SLR Lens Advice

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The thing to bear in mind is that nothing will beat the quality of a fixed, ie prime, lens. So a non zoom lens with a fixed focal length, say 50mm, will produce better images than a zoom lens which has a variable length of say 15-85mm, set at a focal length of 50mm. A simple analagy is if anything, generally, is made to do one thing only, it will do it better than something else which is made to do several similar things.

With zoom lenses, the greater the range of focal lengths, the greater the compromise of their capabilities, depending on budget and manufacturer, but the principle is the same, so some lenses set at 80 will give a different perspective to others. Just think of the way a picture looks taken from a distance, but zoomed in close, and then the same picture taken up close with a wider angled lens, and you will see the difference. Also, outer edges may start to degrade in image quality etc.

The f numbers refer to the aperture of the lens, which is like the iris of the eye. The more the iris or aperture is open, the more the amount of light you let in. The shutter speed on the camera is like the eyelid, and will determine how long you let the light in for. The more light you let in, the less amount of time you need to let it in for etc, so fast shutter speeds for moving objects require more light to be let in, and the smaller the f number, the more light it will let in. Your 2.8 lens will let in about twice the amount of light on full aperture as the 3.5s your are considering, and is therefore 'faster'. It would be better for landscapes in lower light, for example, so don't compromise that for the 15-85 lens. If you can, I would look to get a second lens, going upwards from 50mm.

I won't get invloved with depth of field etc, 'cos I haven't had breakfast yet, but your camera will be programmable anyway. I woke up early this morning, all excited, 'cos I'm picking up the replacement for my old 124 estate later today, an S211 E500 estate, so you'll know how I'm feeling! Good luck with the sale of yours, btw. Time for breakfast!

Edit for previous post in red.
 
I think you might be looking at this the wrong way round - its a bit like saying I am going down to the toolshop to buy a new tool ........ unless you have a specific need for a particular tool, you dont make the trip.

Decide what it is that you want to shoot that you cant do currently, then get the appropriate tool/lens. Dont just try and find a reason to buy a lens ........ ;-)
 
The 17-55 F2.8 looks like a very good lens. Have a read here:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review

I have the 17-85, but 90% of the time when 'out and about' it's the wide end of the zoom that's most useful. You can usually get a bit closer on foot if necessary, but you often can't get further back! As above, you need to know what you want it for really.
 
The need is definitely for something that can zoom in further than the kit 18-55 lens, but where I am struggling is whether I go 85, 135 or 200.

I have read so many reviews now, that they have left me even further confused.
 
I have the Canon 15-85 lens and it is superb, any zoom lens is a compromise and whilst a range of 18-200 may seem attractive something has to give. I find the 15-85 is a good walkround and yes a constant f2.8 would be nice but with excellent high ISO performance from my 7D the lack of speed has never been a problem. The purchase of perhaps a 70-200 to complement the 17-55 is an alternative, the downside being cost, having to swap and you miss 2mm on the widest end with the 17-55. That extra 2mm does make a difference. You will need to decide based on what you shoot, but you certainly wouldn't be dissapointed with the 15-85.

Img_1845.jpg
 
I'm a Nikon man ( sorry chaps !) and have 3 lenses; 50mm f1.8; 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 and a 70-200mm f2.8.

The 16-85mm is my walkabout lens and no doubt as with it's Canon equivalent gives excellent results. The 18-135mm is a possible alternative. The super Zooms such as 18-200/18-250 etc are ok but having owned an 18-200 (which I sold for the 16-85 ) you might sacrifice some quality as has already been indicated. Furthermore, I doubt if you'll ever want to shoot much beyond 100-120mm anyway so I'd save some money and consider either the 15-85mm or 18-135mm.

F2.8 lenses are just great to work with but being ' faster ' glass they do come at a significantly higher price.

Try not to get carried away with lens and/or body lust, it's a fatal disease that can prove expensive.

I'd support what others have said here and seriously consider either the 15-85 or 18-135 though I have no idea what the cost differential is or attributes of these.

Whatever you decide, happy shooting.
 
Yeah, it can get pretty confusing deciding what to go for and it can be easy to fall into the expensive/longer/bigger lens will be the best one for you.

All I can really advise is for you to identify your budget, and what you want out of your lens. The options you mention do overlap somewhat with each other, but they'll vary in price, weight, image quality, and build quality. At the end of the day, however, they'll all do pretty much the same thing.

You might want more "zoom" (the proper term here being "focal length"), but there's something that you might have overlooked here.

Something I used to do a great deal is crop down photos to produce the composition I want. This has the result of increasing your reach without dramatically reducing image quality (although there are limits).

For example, the original of this photo had a heck of a lot more sky around it that I cropped out to give a decent layout.

img_0322.jpg


So, when you're looking through your viewfinder, keep in mind that you can crop for effect afterwards.

I've probably confused you still further with this, for which I offer my apologies.
 
I'd support what others have said here and seriously consider either the 15-85 or 18-135 though I have no idea what the cost differential is or attributes of these.

Whatever you decide, happy shooting.

Thanks everyone, the approximate costs are as follows:


18-135 = £342
18-200 = £404
15-85 = £599
17-55 = £769

Regards

Tan
 
Hi, You have been given a plethora of excellent advice and opinions from others knowing lots more than me, but from reading your O/P I assume that you are like me, a "Happy Snapper" that now just wants a bit more from his pictures. To go with my Nikon "kit" 18-105mm lens sometime ago I bought a Nikor 70-300mm off of Ebay for £90.
YES its a big lens to carry around, YES you have to be aware of camera shake and breathe deeply when taking photos @300mm to avoid any blur (or use a tripod), YES its a nuiscance to have to change lenses, but when walking in the park what fun it is to zoom into the birds or the squirrels, or taking long distant pictures on holidays (not candid photographs -- he adds knowingly).
As I see it photography is about enjoyment and as I am not after winning any prizes with my photos, (although I have had some included on Google Earth), my "big " lens gives me a lot of enjoyment even with perhaps some detriment in quality, which if you are in the mind to you can always retouch with digital software.
If I might suggest,--- you take your camera with you to the shop when you take back your birthday gift lens and ask the shop if you can just try out the focal length of different lenses by just looking down the street and moving from 70 to 210 or 300 and then you will get the "wow" factor of what a distance a 200 or 300 lens can see.
The lens prices you have quoted seem very expensive so I assume they are for Canon Lenses, however Sigma and Tamron are quite a bit cheaper as already mentioned.
Had you not have had this other lens to chop in I perhaps would have suggested an alternative, of buying a cheapie Sigma or Tamron off of Ebay, have a play with it for a while and then if you do not like it (which I am sure you will) resell it and perhaps you will recoup all your money. Happy Snapping.
 
Yes. Affectionately termed the "Nifty Fifty", it's a great value high quality lens.

It does rattle a little when you shake it, has plastic gears inside, and whirs when it focuses, but it produced great results.

The Canon f/1.4 has slightly better IQ and better (and quieter) build quality, but costs more.

I'd easily recommend the f/1.8.
 
Yes. Affectionately termed the "Nifty Fifty", it's a great value high quality lens.

It does rattle a little when you shake it, has plastic gears inside, and whirs when it focuses, but it produced great results.

The Canon f/1.4 has slightly better IQ and better (and quieter) build quality, but costs more.

I'd easily recommend the f/1.8.

Completely agree....great lens.
 
You can also use it for low light, landscape & street stuff, just bear in mind it's not a zoom so you might have to walk a couple of feet or so forwards or backwards to get the composition.

Not a Canon Man but I'd still consider the 18-135 over the 18-200. If there's a dealer near by that has both, why not pop along with your body ( and card !) and take some shots using both lenses. I'm sure they won't mind or least they should'nt, and then have a look at both sets of images on your computer. Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
If you go out with nothing but a 50mm lens, it'll teach you so much about photography. About how to get up close and intimate with your subject, how to frame larger subjects, and how not to rely on using the zoom ring.

It will force you into moving in all three directions to get your photo.

And I guarantee you'll be pleased with your results.
 
if you go out with nothing but a 50mm lens, it'll teach you so much about photography. About how to get up close and intimate with your subject, how to frame larger subjects, and how not to rely on using the zoom ring.

It will force you into moving in all three directions to get your photo.

And i guarantee you'll be pleased with your results.

+1
 
my take on lenses is to go to a fast one (<f2.8). Look at recommendations on good bokeh. Some lenses just have it.
 
Having fun with my "nifty fifty" :)

IMG_3036.jpg
 
Thanks all for your advice, I have bought a Canon 50mm F1.8 prime lens and a Canon 18-200mm lens.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom