which lens to get first?

Well i can't make my mind on which lens to get first.

Current gear:60D + 18-135

What I can't decide is Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 10-20, and later get the other , eventually I will get both.

I'm doing a bit of landscape, what I don't like about the the 18-135 is it has a lot of purple fringe even stoped. My working focal right now are around 18-30 mm (maybe because I haven't used a 10-20 yet.)

So.. get the sigma 10-20 right now, and start on those focals and complement with my current 18-135, or get right now the 17-50, and keep working with my current focals, and later add the 10-20. which lens you suggest me to get first?

17-55 2.8 and you wont need any lenses. except if you want telephoto try get yourself 70-200 II. superbly sharp and best for your 60d

Since you like landscape, I think 10-20 sigma would be better because 17-50 focal lenght is covered with your 18-135 already.

Yeah, get the 10-20 as the 18-135 will probably hold you over for the time being.

canon 17-55 2.8 and tokina 11-16 2.8 and you will have all the close stuff covered.

zikri wrote in post #11969472
17-55 2.8 and you wont need any lenses. except if you want telephoto try get yourself 70-200 II. superbly sharp and best for your 60d

Thanks for the suggestion, but i'm looking at the tamron 17-50, on the telephoto side right now i dont need it..

KY707 wrote in post #11969478
Since you like landscape, I think 10-20 sigma would be better because 17-50 focal lenght is covered with your 18-135 already.

Thanks..guess i will go that route, i have been watching a lot of pics at 10mm and it seems to be a very addictive focal and fun as well.

Bokehlicious wrote in post #11969513
Yeah, get the 10-20 as the 18-135 will probably hold you over for the time being.

Guess this confirm my though, just what i need was a push

shoturtle wrote in post #11969527
canon 17-55 2.8 and tokina 11-16 2.8 and you will have all the close stuff covered.

well those lenses are interesting but out my budget, I'm not getting paid for my pictures, so I cant justify spending a lot of money on a lens which I will not see any penny out of it. But thanks for the suggestion.

Why not the Sigma 17-50?

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11857815#po​st11857815

I might look at the 15-85mm lens. It will get you wider and still give you the versatility of a zoom.

I would say the 10-20 so you can add a new range. getting a 17-50 is only going to help a little in low light but it is not going to give you any other freedom with your shooting.

For low light you are better off getting a flash an learning how to shoot flash photography. You will get much better results.

But with you already having the range from 18-135 covered, I would get the 10-20mm next for a lens.

also get a 50mm 1.8? you get so much for the amount you pay so it won't break bank even if you get it as your 2nd lens on top of the wide angle.

Velorium wrote in post #11970545
Why not the Sigma 17-50?

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=11857815#po​st11857815

I never thought about that one, i will consider it once I start shopping for that range. it's interesting that use 77mm like the 10-20 so there would be no need to get step up ring to use the ND filter !!

HaroldC3 wrote in post #11970605
I might look at the 15-85mm lens. It will get you wider and still give you the versatility of a zoom.

Well, once I replace my 18-135 would be with a fast one like the 17-50, when I was shooting Sony I had a Carl Zeiss 16-80 and sold it in favour of the 17-50. On that range i like a lot a 2.8 lens.

midnight_rider wrote in post #11970619
I would say the 10-20 so you can add a new range. getting a 17-50 is only going to help a little in low light but it is not going to give you any other freedom with your shooting.

Well getting something different than the 18-135 is to get rid of that amount of purple fringe, that lens have. And it's not so easy to remove as some other lenses.

shoturtle wrote in post #11970662
For low light you are better off getting a flash an learning how to shoot flash photography. You will get much better results.

But with you already having the range from 18-135 covered, I would get the 10-20mm next for a lens.

I know how to work off camera flash, that is not a problem. But also with fast lenses you get benefits when shotting with flash. Remember the inverse square law

But yeah due that now i'm doing landscape i will start with the 10-20

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #11970716
also get a 50mm 1.8? you get so much for the amount you pay so it won't break bank even if you get it as your 2nd lens on top of the wide angle.

Yup that one is on the basket. Not because I need it right now, but because lens lust, and have some fun with DoF.

I will get almost all the lenses i had when i was shooting sony.

Thanks everybody..