Lenses to start with

[trsqr]

Hi,

I'm going to order a D60, but now I'm wondering about the lens selection.

I have used a Canon SLR before (an old FTb from the 70s) and a prosumer digicam for a year (Minolta Dimage 7).

So far, I've been thinking to buy these 3 lenses:
Canon EF 28-135 IS
Canon EF 50 1.4
Tokina AT-X Pro 17mm 3.5

Are there any other lenses I should strongly consider, or something wrong with the lenses I have chosen? I will be walking (also trekking) quite a lot, so anything really heavy is out of question. Dragging the tripod and the Dimage is already a pain in the ass sometimes. =)

Canon EF 100 2.0 would be nice in those rare occasions, when I happen to photograph a concert, but that's not a lens I'm going to buy anywhere soon...

[Hawkeye12]

the 28-135 is a good lens, but you are better off with the 24-85. it yields better color and contrast (comparable to the 28-70 L), and if you take the time to read the "D60 underexposes" topic below you'll see why. another lens you may also want to consider is the 70-200 f/4 L.

here are 2 links that will tell you about the 24-85;

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D60/D60A5.HTM



http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30/page19.asp

[Pekka]

50 f/1.4 is one of the best lenses Canon has, and it's the most color accurate.

Check also Canon 35/2 and Sigma or Canon 20, 24 or 28mm series (Sigma has f/2 and Canon f/2.8).

My advice is that do not buy anything below 20 for D60 now, as in couple of years we'll all have 1.0x cameras and medium quality 14mm lenses will not have much use then. If you get 14mm, get Canon or Sigma (Sigma 14 is _slightly_ soft on D60, but Sigma 20mm is very sharp). In D60 14mm gives you ca. 22mm fied of view. When you switch to a full frame camera later you'll end up using even the 20mm rarely, but it will be significantly more useful and better quality than any 14mm.

[steve_usa_2000]

My First lens was a 35-80MM Canon. I started looking for a good Zoom for a walk around lens. After reading several reviews and a visit to Cals Camera I commited to the 28-200MM USM Canon lens. It is a nice all around lens with clear optics and a contrasty quality. I am now looking for some good primes for ultra clear macro and Portrait stuff.

I think the 28-200 USM is nice! (for the price)

I notice the lenses you have chosen are a little out of my price range so this is more than likely a good lens for the price. Not the best lens you could buy.

Good luck!

[trsqr]

Thank you for your advice everyone.

I think I have to take a look at the 24-85 in action before deciding anything.

Pekka, I intend to keep the D60 for a while (I know, this is what they all say until the next model comes out =) and the 17mm Tokina isn't that expensive.. Even that will become 27.2 mm on the D60. Canon EF 20mm would be another choice.

Steve, I'm sure the 28-200 is nice for travelling, but I really fell in love with the IS and 28-135 mm should be enough for my needs in those occasions, when I can't drag several lenses with me.

[defordphoto]

The 28-135IS has worked flawlessly with my camera. Hawkeye will slam the lens any chance he gets, and some people seem to have odd problems with it as has been documented, but it has proved an invaluable workhorse on my D60 and rarely leaves its mount.

That 50 F1.4 is an awesome lens though I chose to purchase the much, much less expensive 1.8 model and have been very pleased with the results there. It doesn't have near the quality build the 1.4 has, but at about $70 you can buy several replacements if needed.

If you can try a few test shots with the 28-135 that would be advisable, but like I said, I have not had one issue with that lens.

Good luck!

[Hawkeye12]

RFMSports wrote:
The 28-135IS has worked flawlessly with my camera. Hawkeye will slam the lens any chance he gets
!


this is not quite true. i have used this lens, and i believe the IS feature is invaluable, but like you also said, it has been documented that many have had problems acquiring well exposed photos. this hasn't been the case with the 24-85, and it is for this reason that i suggest this lens. NOT because i have one, but more for the honest answer that goes along with the question here. personally, i'd skip the 24-85 and the 28-135 and do like myself and buy the 24-70L. then you won't have any doubts at all......;-)

as for what the original poster decides is not something i really give a Rats butt about...........but apparently it bothers the heck out of you!!

[The Native Floridian]

I agree with Hawkeye12. Go with the 24-70 2.8L. That is going to be my next lense. I currently own a 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS. I love the lense! I use it more than any other lense in my bag. I take hand held pics of gators from my airboat while I am driving it and they come out great.

[defordphoto]

Hawkeye12 wrote:personally, i'd skip the 24-85 and the 28-135 and do like myself and buy the 24-70L. then you won't have any doubts at all......;-)


I'd ALWAYS recommend L glass, but by the way this person is asking, they can't afford L glass.

[steve_usa_2000]

RFMSports wrote:
Hawkeye12 wrote:personally, i'd skip the 24-85 and the 28-135 and do like myself and buy the 24-70L. then you won't have any doubts at all......;-)


I'd ALWAYS recommend L glass, but by the way this person is asking, they can't afford L glass.

I have never used an "L" Lens though I have heard nothing but good about them as I should for the prices I see.

Are there any sites that can show a standard lens against an "L" Lens. It would be fun to see how superior the lens is and get some of us off our pocket books.

I think I am not in any hurry but could be convinced if I see no option but to go with the better lens.

Has anyone had luck renting lenses and is this a worth wild thing to do?

[Longwatcher]

I don't know if this will help any, but I have the 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, and the 16-35 f2.8L.

I got the two IS lenses because they were image stabalized and still fairly low cost. I purchased the 16-35mm L because I needed a wider angle lens for close up. I trusted Canon lenses for the D60, the "L" series was the only lenses available in the range I was looking for and it had good recommendations.

I discovered that everything with the "L" series lens was far superior, the auto white balance is more accurate, the lens focuses faster (a lot faster) and there seems to be slightly better resolution (But this last may be my imagination working). As a result I have decided unless cost becomes a primary concern or what I want is otherwise unavailable, I will only be buying "L" series lenses in the future.

It should be noted however, that I only plan on acquireing one more lens at this time, which would be a 24 or 28mm prime for portrait work.

I like all three of my lenses, giving me a good range to work with, but the "L" series was well worth the money despite costing 3 times as much as either of the other two lenses. I don't notice much difference in the final product of the three lenses, but the "L" series makes it easier to get it right on the first try.

[Etrigan63]

I got the 24-85 lens and it does excellent work. I was using an old 35-135 but I had to give that one back to my wife.

The 24-85 has excellent color and contrast. The pictures are tack sharp although there is a bit of distortion @ 24mm (duh!)

See the Xmas2002 gallery on my homepage for pictures shot with the 24-85 lens.

[stefancook]

I have the 50 1.4, the 28-135 IS and the 70-200 2.8L. I've been very happy with the 50 1.4, but the 28-135IS is too slow for my tastes. It's 3.5 at 28, but stops all the way to 5.6 at 135. Understand, though, I REALLY try to avoid using flash. I also find the image quality of the 50 1.4 and the 70-200 to be better.
All things considered, I probably wouldn't buy the 28-135 if I were starting over. Whenever I put it on my camera, I always end up taking it off and using the 50 1.4.
I should also mention that I spent 20 years shooting just primes before I went digital, so while I like zoom lenses, primes don't bother me.
I'd definitely recommend the 50 1.4, don't know anything about Tokina, as I try to stay Canon with my lenses. If I could afford to, I'd probably look at a 16-35 or 17-35 for wide angle, but I've already spent waaaaaaaay to much on my photographic hobby.

[trsqr]

Heh, bumped to this post I made a long time ago. Here's some looking back:

I never really bought the 28-135 IS or the 17mm Tokina.

I actually tried out several lenses, and just sold my Canon 28-80/2.8-4L lens and bought the 24-85 some people recommended me to buy in the first place. In terms of sharpness it cannot match the 28-80, but it goes wider and it is lighter. In short, 24-85 covers my zoom lens needs quite well.

I also ended up buying a used 80-200/2.8L, 50/1.4, Sigma 15mm Fisheye, plus several other lenses, which I have now sold. 135/2, 85/1.8 and 300/4 IS are on my list, but I think I'm not going to buy any of those in the future nearby - other things besides photography going on nowadays.. =)

Cheers,
-olli

[martcol]

.....it has been documented that many have had problems acquiring well exposed photos.

I haven't read that Hawkeye, but I do find it difficult getting consitent exposure - pop my lil' 50 1.8 on and no probs!

Martin