Help with Lenses

[jgbryan021900]

Ok....I have 900.00 to spend and I want to get at least 2 canon lenses.
I would appreciate any help I can get, I will be using them with my D60.
Doesn't have to be canon brand. I shoot mostly outdoors, maybe some portrait work.....Thanks.

[G3]

Man...you know how to ask tough questions.

You have a bunch of options, and it's all going to depend on what the majority of your photography is going to be...if it's going to be mostly outdoor portraits, I'd say get the Canon USM 50mm f1.4 and the Canon USM 85mm f1.8.

If it's going to be a mix, with some wildlife photography thrown in, I'd say go for one high quality zoom that can cover a wide range, such as the Sigma 50-500 EX.

$900.00 is not a lot of money to spend on lenses, by the way...especially if you are trying to find 2 lenses.

I have a battery of zooms from 17mm all the way up to 500mm as well as a battery of primes....they all get used, but the 2 that see the most use are the 50mm and the 85mm. But, that's because I do a lot of portraits. WHen I shoot wildlife, a long zoom is on there...when I shoot Macro, I usually use my 90mm Macro. See where I'm going? It is extremely difficult to pin down one or two lenses that will adequately cover every situation.

I think if I had to make a choice and pare my collection down to 2 lenses (the very thought of that is probably going to give me nightmares), I think I would end up with the 17-40L and the 85mm. If I had to pare it down to one lens, I think it would be the 50-500mm.

[Loekito]

For general use, buy 28-135 IS USM.

For portraiture, buy 100mm f2.8 Macro USM (also can be use for macro work)

also buy 50mm II f1.8, since it cheap and worth to have (you will not regret it)

All of the three lenses I mentioned above are known as the good and sharp lenses among non-L lenses.

enjoy,

Loekito

[nosquare2003]

Like G3 said, it's difficult to answer.

D60 is comparatively slow in autofocus especially low light. However, there won't be a problem if:

- you take photos in daylight; or
- you use external flash in low light

Otherwise, you have to avoid slow consumer zoom lenses.

[G3]

Like G3 said, it's difficult to answer.

D60 is comparatively slow in autofocus especially low light. However, there won't be a problem if:

- you take photos in daylight; or
- you use external flash in low light

Otherwise, you have to avoid slow consumer zoom lenses.

or...use fast lenses. :)

[roanjohn]

I would get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for your walk around lens. cost 350.

I would also get the Canon 85 f1.8 for your portrait work. cost 350.

Canon 50 f1.8 for indoor low light or outdoor full body portrait work. cost 90.

And the extra 100 for taxes and shipping.

:-)

I would like to suggest the 17-40 and 85 f1.8 (as G3 mentioned) but that would set you back around 1,000 bucks.........a bit more than your budget.

Ro1

[kb244]

I have the 50mm f/1.8 ( less than 100$ ) cheaper lens, but works really well, you dont need the 50mm f/1.4 ( for bout 500-600$ ) , unless you really need the smoother bokeh, sharper image, USM motor, etc.

I like Loekito's sugestion, I have all of those, except the 100mm f/2.8 macro, but its something I'm looking into getting already.

[jgbryan021900]

I appreciate all the info...I was looking at the 85 1.8 lens as one of my choices. Does anyone have any experience with the Tokina 80-200 F2.8?
Thanks.

[sp00g3]

I appreciate all the info...I was looking at the 85 1.8 lens as one of my choices. Does anyone have any experience with the Tokina 80-200 F2.8?
Thanks.

If you want that range.. for a good price.. Spend it on the Sigma.. 70 - 200 f2.8

[daaaveman]

How about the Canon 70-200 f/4L, the 85 and the 50. Not a bad setup.... Doesn't give you anything on the wide end but you can save for the 17-40 f/4L next.

[sp00g3]

How about the Canon 70-200 f/4L, the 85 and the 50. Not a bad setup.... Doesn't give you anything on the wide end but you can save for the 17-40 f/4L next.

I'm glad I saved teh extra $200 for the Sigma, It was worth it, I have since sold my F4L

[RbnDave]

I would recomend the Tokina 17mm AT-X Pro. If you are shooting landscapes you will want something wide and the tokina does a great job. The tokina takes sharp photos and it is built solid. I think you can get one for $350. I do a lot of outdoor/nature photography and I find this lens is on my camera all the time when I am hiking in wide open places. This lens isn't talked about on any forums for some reason. Here are two links that give this lens glowing reviews. http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=171&sort=7&thecat=13

Also, I would recomend the Tamron 28-75 XR Di. This is my walk around lens when I am hiking in wooded areas. It does a decent job with macro type shots. I find myslef bending over to take a closeup of a flower one second and then using it to get a candid of one of my hiking buddies the next. I like this lens because it is nearly as sharp and saturated as my prime lenses but it is more versitle. If it had some more range, either went wider or was longer I would say this lens is perfect, but I find myself constantly taking it off my camera to put on a wider or longer lens. I still have love this lens. It produces really sharp pictures and it is a constant f2.8 which makes it fun. I think you can get one for $350.

You have to get the Canon 50mm f1.8. I got mine for $65 dollars. This lens produces the best looking pictures of any lens I own, period. You will find yourself looking for 50mm scenes just so you have an excuse to use this lens. My cat hates this lens.

I saw someone else recomended you get a 70-200mm lens either canon or sigma. I got the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I love it. I can't put my finger on it but there is something about the photos this lens produces that is spectacular. "Rich" is the adjective I would use to describe the output of the lens. It is great for portrait shots, granted I am not a portrait expert, but this lens is very flaterring. most people like the way they look when photographed with this lens, I also use mine with a 2x teleconveter and get decent results. With the 2x teleconverter, I have a useable 400 mm lens for getting wildlife and bird photos.

I could ramble on about my lenses all day. Hope I gave you some usefull info. My recomended beginning lens set is Tokina 17mm AT-X pro, Canon 50mm f1.8. And Sigma 70-200 f2.8. You could have all those lenses for around $1000 and they should remain usefull to you as you upgrade and buy more equipment.

Dave

[sp00g3]

I would like to see some of the Tokina 28 - 75 Pictures.

[RbnDave]

spOOg3,

I think you meant the Tamron 28-75. Here are some photos I've taken with it. I've had mine for two months.

http://www.pbase.com/image/27660997
http://www.pbase.com/image/27785328
http://www.pbase.com/image/26778783
http://www.pbase.com/image/27661182
http://www.pbase.com/image/27846207

[Ken Fong]

For $900-$1000, a combination of the Canon 28-135 3.5 w/IS AND the Sigma 70-200 2.8 would make a good value. No need for more zoom unless you are getting into wildlife photos. Not the absolute best for portraits, but for amateurs like myself, it's fine. Later, you will probably want something wider like the Sigma 15-30.

[jjoejr]

I'm with G3. I have a new D60. Just tried out the 50 1.4. Really nice. Am going for the 85 1.8 next. I like the 50's ability to manual focus also. Rebate with 50 1.4 right now also.

John

[sp00g3]

spOOg3,

I think you meant the Tamron 28-75. Here are some photos I've taken with it. I've had mine for two months.

http://www.pbase.com/image/27660997
http://www.pbase.com/image/27785328
http://www.pbase.com/image/26778783
http://www.pbase.com/image/27661182
http://www.pbase.com/image/27846207

Yeah.. thas what I meant. You haven't seen any cases of softness or CA purple fringing with that lense have you? I can't really afford the Canon 24 70 L and currently can't justify its expense.

[daaaveman]

Photozone gives the Tamron great marks: http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstd

Canon EF 2.8 24-70mm USM L 4.16 (3) = very-good
Canon EF 2.8 28-70mm USM L 4.15 (5) = very-good
Tamron AF 2.8 28-75mm LD XR Aspherical SP 4.14 (3) = very-good

[kahfluie]

Well, for the money you're talking about... the Canon 70-200mm F4L, 85mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.8 sounds like the way to go.... although you'd be over $900. One thing to consider... if you went this way, the 70-200mm does not come with a tripod ring, so that would be around another $115, give or take a few bucks. So if you can live without the ring or want to develop nice muscles, this is the way to go.

However, if you need that tripod ring and want to still get the 85mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8, I recommend the Sigma 70-200 and the two Canon primes. I use these three lenses and am very happy with the results.

Personally I feel that if you have a Canon Camera, you should use Canon lenses... however if you're like me and don't have the cash for great Canon lens, Sigma offers a nice alternative. For photos with the Sigma, just click on the link below.

To come in under $900, you might consider not getting the 85mm (although it is an excellent lens) - and maybe buy yourself an extra flash card - and don't forget you will have shipping charges.

Here are Options (without 85mm):

Option #1
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens: $580 (at B&H before $30 rebate)
Canon Tripod Mount Ring A for 70-200mm f/4L : $115 (at B&H)
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens : $70 (at B&H)

Total Option 1: $765.00 ($650 without tripod ring)

Options #2
SIGMA AF 70-200 2.8 APO HSM LENS F/CANON : $660 (at delta international
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens : $70 (at B&H)

Total Option 2: $730 (Sigma comes with tripod ring - also remember the F2.8 for low light/indoors)

[Cadwell]

the 70-200mm does not come with a tripod ring, so that would be around another $115, give or take a few bucks. So if you can live without the ring or want to develop nice muscles, this is the way to go.


I really don't see the point of the tripod ring with the 70-200F/4L. It only weighs 705g! It actually feels very light when on the front of a 10D (particularly if the 10D has a battery grip fitted) and quite nicely balanced for hand holding.

I can't even see that it makes sense when using a tripod. It doesn't make an appreciable difference to the balance and if the aim is to reduce strain on the lens mount, then the camera (body only) is actually heavier at 790g....

The F/2.8 is a different matter, I'll grant you.

[kahfluie]

I don't disagree with you Cadwell. I sometimes take mine off the Sigma, however there are times when I do use it on a monopod. It's all a matter of preference and usage. My monopod comes in very handy during concerts since I am shooting usually at f2.8 and using a slow shutter as well. The monopod gives me added stability.