Lets talk ultra-budget lenses for a newb

[tommy_t]

I've been reading the forums and it seems people in general recommend the Tamron 28-75 or Canon 28-135 as good starter, standard zoom, budget lenses. However, these are still out of my price for the moment.

So if I was to get a super-cheap lens which one should I get?

For example ($150-$300 USD):

-Canon 28-90mm F4-5.6 II USM
-Quantaray 28-105mm F3.8-5.6
-Sigma 24-70mm F3.5-5.6
-Tamron 28-200

Any experience with the above or anything else you would recommend?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[flyfishnj]

What lenses do you have now? What kind of pics are you taking?

[tommy_t]

I jut picked up a D30 body and its my first DSLR so I have no lenses yet. Just looking for an all-purpose lens to mess around with.

[Nightcrawler]

I would suggest the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=206434&is=GREY

Or, if you want to spend a little more you can consider the Tamron 28-75 f2.8

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG

[darkdrakon]

canon 50.mm 1.8 II under a 100.00. maby a tamron 19-35 3.5-4.5 150.00 or so used I think the tamron would be a good choice as it's a zoom and called Fantastic plastic . if you can affored it get both.

[Nightcrawler]

The 50mm f1.8 (aka nifty fifty) was the first lens I picked up. $70 at BH. It is a great lens.

[Scottes]

Any Quantaray is over-priced poop. Don't do it.

I have the 28-90mm and I'd be happy to give it away if I could found someone who'd come take it. I'm afraid to touch it as it's problems might be contagious. (OK, so I'm an L slob, but this lens gets straight "poor" across the board at www.photozone.de and a final score of 0.69, which is the absolute lowest score in the "Standard Zooms" category.)

The Sigma rates "average, 2.5" on PhotoZone so this isn't bad for an inexpensive lens.

The Tamron rates a 1.14, which isn't surprising for a 7x zoom - even though it's tempting to have that wide a range.


From a quality perspective the Sigma 24-70mm seems like a decent lens for the money, and it's a very nice range for "messing" around with - but be prepared for it to be too short sometimes, and not long enough other times. But it's a good range for a lot of things.


Or you might want to think 50mm for a while. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 can't be beat for $70. Very very good bargain for the money, very good quality, and the wide aperture makes a lot of low-light situations possible.

[flyfishnj]

Get the 50mm f/1.8 and get ready to get addicted -- so save your money and buy something good the first time

[Citizensmith]

I have the 28-90mm and I'd be happy to give it away if I could found someone who'd come take it. I'm afraid to touch it as it's problems might be contagious. (OK, so I'm an L slob, but this lens gets straight "poor" across the board at www.photozone.de (http://www.photozone.de) and a final score of 0.69, which is the absolute lowest score in the "Standard Zooms" category.)


Which version of the 28-90? The Mk1 USM was supposedly pretty good (at least 28-105 quality). There are 3 non USM versions and a Mk2 USM version which all suck. Of course sample variation always counts for a lot too.

My recommendation would be the 28 f/2.8. Its a bit more ($160 vs $70) than the 50 f/1.8 but still cheap and a much better focal length as a walkaround lens.

[Mark Kemp]

A sigma or tamron 28 - 300 is an option.

Advantage 1 lens with a very long reach so you can buy just one for the moment and still have a fairly versatile outfit.

Disadvantage the quality is not great as that much zoom range means a lot of compromises.

still if you want something very general purpose to experiment with until you can afford better quality its worth thinking about

[jyrgen]

I suggest buy a used Tokina 24-200 ($200), which is pretty sharp for a hyperzoom and has nice range, probably helps to find out what focal lenghts you prefer/need, except it does not give you the true wide end. Add a Canon 50/1.8 ($70), to see what difference a fast prime makes.

[Bodog]

Stick with Canon in that price range.
1) 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM
2) 35-135 f4-5.6 USM
3) 50 f1.8
4) 28 f2.8

[Andy_T]

Rather get a used copy of a good lens (like the ones Bodog mentioned) instead of a new version of a mediocre one.

Although it might be very tempting to start with a cheap lens, remember the old saying ... 'if you buy cheap, prepare to buy twice'

Start with the 28/2.8 and the 50/1.8, and you'll have these lenses for a long time...

Best regards,
Andy

[tommy_t]

Great feedback guys!

I think I'm going to start with the 50/1.8 and work my way from there.

Thanks

[robertwgross]

You may like Image Stabilization lenses some day. However, if you are on a budget, just use a lens without I.S. and either use a tripod or else practice your anti-camera-shake techniques.

---Bob Gross---

[Cadenza]

Also, get a used 380EX external flash. Lot's of
those for about $80. It bounces but doesn't
swivel, but otherwise great accessory in an
entry level DSLR set-up.

[tommy_t]

Thanks again for all the help. Placed ordered Canon 50mm f/1.8 II as well as a cheapie Tamron 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 just for the hell of it.

[Leon van Batenburg]

Thanks again for all the help. Placed ordered Canon 50mm f/1.8 II as well as a cheapie Tamron 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 just for the hell of it.

Your best pictures will be from the 50/1.8. Not just because it is the better lens, but it makes you think & work. That's what takes pictures! later, buy a canon 17-40 or 24-85.

Most of all: have fun! :D

[Tom W]

I would suggest the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=206434&is=GREY

Or, if you want to spend a little more you can consider the Tamron 28-75 f2.8

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG

Good choices. Not quite as wide as one might want, but wide pushes the price up a bit.

[tim]

You'll learn a lot with the 50mm lens, good choice.

[FlipsidE]

For an all purpose lens, I second the Canon 28-105.

FlipsidE

[MrChad]

I have an use the sigma 18-125mm, way awesome I love this lens.
It's as sharp as my 28-105 Canon.

[Bob_A]

The Canon 28-105 is a pretty average lens. It's better than a kit lens and is a pretty good bang for the buck ($220). However, I own one and find that it only gives great pictures between f8 and f16. Too soft for me at lower f-stops.

On the other hand the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a fantastic lens for only $110 more ($330 with rebate)and gives photos almost as good as a $1140 Canon 24-70. I own the Canon 24-70, but would definitely have purchased the Tamron if I were on a tight budget.

The 28-75 lens doesn't have the reach of the 28-105, but it is a much faster lens with far superior optics. IMO I would rather have good glass than a really expensive camera body, and there are some real gems of lenses out there that won't break the bank.

Bob

[tommy_t]

I think my next lens will be the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Everyone says they love it.

[pcasciola]

Good choice. I didn't mention it because your original post said it was out of your range for now, but in my opinion it's the best quality zoom you can get for $325. Just one thing, make sure you test it out when you get it to make sure you got a good copy. There are some bad one's out there, which I feel is understandable given the price.

See here for what a bad copy vs a good copy will look like wide open:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51644&highlight=tamron+copy

Typically, it's a hair softer at f/2.8, but if it's this extreme between f/2.8 and f/4 as the first example, send it back.

[ron chappel]

I've used a great many cheap zooms-here are the ones i thought not too bad-

Canon 28-90 (earlier version not the currently styled one) -very decent at the wide end-soft and some white edge bluring at the long end
Canon 28-80 (most) ok lens.Not recomended but far better than the horid 35-80 if you are really poor
Canon 28-105 (3.5-4.5 version!) Often mentioned in the same sentence as the 28-135IS lens. Definitely get this one if 28mm zooms are wide enough for you!
EF-s 18-55 kit lens -the ONLY sensible option if you have a 300D and need a cheap wide zoom.Sigma also make one similar but i've seen some pics that suggest it is VERY dodgey for quality control
sigma 100-300 4.5-6.7 DL.This is THE bargain telezoom lens.Nothing else comes close for value for money that i've tried.Interestingly for a sigma lens-of the many i've used none of them have varied much optically-no duds
Here are some pics taken with one-
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_6.html
Canon 75-300 -this is the basic cheap canon telezoom.It does a pretty good job and is even plentifull 2nd hand.Buy this one instead of the sigma 100-300 DL if you can afford it.
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/

[Bob_A]

I have a 28-105 f3.5-4.5 II USM, and as I've already mentioned the performance is very average. My experience with it matches the reviews on photozone www.photzone.de (photozone scores it as SUB-average).

Above f8 the photos are very good. However if you want something that gives a decent picture wide open I wouldn't pick this lens unless on a really tight budget.

Bob

[johnellisphotography]

Thanks again for all the help. Placed ordered Canon 50mm f/1.8 II as well as a cheapie Tamron 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 just for the hell of it.

Cool, have some fun! While waiting on your order, drill a 1/16th inch hole in your body cap and put er one a tripod. Thats the cheapest lens made. Seriously, try it, its way too much fun and a cool learning experience.

[Bob_A]

Instant pinhole camera! I gotta try that ...