longer end. Is that about right?
etherial
29-09-2010, 7:58pm
have a look here for reviews
there are all levels of lenses here and it makes for interesting reading
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
I second this, great site with reliable reviews covering all levels of lenses and gear suitable for Canon.
My opinion FWIW, I had the exact kit you have. From reading all the reviews and making my upgrade decisions, I'm not sure you will notice that much difference stepping up to mid range lens. Anyway...
Ask yourself "what do I need"
Mary Anne
29-09-2010, 8:10pm
I have seen photos taken with L series lenses that don't look too good.
And I have seen photos taken with kits lenses that blow me away.
What does that tell you.. :D
I have seen photos taken with L series lenses that don't look too good.
And I have seen photos taken with kits lenses that blow me away.
What does that tell you.. :D
...that lenses don't make you a good photographer. However in the hands of somebody competent, better lenses give the photographer the control to create better images. True, it is no good giving a chunk of L glass to an amateur. Nor should somebody with no intent of learning the intricacies of photography go and purchase a Canon 5D.
Duane Pipe
30-09-2010, 7:53am
have a look here for reviews
there are all levels of lenses here and it makes for interesting reading
Maybe the 17-55 Warning near the price of an L lens :) but you can see it compared to others.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Way out of my budget Allan thanks any way:beer_mug:
Duane Pipe
30-09-2010, 8:05am
Have a look at thelens brand new.
It will operate like 45-215mm (44.8-216mm) on your current camera body.
It is a full frame lens which you can use should you decide to go FF in the future.
It goes between f3.5 to f4.5 which is a nice range of opening.
It's a great value for money.
I like this Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM $543.00 is that a full frame lens.
Dose Tamron make a full frame lens, Thanks Raou
Duane Pipe
30-09-2010, 8:12am
I second this, great site with reliable reviews covering all levels of lenses and gear suitable for Canon.
My opinion FWIW, I had the exact kit you have. From reading all the reviews and making my upgrade decisions, I'm not sure you will notice that much difference stepping up to mid range lens. Anyway...
Ask yourself "what do I need"
I have quickly read through that link
I cannot afford a camera up so i would like to try a better lens
A sacrifice of around $500 isnt so bad. Thanks etherial:beer_mug:
Duane Pipe
30-09-2010, 8:18am
Duane, before recommending any lens to you, what do you find that you use the 18-55mm mostly for?
I've had a look at the photos you have post on the forum, and you seem to use the wider end much less than the longer end. Is that about right?
Thanks Caring. Spot on
etherial
30-09-2010, 8:21am
Sorry I should have checked that link. I wasn't referring to just that review. Try http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ and have a look at all the different reviews and articles. There are a few lenses that might be of interest to you like the 15-85, the 17-85, the 18-135, the 18-200 etc It is a great site!
Duane Pipe
30-09-2010, 8:21am
just got a tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC, awesomely happy with it over kit lens!
I like the lens you have pointed out Gremlin
What do you think about this, Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD $349.00
Cheers Buddy :beer_mug:
RaoulIsidro
30-09-2010, 12:36pm
I like this Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM $543.00 is that a full frame lens.
Dose Tamron make a full frame lens, Thanks Raou
Any Canon Lens that is EF is for full frame use, but can also be mounted on cropped sensor bodies.
The EF-S lenses are for the smaller cropped sensors only.
Cropped sensor camera bodies like what you have will take ANY EF and EF-S lenses, but Full Frame camera bodies will only accept EF lenses on their mount.:)
Duane Pipe
30-09-2010, 2:58pm
Any Canon Lens that is EF is for full frame use, but can also be mounted on cropped sensor bodies.
The EF-S lenses are for the smaller cropped sensors only.
Cropped sensor camera bodies like what you have will take ANY EF and EF-S lenses, but Full Frame camera bodies will only accept EF lenses on their mount.:)
That's the answer I was looking for Raoul:wd: now i can do some serious shopping;)
Duane Pipe
30-09-2010, 6:34pm
I would like to thank everyone for their advice:beer_mug:
Darvidanoar
30-09-2010, 7:08pm
I have the Tamron 17-50mm and can vouch for it being a very nice lens. I too started with the Canon kit 18-55, and the Tamron was a great replacement for it. Well worth the money. (mine cost around $700 a few years ago, but I see they are much much cheaper now).
The focus motor is a little noisey and sometimes gets funny looks from other photographers, but the glass is what counts.
Duane Pipe
01-10-2010, 6:25am
I have the Tamron 17-50mm and can vouch for it being a very nice lens. I too started with the Canon kit 18-55, and the Tamron was a great replacement for it. Well worth the money. (mine cost around $700 a few years ago, but I see they are much much cheaper now).
The focus motor is a little noisey and sometimes gets funny looks from other photographers, but the glass is what counts.
I can put up with motor noise as long as it is worth it, a few peolpe have sugested that lens.
Thanks Dave:beer_mug:
Gremlin
01-10-2010, 11:58am
the noise doesnt really bother me, I kinda like it, but Im odd like that ;)
Entrapro
02-10-2010, 8:58pm
I must be getting old! I find that I'm valuing things like weight and the convenience of a long zoom range over all the other issues. I bought a Tamron 18-270 f3.5-6.3 and just correct for pin cushion and barrel distortion using the DXO Optics Pro software. I also find that this software does an amazing job on noise reduction so I can crank up the ISO to make up for the slowness of the lens and compensate for the extra noise in post-processing. I also find that taking raw and then generating some mild pseudo-HDR or fusion blending in Photomatix Pro does wonders for the impact of the photos. I submitted 6 photos in a club competition which was judged by a visiting judge and won three merits (the highest award) and three credits (I'm not bragging, btw). I bought the lens on the internet and am more than happy with the results coupled with my aging 400D. I wonder why I anguished for so long over the 24-70 plus 70-200 both f2.8. And yes, I'm sure the latter are superb lenses and I sound like a pleb but on A4 prints where the printer's resolution is the limiting factor or on the screen where the screen is the limiting factor or where you need to reduce the pixel count and the file size to billy-o, what difference does it make? This is called "leading with my chin" so all you pros can feel free to hit me. lol.
And therein lies the answer. If you're only doing A4 sized prints, OF COURSE the quality of the lens doesn't really matter. Gosh, I could probably stick a piece of cheese to the front of my camera and still get an ok print at A4 :p The reasons 'pros' use say a combo like a 24-70 plus 70-200 f2.8 is thus: Build quality, wide apeture, best image quality possible (for a zoom).
I've done 30x40 inch enlargements from a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens. With my 24-70 and 5D (mk1) I could probably better that a little more as well.
So really, I think it's a bit naive to suggest the 18-270 when the OP is after better quality images than their kit lens. The 18-270 is a nice range, but it will not be a significant upgrade
I must be getting old! I find that I'm valuing things like weight and the convenience of a long zoom range over all the other issues. I bought a Tamron 18-270 f3.5-6.3 and just correct for pin cushion and barrel distortion using the DXO Optics Pro software. I also find that this software does an amazing job on noise reduction so I can crank up the ISO to make up for the slowness of the lens and compensate for the extra noise in post-processing. I also find that taking raw and then generating some mild pseudo-HDR or fusion blending in Photomatix Pro does wonders for the impact of the photos. I submitted 6 photos in a club competition which was judged by a visiting judge and won three merits (the highest award) and three credits (I'm not bragging, btw). I bought the lens on the internet and am more than happy with the results coupled with my aging 400D. I wonder why I anguished for so long over the 24-70 plus 70-200 both f2.8. And yes, I'm sure the latter are superb lenses and I sound like a pleb but on A4 prints where the printer's resolution is the limiting factor or on the screen where the screen is the limiting factor or where you need to reduce the pixel count and the file size to billy-o, what difference does it make? This is called "leading with my chin" so all you pros can feel free to hit me. lol.
Duane Pipe
04-10-2010, 6:46am
I am going to go with the Tamron 17-50mm for the simple reason that I want my walk around every day pictures to be of better quality:)
grauniad
09-10-2010, 1:29pm
It seems you've made a decision and I'm too late, but you don't need to use a zoom lens. For less money, you could get several prime lenses that are of similar quality to the Tamron zoom you are considering. I have the very cheap 50mm f/1.8 II and it's great. I'm considering getting the 28mm f/2.8 which is supposedly also very good value for money.
Rodney
It seems you've made a decision and I'm too late, but you don't need to use a zoom lens. For less money, you could get several prime lenses that are of similar quality to the Tamron zoom you are considering. I have the very cheap 50mm f/1.8 II and it's great. I'm considering getting the 28mm f/2.8 which is supposedly also very good value for money.
Rodney
Biggest problem with prime lenses for crop sensor cameras is in the wide angle area. Wides need to be 15mm or 17mm on a crop sensor, where are the primes? Not to mention ultra wide....
What do you mean? There are wide primes for Canon. They make a 14mm f2.8L (albeit about 2,500). A 15mm f2.8 at about $850. And a 20mm f2.8 for about $600. No UWA's unfortunately for a crop biody, though (except for zooms)
Duane Pipe
12-10-2010, 7:16am
Gday Rod, yeah I will stick to the Tamron I dont think I like the idea of the fixed focussing of the prime lenses, unless you can convince me otherwise:D Thanks Rod
grauniad
12-10-2010, 10:47am
Primes vs zooms is really a separate discussion. But...Many of the great photographers of the past (and present?) only every used prime lenses, prime lenses are simpler so you get better value (image quality) for the same money, many teachers suggest that using prime lenses makes you a better photographer (forces you to consider your point of view more carefully, stops you being lazy, helps you imagine the shot in advance). I admit I use both zooms and primes, but I love my 50mm f/1.8 II (and 100mm f/2.8 macro). If you don't already have one, I recommend you buy the very cheap 50mm f/1.8 II or a wider angle prime and use it exclusively for a month and then tell us what you think.
Rodney
Instead of starting a new thread, I'm in a similar situation - would like a lens upgrade from my 18-55 EF-S IS kit lens on my 450D.
Is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF (such a mouthful) still a good upgrade to the kit lens for taking mainly walkaround pics - I note this thread is a 7 months old .. still valid ?
This review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx
) states the newer model lens (with the VC - vibration control - is NOT as good as the non VC version).
My main question is whether it's in anyway a step down that I'm going from the canon "IS" kit lens to a "non VC" Tamron lens, or is the Tamron that much better than the Canon kit lens that it should be a non-issue ?
In comparing with the canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, review does say the IS on the USM lens is a big advantage:
"The Canon's biggest advantage is the 3-stop image stabilizer that the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens lacks. If your subject is not moving (or you are), this is a really nice feature. The Canon also features fast, silent USM (Ultrasonic Motor) focusing with FTM focusing."
Help ?
stylo, I think you mean the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS, not 18-55. The only reason not to buy this lens is if your budget doesn't stretch to it.
stylo, I think you mean the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS, not 18-55. The only reason not to buy this lens is if your budget doesn't stretch to it.
yes i did, and i've changed the post to reflect that, thanks !
and you are right .. my budget does not quite stretch that far for the 17-55 IS USM. The review says the Tamron is 'ok' compared to the Canon for the price it is.
My concern is the lack of image stability ... and the fact that the review says the Image stability version of the tamron is not quite as good as its predecessor.
stylo, the Tamron ( non vc version ) has a very good reputation and it is still available new from retailers both on the 'net and off.
It would be my first recommendation for a lens in that focal length range when you want a fast aperture lens on a "budget" and the lack of IS / VC will only be a problem to my way of thinking in low light situations where you end up with to large an aperture opening that destroys the depth of field that you want or when you can't or don't want to push the ISO levels any higher to keep shutter speeds up.
With the very valid rule of keeping shutter speeds at at least as fast as the focal length being used you are looking at a range of 1/20 to 1/60 and they should be pretty achievable in most situations with that lens.
thanks Andrew. I will definitely consider the tamron and NOT in the VC (image stabiliser) version.
Bennymiata
26-05-2011, 10:31am
If not having IS in the lens isn't a deal breaker, could I suggest the Sigma 24-70 F2.8
I have one thta is used on a Pentax K-x, and it's an excellent lens.
Very sharp and no CA.
I am not yet confident with the idea of not having a non IS lens.
I am going to spend a few days on my kit lens with IS off and take pics in a few low light situations, and see if I can see much of a distinction in the photos that I will take with IS on.
confirmed .. took a few shots at home in low light and there is no doubt that i will be needing a lens with some sort of IS.
a lot of the tests done online with the tamron 17-50 non / VC were done ON a tripod so I'd say that with my style of shooting (mostly walkaround, non-tripod) it would not make sense for me to get a non IS lens
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.