First DSLR 60D .. lens suggestions needed.

[lobstaman]

After much deliberation I've decided to go for a 60D instead of the T3i. I also got a SANDISK 16GB EXTREME PRO SDHC UHS1 45MBS memory card however I'm stuck on a lens. I was looking at the 18-135 kit lens just to get by with till the new year when I have more money to spend but would get a "better" lens if the price was in range, right now I have approx $500-550US to spend on a lens .. anyone have suggestions? I need a lens with stabilization.

[Philminder]

What kinds of things do you shoot? Or are you looking for a general purpose zoom lens?

[lobstaman]

I'm going with the 18-135 kit lens for now. It will give me chance to learn the camera and see what kinda shots I take the most of and will be able to adjust my lens purchases to fit. I have a 50mm 1.8 I purchased from a friend. Plan to get a zoom and wide angle in the new year when I save some more cash.

[darthpaully]

From what I've heard those kit lenses are not bad at all- especailly for the low price tag. I am (hopefully) buying a T3i soon and have been doing my lens research for months and it looks like the kits are the way to go...

Don't be afraid to check out the aftermarket stuff too. There are some nice Sigma and Tamron lenses that are less expensive than the Canon models that some people swear by.

The B&H catalog has pretty much anything you could want- although the lates issue has almost no prices in it. Last years winter catalog has everything with the prices all jammed into a few pages- I could read those pages all day!

[Janke]

There are some nice Sigma and Tamron lenses

True. I have Tamron's 10-24 superwide, 18-270 (15x zoom!), and the constant f-stop 17-50/2.8.

All are excellent for video shooting, maybe not so supersharp for 18 MPix stills - but few low-cost lenses are...

[GeorgeMaier]

I love the 17-85 my 60D came with for general purpose stuff, nice wide to nice zoom. I also have a few others including 50mm 1.8 but for most things I just use the 17-85. I have had a bad experience with Tamron, but it was most likely because the lens I got was one of there lower end ones, unfortunately it gave me some shots which just don't hold up to anywhere near professional standards that I would expect. Which isn't what you want to see when you get back from a trip to Switzerland and find out all the pictures you took on it cannot be used.

[Janke]

don't hold up to anywhere near professional standards that I would expect.

What would you expect from a lens costing 1/10th of Canon's best L-lens?

[zagnut]

I would say 15-85IS, 18-200IS, 18-55IS & 55-250IS. All are good lenses. For versatility, the 18-200IS can't be beat. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 Janke mentioned would make a great lens for lower light situations. The newer version has VC, Tamrons version of IS. Some say the older non-VC is sharper, but for video work I doubt there is a visible difference in sharpness.

I've seen the 18-200IS sell for as little as $400 and regularly around $450 (brand new from kits because people don't want them). Third party lenses (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc) don't hold their value as well as comparable Nikon and Canon counterparts and usually sell for less.

I'd narrow it down to the Canon 18-200IS or Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. I actually plan on replacing my 18-55IS and 55-250IS, in the near future, with the 18-200IS and 200/2.8L with a 1.4x TC.

I didn't mention the Tamron 18-270 VC Janke recommended because I'm not impressed by the reviews I've read (compared to the Canon 18-200IS). Again though, this is talking about still photography. However, you really can't beat it's versatility for the money.

Remember that you have a crop sensor camera and will want to stick with the widest lens you can afford.

Head over to www.fredmiranda.com and check out the buy & sell section. It's also a great photography site full of information and friendly people that are willing to help. There's actually a Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC in excellent condition up for sale at $450.

[lobstaman]

Ok I have a tiny budget increase .. I have $750-800 to spend on a lens for general walk around and vacation use. Something like 15-85 or close would be nice. So for 800 what are your suggestions?

[zagnut]

Ok I have a tiny budget increase .. I have $750-800 to spend on a lens for general walk around and vacation use. Something like 15-85 or close would be nice. So for 800 what are your suggestions?

If you are against buying used, definitely the 15-85IS, no doubt about it. If you have nothing against used, I'd try and track down a Tamron 17-50/2.8VC and either new, or used, Tamron 70-300VC. Or if you want a 1 lens solution for a does-it-all, a used 18-200IS and maybe try and track down a used Sigma 30/1.4 for those really low light times.

If it were me, I'd opt for a new 15-85IS.

[lobstaman]

Seriously thinking on the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM. Just spoke with a wedding photographer in my area and he said he loves the Sigma and would buy another one again in a heartbeat. Price is within range for me and it's 2.8 which means I can zoom when recording videos without the flicker.

[zagnut]

...and it's 2.8 which means I can zoom when recording videos without the flicker.

Maybe there is something I don't know about when recording with a DSLR, but why would aperture cause the video to flicker when zooming?

I think that used Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC is still up for sale over at the fredmiranda forum. I hear more people praising the Tamron than the Sigma over there. I hardly ever hear anyone mention the Sigma.

Also, think about picking up the Canon 55-250IS. A new one can be bought from B&H for $200. Yes, $200. Won't be as good in low light, but it's a great lens for the money (I have one). Or for $409 (before $50 mail-in rebate), the Tamron 70-300 VC.

[Dr. Benway]

Maybe there is something I don't know about when recording with a DSLR, but why would aperture cause the video to flicker when zooming?

If it's a variable aperture lens the aperture will change as you zoom, therefore effecting exposure (darker/lighter).

[lobstaman]

I think that used Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC is still up for sale over at the fredmiranda forum. I hear more people praising the Tamron than the Sigma over there. I hardly ever hear anyone mention the Sigma.

Well I've done a lot of reading on the Tamron and Sigma and from what I've been reading the Sigma has a quieter (due to the HSM) and better Auto Focus. I'm thinking for a dslr newbie like myself this could be very important.

[Janke]

the aperture will change as you zoom

... and stepwise, to boot, so it does indeed flicker.

To be honest, I never use autofocus when shooting video - it's not really practical. I use the 10x viewfinder and focus manually.

[zagnut]

Well I've done a lot of reading on the Tamron and Sigma and from what I've been reading the Sigma has a quieter (due to the HSM) and better Auto Focus. I'm thinking for a dslr newbie like myself this could be very important.

The Sigma HSM may be quieter, and faster. I can't say, as I've never used it. But yes, a quiet focusing motor could be very important if auto-focusing video. As far as auto-focus is concerned, that can be a crap shoot. I've read many, many complaints about problems with Sigma's lenses focusing. This can be a HUGE problem with any third party lens though. You may end up having to buy, return and re-buy the same lens two or three times before getting one that focuses correctly. Some people get lucky and only have to buy one copy. This is something to keep in mind when considering any third party lens, whether it be Sigma or Tamron.

If your budget would allow you, buy both the Tamron AND Sigma, use them side-by-side and decide for yourself. That's what I would do, if finances permit.

Thanks for explaining the flickering I was curious about when using a variable aperture lens and zooming while shooting video, Doc and Janke.

I also second Janke's recommendation about focusing manually.

[cgbier]

Sigma's are well known for focus issues (a built in feature?). However, this can be solved by warranty. I liked shooting Sigmas. They produced a bit warmer colors than the Nikkors or Tokinas (Tokina was founded by disgruntled Nikon engineers) I normally used.

[zagnut]

I liked shooting Sigmas. They produced a bit warmer colors...

I've read this from many people. Definitely a good thing.

One thing I forgot to mention earlier tonight. Earlier this evening, I went to a play that my daughter was in. It was in an auditorium and the lighting changed from scene to scene. I had to use my 55-250IS for photo's. Well, as much as I like that lens for it's outstanding value as a first zoom telephoto, it fell on it's face pretty hard in the dim light. I was shooting at ISO 1600 with shutter speeds anywhere from 1/4 to 1/25 at f/5.6...handheld, with the EV all cranked all the way. I can usually get a few decent keepers between 1/15-1/30. However, the keeper rate tanked at anything lower than 1/15. Even with the ISO and EV cranked, the IS and focus struggled.

My point is, this just goes to show the importance of a semi-fast (f/2.8) or faster lens for these situations. This was the first time I've used my tele in poor lighting conditions like this. Because of this, my planned upgrades have changed and I'll be saving for the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM OS and a 1.4x TC.. Sure the Canon 70-200/2.8L MkII is a little better lens, but the cost is prohibitive at about twice as much as the Sigma.

Really wanted to go with the 18-200IS. Since a lot of that range will be covered by the Sigma, I'll be reconsidering the 15-85IS and looking at both the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC and the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS, as well as the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS. It will be a while before I save the money for any of these, so I have plenty of time to research the Tammy and Siggy's. I've already done my homework on the 15-85IS and Sig 70-200/2.8 and have been very pleased with all I've read about both of these. After being bitten by the lower light capabilities of a f/2.8 lens (thanks to my Yashinon 28/2.8), it's going to be a tough choice for what to choose for the wide end. I wish there was something like a 15-85/2.8.

[Dr. Benway]

...as much as I like that lens for it's outstanding value as a first zoom telephoto, it fell on it's face pretty hard in the dim light.

I never buy lenses below f2.8 and even consider f2.8 to be slow.

Check this out:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...03f32.jpg/sr=1

[zagnut]

I never buy lenses below f2.8 and even consider f2.8 to be slow.

Check this out:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...03f32.jpg/sr=1

I agree Doc. f/2.8 isn't really, technically considered a "low light" lens. Especially by photographers. Most will only consider f/1.8 and faster true low light lenses.

Someone has recently, or is going to, come out with a new f/.95 or f/.90 lens. I want to say it's Zeiss, but I'm not positive. There was a thread not long ago on the FredMiranda Alt lens board about it. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Couldn't find that particular thread. But the lens is a Cosina Voigtländer Nokton 25mm f/0.95 for the m4/3 camera's.There's also the Noktor 50mm f/0.95 for m4/3 cameras.

[lobstaman]

One thing I forgot to mention earlier tonight. Earlier this evening, I went to a play that my daughter was in. It was in an auditorium and the lighting changed from scene to scene. I had to use my 55-250IS for photo's. Well, as much as I like that lens for it's outstanding value as a first zoom telephoto, it fell on it's face pretty hard in the dim light. I was shooting at ISO 1600 with shutter speeds anywhere from 1/4 to 1/25 at f/5.6...handheld, with the EV all cranked all the way. I can usually get a few decent keepers between 1/15-1/30. However, the keeper rate tanked at anything lower than 1/15. Even with the ISO and EV cranked, the IS and focus struggled.

My point is, this just goes to show the importance of a semi-fast (f/2.8) or faster lens for these situations. This was the first time I've used my tele in poor lighting conditions like this. Because of this, my planned upgrades have changed and I'll be saving for the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM OS and a 1.4x TC.. Sure the Canon 70-200/2.8L MkII is a little better lens, but the cost is prohibitive at about twice as much as the Sigma.

Really wanted to go with the 18-200IS. Since a lot of that range will be covered by the Sigma, I'll be reconsidering the 15-85IS and looking at both the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC and the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS, as well as the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS. It will be a while before I save the money for any of these, so I have plenty of time to research the Tammy and Siggy's. I've already done my homework on the 15-85IS and Sig 70-200/2.8 and have been very pleased with all I've read about both of these. After being bitten by the lower light capabilities of a f/2.8 lens (thanks to my Yashinon 28/2.8), it's going to be a tough choice for what to choose for the wide end. I wish there was something like a 15-85/2.8.

How does that 55-250IS do in outdoor situations? I'm a lobster fisherman and would like to take my 60D with me to take some snaps of other fishing vessels but don't want to take a 1000 dollar zoom lens out there since the pics are just used on the web.

[Janke]

If your exposure times can be kept around the mm-length of the lens* (or its zoom setting), you should be pretty safe in assuming you'll get at least some good shots, especially with stabilization.

* Lens set to 55 mm: 1/60 exposure, lens set to 250mm: 1/250 exposure

[Bif]

How does that 55-250IS do in outdoor situations? I'm a lobster fisherman and would like to take my 60D with me to take some snaps of other fishing vessels but don't want to take a 1000 dollar zoom lens out there since the pics are just used on the web.

It does well for me whenever I need that kind of "reach", but what you really need for use on a fishing vessel is a 7D with one of the EF 70-200mm lenses fitted with a UV filter for the "weather sealing" features of body and lens. I chose the 70-200 f4L for the lower price, no IS but it works for me.

Still the 55-250 is an excellent lens for the price.

Bruce Foreman

[liverpool 1]

Im with Janke and Zagnut, i have the 17-50 tamron with vc, it is excellent, never of my 60d, until lower light when i switch to th esigma 30mm 1.4, in church i have now the 85mm canon 1.8 superb. saving for a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 then im covered.

[lobstaman]

It does well for me whenever I need that kind of "reach", but what you really need for use on a fishing vessel is a 7D with one of the EF 70-200mm lenses fitted with a UV filter for the "weather sealing" features of body and lens. I chose the 70-200 f4L for the lower price, no IS but it works for me.

Still the 55-250 is an excellent lens for the price.

Bruce Foreman

I'm not worried about the weather sealing part because there wont be any water or heavy moisture at the times I use it.