I'm looking at upgrades from my Rebel XT kit lens and looking to go for a better quality lens, but not quite full pro level. Just something to take my images to the next level.
I was looking at Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS, and while expensive, I've heard nothing but rave reviews on the image quality from it.
The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L refurbished is not much more than the previous lens is new, but Canon is out of stock, so probably not going that way.
Another one that was suggested was Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8, but it doesn't have IS which I was really looking forward to, but with f2.8 it might make up for it. Also much lower cost.
To summarize, I'm not expecting to change from a crop body anytime soon, and looking for increased image quality and a bit more zoom than the 18-55mm that my kit lens offers. I do have a Sigma 75-300 I can switch to but looking for something to extend a walkaround lens just a bit further.
Suggestions, recommendations, or personal experience?
Well, you contradict your a bit, then you recover nicely. You want an upgrade from a kit lens, but you're thinking of a variable aperture lens? That's not much of an upgrade.
When buying lenses, you want to look for those that have a constant maximum aperture. Those have the fewest moving parts and pieces of glass which means they are much sharper. Believe me: any lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 or f/2.8 or anything will be much sharper than one with an f/3.5-4.5 or f/3.5-5.6.
I have the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. It is a fantastic lens! Super sharp, fast autofocus, lightweight and pretty compact. You don't have to worry about image stablization while shooting at 75mm, though. I never have problems with this lens.
You were thinking about the 18-55mm, so if you want something wide go with the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. This is a tank of a lens, ultra-sharp and even gives the more expensive Nikon and Canon versions a run for their money. I also use this lens.
@mallocarray, @jasonbarnette (of course) has it right. Don't cheap out on the lens, if you're going to put money in it get a real lens. I've fallen into that trap too many times of settling for a variable aperture, and then grumble over the photos.
If canon lenses are a bit out of your price range here's a good article that that also lists 3rd party lenses. Coincidence that they were mentioned in the above post? Probably not!
@jasonbarnette Hey while you're on the lens subject, what do you think of the Canon EF 24-70mm? I was looking at that today at Lens and Shutter and was a wee bit enamoured by it. Do you think that would make for a good "all purpose" lens? Just everyday shooting with a little bit of everything thrown in? (Night shooting, some portraiture, landscapes, close-ups, etc?)
@pwallis That is a great lens, but it's also expensive! If you have the money for it, I'd say you'll be fine with that lens for landscapes, portraits, nights, just about anything. Not really good for macro.
@mallocarray@jasonbarnette "When buying lenses, you want to look for those that have a constant maximum aperture. Those have the fewest moving parts and pieces of glass which means they are much sharper."
Mmm... sort of. What you say is true for prime lenses but not necessarily for constant aperture zooms (though yes, they tend to be of higher quality in general).
Aperture is defined relative to the focal length, so you need a larger effective diameter when you're zoomed in to maintain the same f-number. Hence, in order to make a constant aperture lens, you need a bigger barrel and bigger pieces of glass. The main advantage of a constant aperture zoom is that the the telephoto end is where the speed is most useful. Cheaper, variable aperture zooms aren't necessarily more complex in construction, they just make more compromise on speed at the tele end than the more expensive ones. As far as I know, the main reasons constant aperture lenses tend to be sharper is because they're generally better built, with higher quality parts, and in practice because the extra speed means less camera shake/mirror shake etc.
Having said that, I agree with your conclusion (and @neda): don't cheap out on the lens. Just don't. Get the very best quality lens you can afford. And if you can't afford a good one, save up for it. BUT, having said that, there are some cheaper lenses out there that have excellent optical quality (my old sigma EX 50mm 2.8 macro springs to mind) so do some reading before you fork out. And if you're after pure optical quality with value for money consider picking up some primes.
And @jasonbarnette - I also have the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and have to say it is a beautiful lens for the price.
@jasonbarnette I already have a macro lens, so that's cool. But I did notice that it's classed as a macro lens when I looked at it (not that I'd be using it for that purpose). I know it's expensive, but I've been saving my dosh, between that and Santa......maybe? If I'm lucky?
@pwallis Depends on what kinda of "cookies" you leave for Santa bahaha. It's a great lens, but I opted to buy the Tamron 24-75mm f/2.8 and the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 because I could get them both for the price of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8.
I'm not sure why it's classified as a Macro lens, though, cause it's really not.
@jasonbarnette that's kind of the discussion I had with the store clerk. He didn't seem to know what the f@#k he was talking about though, so I told him I'd just ask Lord Shadow. Then he thought I was slightly crazy and spent the next 5 minutes trying to catch another customers eye in the hopes I'd go away.
I leave very nice cookies for Santa. I'm on his naughty list.
I understand that the constant aperture on the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 sets it apart, but with everyone saying to buy the best lens you can afford, would you really rule out the EF-S 15-85mm so quickly since it is twice as much?
I don't shoot much landscape, but I do some portrait and mostly indoor family stuff. would the 28mm on a crop body be too close? My 50mm 1.8 isn't much use in my house as it is much too close, but I haven't looked over other pictures to see what length I typically use. I think it is more in the 35-50 range, so I should be ok.
@jasonbarnette
Quote: "You were thinking about the 18-55mm" I think you may have read the first lens I posted incorrectly, or I said something else that confused it, but I was looking at 18-85mm as option 1. Looking for that longer reach.
Yeah, I did see the wrong lens at first. However, the 15-85mm lens is still a variable aperture so it is crap. If you are shooting photos for display on your computer for mom, dad, and son then you have nothing to worry about. But when you try making a 20"x30" print of a photo taken with a variable aperture lens, you drop to your knees and cry.
Buying the best lens you can afford means looking for something with a constant maximum aperture, not the most expensive lens you can find. I have used variable aperture lenses versus the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens which I own and there is no comparison. One of my photos taken with a Nikon D2Hs and that Tamron lens is now a 30' long poster hanging in Trask Coliseum at UNC Wilmington. It is super sharp.
You need to be careful shooting portraits wider than 35mm. When you start shooting wider than that you end up with slight distortion at the edges. When shooting vertically, this can lead to heads looking too large or enormous foreheads. I always shoot portraits of individuals with my 85mm lens and groups with my 50mm lens. I just keep backing up. If you're working inside, you'll just have to get creative with the spacing.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
When buying lenses, you want to look for those that have a constant maximum aperture. Those have the fewest moving parts and pieces of glass which means they are much sharper. Believe me: any lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 or f/2.8 or anything will be much sharper than one with an f/3.5-4.5 or f/3.5-5.6.
I have the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. It is a fantastic lens! Super sharp, fast autofocus, lightweight and pretty compact. You don't have to worry about image stablization while shooting at 75mm, though. I never have problems with this lens.
You were thinking about the 18-55mm, so if you want something wide go with the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. This is a tank of a lens, ultra-sharp and even gives the more expensive Nikon and Canon versions a run for their money. I also use this lens.
If canon lenses are a bit out of your price range here's a good article that that also lists 3rd party lenses. Coincidence that they were mentioned in the above post? Probably not!
Mmm... sort of. What you say is true for prime lenses but not necessarily for constant aperture zooms (though yes, they tend to be of higher quality in general).
Aperture is defined relative to the focal length, so you need a larger effective diameter when you're zoomed in to maintain the same f-number. Hence, in order to make a constant aperture lens, you need a bigger barrel and bigger pieces of glass. The main advantage of a constant aperture zoom is that the the telephoto end is where the speed is most useful. Cheaper, variable aperture zooms aren't necessarily more complex in construction, they just make more compromise on speed at the tele end than the more expensive ones. As far as I know, the main reasons constant aperture lenses tend to be sharper is because they're generally better built, with higher quality parts, and in practice because the extra speed means less camera shake/mirror shake etc.
Having said that, I agree with your conclusion (and @neda): don't cheap out on the lens. Just don't. Get the very best quality lens you can afford. And if you can't afford a good one, save up for it. BUT, having said that, there are some cheaper lenses out there that have excellent optical quality (my old sigma EX 50mm 2.8 macro springs to mind) so do some reading before you fork out. And if you're after pure optical quality with value for money consider picking up some primes.
And @jasonbarnette - I also have the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and have to say it is a beautiful lens for the price.
Blah, blah... ;)
I'm not sure why it's classified as a Macro lens, though, cause it's really not.
I leave very nice cookies for Santa. I'm on his naughty list.
I understand that the constant aperture on the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 sets it apart, but with everyone saying to buy the best lens you can afford, would you really rule out the EF-S 15-85mm so quickly since it is twice as much?
I don't shoot much landscape, but I do some portrait and mostly indoor family stuff. would the 28mm on a crop body be too close? My 50mm 1.8 isn't much use in my house as it is much too close, but I haven't looked over other pictures to see what length I typically use. I think it is more in the 35-50 range, so I should be ok.
Quote: "You were thinking about the 18-55mm" I think you may have read the first lens I posted incorrectly, or I said something else that confused it, but I was looking at 18-85mm as option 1. Looking for that longer reach.
Buying the best lens you can afford means looking for something with a constant maximum aperture, not the most expensive lens you can find. I have used variable aperture lenses versus the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens which I own and there is no comparison. One of my photos taken with a Nikon D2Hs and that Tamron lens is now a 30' long poster hanging in Trask Coliseum at UNC Wilmington. It is super sharp.
You need to be careful shooting portraits wider than 35mm. When you start shooting wider than that you end up with slight distortion at the edges. When shooting vertically, this can lead to heads looking too large or enormous foreheads. I always shoot portraits of individuals with my 85mm lens and groups with my 50mm lens. I just keep backing up. If you're working inside, you'll just have to get creative with the spacing.