xentr_theme_editor

  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

Best everyday lens

Mistertuxedopants

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
xentr_thread_starter
Hello Fellow HWC photographers,

I have a Canon T2I, i have just started recent taking more of a intrest in taking photos. Right now i just have a 18-55mm and a 50mm 1.8. I don't have a lot of money to spend. I am looking for a lens that can do a little of everything with. Close up, wide angle.. etc. I know this is hard to find but what is the closest thing i can get to this?

Thanks
MTP
 
Good question... but there is no good answer.

You can look at any of canon's EF-S line of cameras which are designed specifically for camera like yours.

Canon makes an 18-200mm lens, which is pretty much what your looking for, but at 800 bucks, its still not exactly "cheap" and I can tell you from experience that the lens is a real piece of crap. Want to see mine? which piece?... junk.

Sigma, tameron, tokina... they all make similarly designed lenses in that range, for better or worse. I cant comment on their quality because i dont use them, but i'm sure there will be reviews on each out in the interwebz somewhere.

Something you really need to keep in mind is that for as cheap as it is to "create" photos (essentially free other than the cost of gear) the gear to do it creatively is anything BUT cheap... I've got a pretty serious hobbiest kit, and i'm well over 10 thousand dollars into it.
 
Well I should start with the obligatory "depends on what you're shooting" statement. There is no one lens for every situation - there are always tradeoffs. If you want convenience you can get a superzoom like the Canon 18-200mm (although I would argue that superzooms kind of defeat the purpose of an interchangeable lens system but that's a bit off topic).

If you see yourself shooting more in the slightly wide to slightly telephoto range, you can look into upgrading your kit lens. The Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 is very good (but expensive). Also good but less expensive are the third-party lenses like the Tamron and Sigma 17-50 2.8. The Tamron has a closer minimum focusing distance than your 50 1.8, which will let you close-up shots.

If you need more reach you can try the Canon 70-200mm F4 L which is a very, very good lens for the price (I think you can get it used for $600), or the EF-S 55-250mm which is pretty good too and has IS which is useful.
 
perhaps it would be best if you could just give us a budget. we could see if there was anything in range for you at all.
 
xentr_thread_starter
I know this is very unlikely but i was looking to spend in between 400-600, i feel that is cheap for a lens.I am kinda stuck, I like shooting both macro and landscape and i don't know what i perfer more. I know its impossible to get something that does everything, just wishful thinking i guess.
 
I'd recommend a 35mm lens, while the 50mm is very nice for the price, I find it zooms too much for me with the 1.6 crop ratio on the camera. Apart from that I use my 18-55 stock lens as my walk about now, I find it quite a solid little lens. I also have my 300-700 lens for my telephoto, might look at upgrading that in the future.

I'd love the 100mm macro but at 1000+ I just cant afford it. I love doing macro shots and just what you can do with them but for me its purely for fun and frolic.
 
Although I'm a Nikon user, but my brother in law is a Canon user and I remember when he was shopping for 18-200 he did a bunch of research and in the end he chooses Sigma. He told me that Sigma 18-200 have better IQ than Canon and cheaper too!. So with that said why not try Sigma 18-200 ?

If what you're looking for is all around lens, that can do wide, zoom, heck even macro. 18-200 is your best bet. I have one on my Nikon (well now my wife's) but it is the best all around lens. I always bring that one on trip since and especially if I don't feel like bringing something heavy.

HTH..
 
Something you really need to keep in mind is that for as cheap as it is to "create" photos (essentially free other than the cost of gear) the gear to do it creatively is anything BUT cheap... I've got a pretty serious hobbiest kit, and i'm well over 10 thousand dollars into it.

I would like to strongly disagree. While there are indeed many people who spend obscene amounts of money on photo gear - those are gearheads and geeks, not photographers. Professional photographers may also have expensive kits, but they don't count because they actually earn money with their equipment and each piece they own serves a purpose - they will not buy something unless it pays for itself and fast.

Like another poster above I would second an advice to get a 35mm fast prime, but it would only make sense if you did not already have a zoom lens that covers the same length and a 50mm which is somewhat close to it as well.

To be really honest, I'd say stick with what you have. Is there something you specifically feel is missing with your existing kit? If you just started doing photography, chances are you have not reached the limits of your lenses. The limits you have right now are likely not in your equipment, but in your mind. You need to learn how to best use what you already got, you need to learn how to see things with your eyes the way a camera will see it, you need to study your surroundings to find out when and how to best photograph them. That's a lot of work, and additional gear is just a distraction at this point.

Instead of spending more money on gear, go for a trip somewhere interesting - a change of scenery can do wonders to your pictures!

tzetsin, I'm not trying to sh!t on your parade and your expensive kit, but it's unfair to make others feel like they cannot take creative photographs unless they spend 10K on gear.
 
I know this is very unlikely but i was looking to spend in between 400-600, i feel that is cheap for a lens.I am kinda stuck, I like shooting both macro and landscape and i don't know what i perfer more. I know its impossible to get something that does everything, just wishful thinking i guess.
Macro as in physically having the camera close to the subject, or macro as in "zooming" in really close to a far away object?

If it's the former, I'd highly recommend this: 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM - Standard Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com I got mine last November for $529 (probably cheaper now) so it fits your budget. Extremely close focusing distance, you can basically have the lens sitting on the subject. Fairly decent optical quality too and there's a profile for it in Lightroom to fix things up. Build quality its leaps and bounds ahead of the Canon kit lenses as well. It is rather big and heavy compared to the kit lens though so just be aware of that. Didn't feel quite right on my tiny Rebel XS body, but fits much better on my EOS 60D. I think the T2i is in the middle between those size wise, so it shouldn't be too bad.

It's my go-to lens for the most part. The only other lens I have is the Sigma 50-200mm F4-5.6 DC OS HSM which I got for a mere $169USD (about $200 shipped to Canada) and makes for a solid companion to the 17-70mm. Gives me the distance to zoom into things when I need to. I traded in my Rebel XS + kit lens to get the EOS 60D which is why I no longer have the Canon 18-55mm.
 
Speaking of macro, the trick is not to get very close to the subject, the trick is to fill the frame with a very small subject. For that you want as long a lens as you can get. 70mm is rather short for macro photography - you will have to literally stick the lens up into your subject, which is not what you want. If you come too close two bad things happen: 1) you can scare off the subject and 2) you block incoming light with your lens. I used a 70mm macro lens at one point, and while it's okay for still life, it's terrible for anything that moves. Mind you macro photography of moving subjects is a major challenge no matter what equipment you have, but with wrong kind of gear it's even harder. I have a 105mm macro and it's a great lens, but big and heavy and somewhat special purpose. It's not the kind of lens you'll use a lot unless you do lots of wildlife macros. It sometimes sits unused for months because of that.
 
Back
Top