Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 11 Nov 2014 (Tuesday) 02:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

My budget low weight lens plan

 
Hermelin
Goldmember
Avatar
1,129 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 279
Joined Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
     
Nov 11, 2014 02:55 |  #1

My new idea of what lenses I should have is that they should be relatively cheap and low weight. You can invest in pretty good performing gear today that doesn't cost a lot.
I recently sold my my 18-135 STM lens as it doesn't fit the criteria of being low weight but mostly because I got bored of it (great lens however).
Anyway, here's my list of what I have and what I plan to get and what purpose each lens will have:

10-18 IS STM: UWA lens for landscape - $299
24 f/2.8 STM: General purpose / travel lens - $149
35 f/2 IS USM: Indoor / low light lens - $599
50 f/1.8: Portrait / Bokeh lens - $125
55 - 250 STM: Wildlife photography - $299

Totalt: $1471 on 5 lenses that covers 10-250 mm and all purposes
Heaviest lens being the 55-250 STM at only 375g

What do you think? :cool:


Fujifilm X100F

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Nov 11, 2014 03:03 |  #2

Looks good. For me it would be a perfect, cheap and lightweight solution for a crop camera, but for people not liking prime lenses its not ideal. But then you could skip out 24, 35, 50 and use a 18-55 or whatever lens


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hermelin
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,129 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 279
Joined Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
     
Nov 11, 2014 03:10 |  #3

davidfarina wrote in post #17264532 (external link)
Looks good. For me it would be a perfect, cheap and lightweight solution for a crop camera, but for people not liking prime lenses its not ideal. But then you could skip out 24, 35, 50 and use a 18-55 or whatever lens

But the 18-55 is only 3.5-5.6 aperture, so I would miss out on lowlight, and 18-55 3.5-5.6 is like the most boring lens ever made. Then I would have just kept my 18-135 STM

I could however get the 17-55 f/2.8 instead of the 24,35,50. Would be about the same price.


Fujifilm X100F

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Nov 11, 2014 03:29 |  #4

Hermelin wrote in post #17264544 (external link)
But the 18-55 is only 3.5-5.6 aperture, so I would miss out on lowlight, and 18-55 3.5-5.6 is like the most boring lens ever made. Then I would have just kept my 18-135 STM

I could however get the 17-55 f/2.8 instead of the 24,35,50. Would be about the same price.

Sure wouldnt be my choice either, i find it boring aswell. But just in case someone doesnt like prime lenses :)


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Qlayer2
OOOHHH! Pretty Moth!
Avatar
941 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 121
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Nov 11, 2014 07:56 |  #5

If it were me, 24, 35, and 50 would all be too close perspective wise. I'd go 24, 50 100 or 35, 85, 135 for different looks for different situations.

The 24 2.8 STM, 50 1.8, and the 100 f2 would be my prime choice with that setup. Would cost you about the same.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
2,988 posts
Gallery: 80 photos
Likes: 788
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Nov 11, 2014 08:06 |  #6

The OP's plan looks good to me. For primes, the 24, 50 and 85 would be close to the field of view of the full frame trio- 35, 85, 135. The OP already has the excellent 35 f/2 IS, so I think I would skip the 50 in this case.


Fujifilm X-T3, 16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2, 80mm f/2.8 OIS Macro, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OIS, 1.4x TC, Flashpoint R2 Strobes/Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,339 posts
Gallery: 1716 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10794
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Nov 11, 2014 10:21 |  #7

Hermelin wrote in post #17264522 (external link)
My new idea of what lenses I should have is that they should be relatively cheap and low weight. You can invest in pretty good performing gear today that doesn't cost a lot.
I recently sold my my 18-135 STM lens as it doesn't fit the criteria of being low weight but mostly because I got bored of it (great lens however).
Anyway, here's my list of what I have and what I plan to get and what purpose each lens will have:

10-18 IS STM: UWA lens for landscape - $299
24 f/2.8 STM: General purpose / travel lens - $149
35 f/2 IS USM: Indoor / low light lens - $599
50 f/1.8: Portrait / Bokeh lens - $125
55 - 250 STM: Wildlife photography - $299

Totalt: $1471 on 5 lenses that covers 10-250 mm and all purposes
Heaviest lens being the 55-250 STM at only 375g

What do you think? :cool:

Heya,

I wouldn't bother with the 24 here. In almost every situation in travel and general purpose, I'd rather have that 10-18 or the 35. The 24 STM is tiny, and that's nice, but the 35 F2 IS is simply better and does better for general purpose with IS and a wider aperture, while keeping it not too big and heavy. And for wide, well, the 10-18 does that and it's small and light. While the 24 is inexpensive, and fits in a pocket, it can still be in there just for fun. But knowing myself, at least, I know I'd never favor it over the 35 F2 IS or an ultrawide (which is why I've yet to purchase it for myself, it would collect dust, even though I think it's an interesting lens).

I would skip the 50 F1.8 II as well. While inexpensive and light weight, it's not a "for life" lens, as it's not build well, noisy, slow to focus, and just way too cheap feeling for me. I've bought two. Gave them both away. I actually do keep and use the 40 F2.8 STM though. It serves the same purpose, for near same price, and is built well enough that it will last. That said, it's not my favorite lens either. I favor the 35 F2 IS over it in every situation mostly.

If you want a bokeh/portrait lens, I would stress the 85 F1.8 as an inexpensive light (but well made) alternative. It also covers action/sports, where your other lens selections are too slow, or not fast enough aperture wise to deal with high frame rates in low light. The 85 F1.8 is lightning fast to focus, tracks great, and is sharp wide open.

55-250 is a good zoo lens or large wildlife (big animals, huge ones) lens. But to me, it's too short for wild wildlife, especially smaller varieties that are not going to let you get within 20 feet so that you can actually fill your frame. Even a big heron requires you get within like 20~30 feet to fill the frame on APS-C with ~200mm. This is where you either just deal with the shorter length. Or you pony up for a wildlife lens (which in my opinion starts at 400mm). There's no way to go inexpensive and/or light weight relative to lenses like the pancakes or other plastic lenses and EF-S flavors. The lightest, longest, least expensive wildlife lenses right now are more like $650~$1k. And to me, well worth it, if you want a wildlife lens, and not just a zoo lens. I say this as one who started with the 55-250, went to a 70-200 (for speed of focus) to a 150-600, and I am happy to spend every penny for the 600 over the 250, as I shoot lots of wildlife, and 250 was just too short, even on APS-C, to do much of anything with unless I was at the zoo.

So to me:

Camera (APS-C) of choice
EF-S 10-18 STM (landscape, group portrait, travel, general purpose)
EF 35 F2 IS (every day, general purpose, low light, travel, portrait, group, landscape)
EF 85 F1.8 (portrait, sports, action, zoo, landscape)

And then choose to get a big lens, or really think about if you need greater than 200mm or not. You can get 500mm lenses for $650 if you shop.

And this is where I add a 2nd camera. I like carrying the EOS-M as a 2nd cam. Uses the lenses. Gives you another option.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robienyshe
Member
129 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Dallas,tx
     
Nov 11, 2014 10:39 |  #8

Or how about replacing 24 ,35 ,50 for a single lens of Sigma 18-35 f1.8 or 17-50 f2.8


T4i, Σ 17-50 f2.8, 18-55mm, 55-250mm, 50mm f1.8, 40mm f2.8, 85mm f1.8, 430EXII SpeedLite, LR4, DOLICA AX620B100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2575
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Nov 11, 2014 23:34 |  #9

if weight is the biggest concern, i'd get a smaller body...

you could go eos m with a 22mm, 11-22IS, 50-200mm...cheaper, and it'd weigh less than all your options

i don't understand the concern over weight though


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,229 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1472
Joined Dec 2006
     
Nov 11, 2014 23:41 |  #10

I get where you might select one lens over anothet based on weight 24-703.8 vs 24-105 for instance. But choosing sn entire lineup based on weight seems misguided Sort of like picking wrenches based on color. If weight is an issue above actual performance, get the 18-200, its a bit heavier but its all those other mediocre lenses rolled into onr.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,339 posts
Gallery: 1716 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10794
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Nov 11, 2014 23:48 |  #11

gonzogolf wrote in post #17266676 (external link)
If weight is an issue above actual performance, get the 18-200, its a bit heavier but its all those other mediocre lenses rolled into onr.

At this point, however, what do you think of simply moving to MFT? Is there a significant quality difference?

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,229 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1472
Joined Dec 2006
     
Nov 12, 2014 00:34 |  #12

MalVeauX wrote in post #17266687 (external link)
At this point, however, what do you think of simply moving to MFT? Is there a significant quality difference?

Very best,

I have to admit ignorance of the various smaller form factor options including mirrorless and MFT,. I'm reasonably certain that those systems used carefully can rival work done with less care using a dslr. But I suspect you are on the tight track. I just cant get into using screens or EVF to compose.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cedm
Senior Member
628 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 7
Joined Feb 2008
Location: KL, Malaysia
     
Nov 12, 2014 20:58 |  #13

Hermelin wrote in post #17264522 (external link)
My new idea of what lenses I should have is that they should be relatively cheap and low weight.
...

What do you think? :cool:

I'm following the same trend. I'm trying to get the best lightweight setup possible for the body I own (60D). I could save more weight by getting a smaller body, but that's incompatible with my tight budget, hence I'm also looking for good small, light and cheap lenses.

Your selection does make a lot of sense, though the 3 primes you mentioned (24, 35, 50) are quite close to each other and I think you could drop one, or even two. I like the idea of shooting primes, but I'm not sure I could replace my standard zoom (Tamron 17-50) over these. It's just so versatile to get all these focal lengths in one lens. Well, that's a personal preference.

Of the lenses I own (see my signature), I mostly use my Tamron 17-50. It's fast, affordable, and not too heavy (considering the large aperture and great focal range).

I bought a Canon 10-18 STM recently and love the weight and size of it. It feels just right, well balanced and not front heavy like my 100mm macro (which is a great lens, but I'm not pleased by its weight at all...).

I also have a Canon 55-250 IS (not the newer STM version). A bit heavier, but acceptable. I haven't used it in years though. Not sharp enough, too slow for my taste and I just don't shoot on the long end much anyway. I heard the STM is sharper. I wished someone would make a small ~50-135 f/4 instead... :)


My gear: EOS 60D | EF-S 10-18 STM | Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 | EF-S 24 STM | EF 50 F/1.8 | EF-S 55-250 IS | EF 100 F/2.8 macro | 430EX.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eastport
Senior Member
Avatar
940 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 47
Joined Apr 2009
     
Nov 13, 2014 12:59 |  #14

DreDaze wrote in post #17266660 (external link)
if weight is the biggest concern, i'd get a smaller body...

I agree that smaller body would have been the way to go. And I would not have sold the 18-135 STM. That's not what's making the package heavy - it's the 70D.

My "light" kit includes the SL1, 18-135 STM, 10-18 STM, the 55-250 STM and the 35 f/2 IS.

I usually take only two or three of these lenses when travelling light but it very much gets the job done.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jarvis ­ Creative ­ Studios
Goldmember
Avatar
2,405 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 857
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Houston, Texas
     
Nov 13, 2014 13:02 |  #15

Hermelin wrote in post #17264522 (external link)
My new idea of what lenses I should have is that they should be relatively cheap and low weight. You can invest in pretty good performing gear today that doesn't cost a lot.
I recently sold my my 18-135 STM lens as it doesn't fit the criteria of being low weight but mostly because I got bored of it (great lens however).
Anyway, here's my list of what I have and what I plan to get and what purpose each lens will have:

10-18 IS STM: UWA lens for landscape - $299
24 f/2.8 STM: General purpose / travel lens - $149
35 f/2 IS USM: Indoor / low light lens - $599
50 f/1.8: Portrait / Bokeh lens - $125
55 - 250 STM: Wildlife photography - $299

Totalt: $1471 on 5 lenses that covers 10-250 mm and all purposes
Heaviest lens being the 55-250 STM at only 375g

What do you think? :cool:

Sorry. This is off topic and totally my OCD side coming out, but why include the 10-18 and 35 in your cost analysis if you already own them?


WEBSITE (external link)
flickr (external link)
Sony HX90V || Sony RX100V || Sony a6500 || Sony a9 || Sony E 10-18mm f/4 OSS || Sony FE 24-70 f/2.8 GM || Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA || Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f1.8 ZA || Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM OSS || Godox speedlights and strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,508 views & 0 likes for this thread
My budget low weight lens plan
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is heflerbj
1022 guests, 319 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.