Help Recommend me some lenses photonerds!

[Wazzerphuk]

Right, I'm after a couple of lenses really, a wide angle and a zoom. Aren't digital lengths different to analogue ones? So an analogue 28mm would be... ?

Both will be for my EOS300D and should be pretty good, but erring on the side of budget.

I have a decent 50mm by Canon which is pretty aces, can't recall the model offhand but was about £80 a few years back.

If a mod feels this is more appropriate in the techy forum, feel free to move it - just thought it'd be seen by more here that might be able to help.

Cheers!

 

[Ch3tan]

IIRc with the sensor size on the 300d, you need to multiply the focal length by 1.5.

So 28 would be 42.

 

[old.user4556]

Wazz you gay, here's my thoughts:

First, you say you want two lenses - 1) wide angle and 2) zoom. I don't mean to be pedantic, but wide angles can also be zooms, so I presume you mean 1) wide angle and 2) telephoto zoom?

Regarding the lengths, I believe you are referring to the crop factor of the APS-C format of the 300D's sensor which basically multiplies the focal length by 1.6 on most of Canon's APS-C lineup.

As an example:

Canon 300D with Canon f/4 70-200mm L effectively gives you a focal length of 112-320mm. As you rightly say, on old 35mm film cameras and indeed on Canon's full frame sensors (Canon 1DS Mk3, 5D and 5D Mk2 - for instance) the effective focal length will remain as stamped on the camera which would be 70-200mm.

Now, without bogging you down millions of options, there is one lens that I can recommend for the APS-C format for wide angle that has a fairly large following and is the staple landscaper lens on crop body cameras, which is:

Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens - Canon Fit (201927) - Warehouse Express

I had one on my Pentax and also one for my current Canon and it's an excellent ultra wide angle zoom which will be excellent for landscapes. It's a sharp lens when stopped down and chromatic abberations are also well controlled; I like the flexibility of the 10-20mm. This lens is also rectilinear which means at the widest angle of 10mm there is no curvature of verticals like you would get on a fish eye lens - barrel distortions are kept to a minimum on this lens although there are very slight barrel distortions at 10mm.

Canon also do a very similar lens, but it's almost twice the price:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM Lens (9518A003AA) - Warehouse Express

Regarding a telephoto zoom, you simply cannot beat the awesomeness of:

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM Lens (2578A009AA) - Warehouse Express

It's an L lens, it's got good reach on the APS-C format, it's very sharp from f/4 (I know, I have one ), it's very well made, it's a Canon lens, it also covers a full frame if you ever consider going to a 5D or 1D based system. The best bit - the price! Under £500 gets you L glass.

Drawbacks? No image stabilisation (double the price for the IS version) and I don't believe it's fully weather sealed. Those may be moot points to you, but worth factoring in. There are a lot of arguments for and against IS on lenses, Canon's IS system gets disabled when panning, so if you buy an IS lens for sports it may be wasted on you anyway. I didn't need IS on mine, I'm always using shutter speeds that are fast enough.

HTH!

Edit: if you paid £80 for a Canon 50m prime, I suspect it'll be the "nifty fifty" f/1.8 plastic mount Canon 50mm? Meant to be ace for the money, cheapest lens Canon do.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

First, you say you want two lenses - 1) wide angle and 2) zoom. I don't mean to be pedantic, but wide angles can also be zooms, so I presume you mean 1) wide angle and 2) telephoto zoom?

Correcto!

Regarding the lengths, I believe you are referring to the crop factor of the APS-C format of the 300D's sensor which basically multiplies the focal length by 1.6 on most of Canon's APS-C lineup.

As an example:

Canon 300D with Canon f/4 70-200mm L effectively gives you a focal length of 112-320mm. As you rightly say, on old 35mm film cameras and indeed on Canon's full frame sensors (Canon 1DS Mk3, 5D and 5D Mk2 - for instance) the effective focal length will remain as stamped on the camera which would be 70-200mm.

OK, so basically my body sucks arse in this confusing respect.

lens stuff

Are those really erring on the side of budget? They're extortionately expensive. I know lenses aren't cheap, but £400 and £500 lenses are probably way out of my reach. I may at a stretch be able to get one lens at those prices, definitely not two.

Remember I don't take photos very often and my camera body is pretty rubbish, and is only 6.something (2 IIRC) MP so would getting such an expensive lens actually be worth it, or would the body be limiting my results?

HTH!

Speak English, heathen!

Edit: if you paid £80 for a Canon 50m prime, I suspect it'll be the "nifty fifty" f/1.8 plastic mount Canon 50mm? Meant to be ace for the money, cheapest lens Canon do.

Yeah, that's the one. Really like how much detail it picks up.

 

[Tom]

The Sigma 10mm is very good.

 

[JingleBells]

Regarding a telephoto zoom, you simply cannot beat the awesomeness of:

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM Lens (2578A009AA) - Warehouse Express

It's an L lens, it's got good reach on the APS-C format, it's very sharp from f/4 (I know, I have one ), it's very well made, it's a Canon lens, it also covers a full frame if you ever consider going to a 5D or 1D based system. The best bit - the price! Under £500 gets you L glass.

Are those really erring on the side of budget? They're extortionately expensive. I know lenses aren't cheap, but £400 and £500 lenses are probably way out of my reach. I may at a stretch be able to get one lens at those prices, definitely not two.

Remember I don't take photos very often and my camera body is pretty rubbish, and is only 6.something (2 IIRC) MP so would getting such an expensive lens actually be worth it, or would the body be limiting my results?

I bought the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS for my 450D with some Christmas money, it does the job quite well I think - I wanted a zoom lens that didn't cost the same as the camera itself, I too don't take that many pictures currently

 

[old.user4556]

OK, so basically my body sucks arse in this confusing respect.

Not necessarily, crop factors will give you more reach and will also allow you to use a lens' sweet spot. Vignetting is also less of a problem on crop bodies for the same reason.

Are those really erring on the side of budget? They're extortionately expensive. I know lenses aren't cheap, but £400 and £500 lenses are probably way out of my reach. I may at a stretch be able to get one lens at those prices, definitely not two.

It depends on what your budget is, the Sigma is a budget lens compared to the Canon equivalent or:

Zeiss Distagon T* F2.8 21mm ZF.2 Nikon AIS Fit - Buy online from a UK dealer

Remember I don't take photos very often and my camera body is pretty rubbish, and is only 6.something (2 IIRC) MP so would getting such an expensive lens actually be worth it, or would the body be limiting my results?

If you're only wanting to spend around £400, you're not gonna get anything that great, but if you're not going to take photos that often, you may want to consider one of the "superzooms" out there that will cover from around 18mm through to 200mm. Generally, they are a compromise and aren't that great but it's worth considering given your requirements and budget. I don't have any personal experience of them, so I can't recommend them personally, but you might want to take a look at the following lens and review of the lens:

Tamron AF 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical Macro: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo

Tamron AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] macro (Canon) - Review / Test Report

This may be an option for you as it will cover a wide angle 18mm through to telephoto. The minimum aperture at the longer end is garbage, so you need to consider the other limitations of this lens or lenses like it.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Not necessarily, crop factors will give you more reach and will also allow you to use a lens' sweet spot. Vignetting is also less of a problem on crop bodies for the same reason.

Don't know what you're talking about, Frenchie

It depends on what your budget is, the Sigma is a budget lens compared to the Canon equivalent or:

Zeiss Distagon T* F2.8 21mm ZF.2 Nikon AIS Fit - Buy online from a UK dealer

Sweet bejesus.

If you're only wanting to spend around £400, you're not gonna get anything that great, but if you're not going to take photos that often, you may want to consider one of the "superzooms" out there that will cover from around 18mm through to 200mm. Generally, they are a compromise and aren't that great but it's worth considering given your requirements and budget. I don't have any personal experience of them, so I can't recommend them personally, but you might want to take a look at the following lens and review of the lens:

Tamron AF 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical Macro: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo

Tamron AF 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] macro (Canon) - Review / Test Report

This may be an option for you as it will cover a wide angle 18mm through to telephoto. The minimum aperture at the longer end is garbage, so you need to consider the other limitations of this lens or lenses like it.

Budget I'm slightly flexible on. I don't really have anything set in stone, although I was thinking around the £500ish mark. Ideally with that, as I said, two lenses would rule.

Having looked at that review (and skipped over the stupid nerdy stuff I don't understand), I think I'd be disappointed if I got it. The end results look pretty shit to me, the kind of result I'd get from the lens that was bundled with my camera, which I avoid using if at all possible.

Is there anything roughly that sits in the middle of your first post and your most recent post? Apologies for being a fussy prick.

 

[milou]

That Zeiss is rather fab and it's on the shopping list.

I used a 17-40 on a 300D for ages - good enough for Alamy sales and whatnot. If you want to go sub 20mm I think you're looking at pricey lenses so a 24mm f/2.8 might enough for a wide angle: FM Reviews - EF 24mm f/2.8 - it's £381 on Warehouse Express but it turns up on eBay Canon 24mm or other shops often enough e.g. Aperture Photographic. Alternatively try the Talk photography market place: Talk Photography - I sold my 5D and other gear there without hassle.

Edit: I know this guy (and I've met him) from another forum: Talk Photography. Down to £250 apparently: _MG_6323 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[old.user4556]

Also Wazz, how wide do you want to go and how much telephoto length do you need?

I was mulling this over at work today and you could go for a lesser telephoto zoom that covers wide to shortish telephoto that won't be a load of guff, something like:

Sigma 18-125mm f3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM Lens - Canon Fit (853954) - Warehouse Express

It reviewed well on the lower resolution sensors such as your own:

Sigma AF 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC - Review / Test Report

Again, it's a total compromise.

Have you considered renting a lens or two to see what they are like?

Canon | Lenses | Lens Pimp

Honestly, you're not going to get good lenses that do wide and telephoto for what you want to spend.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Again with zoom lens I'm not too fussed about length - I can be pretty flexible.

Given what people are saying to me about the two lenses, let's scrap the wide angle for now and just go with a zoom lens0r and see what sex you pros and bring me.

Don't really see the point in lens renting at that price, unless I were to go on holiday or something it might come in useful to supplement my current equipment.

 

[old.user4556]

In that case Wazz, I will second JB's recommendation of the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - it has a good telephoto zoom range which will work reasonably well as a portrait lens at the 55mm end with the longer reach you're look for, plus it has built in image stabilisation. It's also pretty cheap at around £240 and reviews well.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - Review / Test Report

 

[milou]

Good choice and at £178 from Amazon, a bargain.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

That's really well priced, I think I'll end up going for that. Under £200 pleases me.

Might leave enough for a wide angle after all, although in reality I could do with a decent tripod. Hmmm.

 

[milou]

£99 second hand in great nick: www.mpbphotographic.co.uk - Used Canon EF 55-200mm f/4-5.6 II USM

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Great find, I've ordered it! Cheers milou

Big money saver, got any tripod recommendations? Will probably try and stretch to get one and a wide angle now with that price

 

[old.user4556]

That lens is different to the one JB and I mentioned plus it's not image stabilised; but at that price i'm sure you don't care .

 

[milou]

Aye. There's a difference. Specs on needed for me. Second hand 'right' lens: www.mpbphotographic.co.uk - Used Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Bit late now! Hopefully it'll be ok.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Any ideas for tripods and wide lenses then, say roughly 100 for the tripod (I guess, since all the cheap ones I've ever had break in minutes) and around 300 for a wide angle?

You guys are an awesome help btw

 

[milou]

It might be challenging to get a Manfrotto tripod and head for less than a 100 quid new (Manfrotto 055XDB) but there are a few second hand ones about. As I have a Gitzo, I liked the look of the Ocean Traveller until I saw the price...

It's worth nipping into a Jacobs or Jessops to see which work for you as to some degree it depends on how tall you are. Some only extend up to 5 foot odd.

Edit: wide, maybe the Sigma 10-20 or the 12-24: Sigma EX DCHSM 10-20mm Canon Lens

 

[Wazzerphuk]

The lens came today and looks in very good nick, build quality seems pretty decent. Yet to use it so we'll see how it goes.

Going to pop in to a Jessops tomorrow and looksie at tripods, I used Manfrottos and a silly pricey Gitzo at uni and have good memories, so will probably head in that direction... although not £800 worth!

Are there any good alternatives to that Sigma? It's just the wrong side of £300 for me...

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Popped into Jessops, only to be reminded why I don't go in there unless I know exactly what I want.

Had about tripods on display only, all fixed to a WALL, completely folded away. So I had no way of being able to tell build quality, height, ease of use, what kind of head I'd want or anything.

PRICKS.

 

[caLLous]

Will they not set them up for you if you ask them too? I went into the Jessops in Birmingham a while ago and they set a few up for me - I ended up with a Gitzo too (not £800 worth though!) and I love it.

 

[milou]

Jacobs are pretty decent.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Nope, arsey London staff.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Any thoughts on this: Sigma 18-50mm f2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM Lens for Canon Digital: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo

Or this, which also has Macro: Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens - Canon Fit (669927) - Warehouse Express

 

[old.user4556]

Wazz, I'm just back from Brighouse, I will post in this thread tomorrow on those lenses as I'm shattered from the drive back to Skirtland.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Cool beans

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Adding for my own reference really: Manfrotto 055XDB,128RC 3 Section Aluminium Tripod With: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo

Manfrotto 055XDB with 128RC Head @ £139.

Searching for suitable tripod and head combos is a nightmare