Lens scenarios for my new T3i

Instead of a long winded story I’ll try and make it a quick question. I am getting the T3i body only and have only about 600$ to spend on a lenses (or a lens).

My first dSLR and I am torn between quantity vs quality. Some of the scenarios I’ve contemplated are as follows:

All lenses Canon unless specified

1 – 18-55 IS + 50/1.8 + 55-250 IS or 75-300 (all cheap but a lot of lenses for 600$)

2 – 18-135 IS + 50/1.8 (I hear the 18-135 is a better lens than the above zooms?)

3 – Sigma 17-70 OS + 50/1.8 (higher quality all purpose lens + nifty fifty?)

4 – Sigma 30(or 50) 1.4 OS + 18-55 IS (higher quality prime + cheap all purpose)

5 – 50mm/1.4 + 18-55 IS (same as 4?)

Oops! I guess it would help if I posted an actual question LOL. I was just wondering about your thoughts and recommendations on the scenarious posted?

I would be grateful for any response or insight.

Cheers

xroxer said:

Oops! I guess it would help if I posted an actual question LOL.

Click to expand...

Just missed the timeout on the Edit link?

xroxer said:

I was just wondering about your thoughts and recommendations on the scenarious posted?

Click to expand...

I can't comment on lenses like the Sigmas and the 18-135, but you can't go wrong with the poverty trio. More thoughts in the Lenses section of the unofficial Rebel forum FAQ - http://snipurl.com/RebelFAQ

I can vouch for scenario #1 if you go with the 55-250IS instead of the 75-300. I own the 55-250 and have noted in many posts here that it's well regarded, evidently much moreso than the 75-300. I have it and have been very pleased with it. Also the 50mm 1.8 is a really nice portrait lens for available light. I use mine constantly with my new son.

Start with the economy lenses - they will probably be as good as you need for now, and later when you determine that you want or need a better lens for a particular type of shooting, buy it then. The basic kit lenses will give you a flexible way to start out without investing a bunch of money.
--
Art is far superior to "artsy".

--
-Bill

http://www.billmcbridephotography.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/billsphotos/

The first option (specifically choosing the 55-250 IS) is very well regarded as an excellent starters setup - you have a wide range of focal lengths at a decent quality with the two zooms, plus the 50 for experiments in narrow depth of field and low lighting conditions.
This gives you a great platform to work from, and a great all round setup.

The other options are all perfectly valid, the second I would really consider would be swapping the 18-55 and 55-250 for the 18-135 - if you don't feel you need the extra range up to 250mm, this gives you a great one lens solution for travelling and so on with the 50 as an added bonus. No better or worse in quality than the 18-55 and 55-250, just a different range.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narcosynthesis
http://www.illaname.deviantart.com

xrox,

First: It is clear that you are making an unusually well-informed purchase decision here. All of the choices you have offered are very valid . None of the setups you have listed would be a waste of money nor would they disappoint you. Therefore, I encourage you to go with your gut .

The reason I would usually recommend your first option (18-55, 50 f/1.8, 55-250) is that is it is a great setup for you to learn what kind of photography you love at low cost . Once you know that, you can direct your investments further. (In our case a 100mm Macro lens with an ultra-wide-angle being next on the list, but your tastes and/or needs are likely to be different.)

Thoughts on when to use other basic configurations:

• Street Photography: I would favor a fast kit zoom, of which the Sigma 17-70 is the least expensive
• Someone in your family can't be bothered to switch lenses - then go with the Canon 18-135 or the Tamron 18-270.
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - you have fast-moving kids indoors
• Which 50mm lens? ... Go with the 50mm f/1.8 until you find that it is limiting you in some way. Then you can get something fancier and you will know what you need from that fancier lens (faster focus, shallower DoF, better quality at f/2, etc.).

What Focal Length for a Prime?

In isolation , for a crop camera, 30mm is actually the best focal length for a single prime lens. (Just like a 50mm lens is the best single prime for a 35mm camera.) The Canon 35mm f/2 is therefore very much worth considering as is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

However, I still recommend the 50mm prime as the first prime because:

• Its a focal length where you can really isolate a human-sized subject from its background with a reasonable aperture and depth of field (i.e. 50mm f/2.8) You need a full frame camera (with a 50mm lens) to pull this off at what would be the field of view of a 30mm lens on an APS-C camera.
• The kit lens is already reasonably fast and very sharp at 28-30mm
• The kit lens is quite slow and pretty soft above 40mm
• Its cheaper because 28-35mm lenses are necessarily retro-focus (wide-angle / reverse telephoto) designs on SLRs and are therefore more expensive.

Here's another option you might want to consider. Get the Tamron 18-270mm and a flash from 3rd part such as Nissin, Metz etc. The Tamron is a great all rounder covering a huge focal range. It's not perfect but great to get you started. The flash will be useful for low-light situations. This way you will have a lens that covers lots of different scenarios and you also get to learn how to use flash properly. If you have money left over get a used (or maybe new) canon 50mm/1.8. It's a great little prime lens. The only thing is on the T3i its focal is 80mm which can make things tight in small spaces where you can't move back enough to get everyone in the frame. Once you get a feel for what type of photography you want to do you can get rid of the Tamron and start investing in more specific lenses.

I've had the Sigma 30/1.4. It's a great lens but at 1.4 the depth of field is so shallow that you will have to be very careful with your focusing. If you intend to use it as a low light lens then you have to be very careful. If you have a group of people and you shoot at 1.4 then you are going to end up with some faces being slightly out of focus unless everyone is perfectly in a row. Eventually I gave up my 30/1.4 and went for the Canon 17-55/2.8. Really great lens but expensive. Both sigma and Tamron make cheaper equivalents.

Hope this is helpful.

BFC

go to qvc.com .. cameras .. lenses .. notice 4 payments for CANON EF-S 60mm f/2.8 MACRO .. about $500 for a fine lens.

xroxer said:

All lenses Canon unless specified

1 – 18-55 IS + 50/1.8 + 55-250 IS or 75-300 (all cheap but a lot of lenses for 600$)

2 – 18-135 IS + 50/1.8 (I hear the 18-135 is a better lens than the above zooms?)

3 – Sigma 17-70 OS + 50/1.8 (higher quality all purpose lens + nifty fifty?)

4 – Sigma 30(or 50) 1.4 OS + 18-55 IS (higher quality prime + cheap all purpose)

5 – 50mm/1.4 + 18-55 IS (same as 4?)

Click to expand...

What do you want to shoot? These setups vary wildly in their purpose. First one gives long reach, second about half that, and 3-5 are all pretty short.

If you go for 1, 2, 4, or 5, you really should be getting the respective kit. 18-55, you get for $40 above the price of body alone(about $100 savings), and 18-135, for $200. (save ~$160).

I would recommend just getting the 18-135 kit if you think you need some tele reach, or 18-55 kit if you think you don't, Use that for a while, and identify your needs. Do you often find yourself at 135 and wish you could go longer? Time to shop for a tele. Do you often find yourself in 40-60mm range, and wishing you could open up the aperture a bit for shallow DoF? Or you are ok with DoF as it is, but would really love to be able to add more light to the scene? Dr you tend to work both ends of that zoom? Try shooting only at 50mm for some time. Get a bag with room for extra lens or two, and lug it about with you. Do you find yourself hating that bag after a while?

Really, after some time you really should identify what it is you really need: a telephoto, a fast prime, a fast zoom, or a flash.

I second Shorthand's advise of knowing your type of photography using cheap lenses, and once you realize what you like start investing in much higher quality glass.

Since I know what I like, and I've used the 18-55mm extensively, the 18-135mm recently and the 50mm f:1.8, I went with the Sigma trying to decide over the 15-85mm which was my main target at that time. It turns out that, while the 15-85 is a great lens, for me it wasn't double the price of the 17-70.

If I where you, I'd go with the 600D body + Sigma 17-70 + 50mm f:1.8. You'll still have some money left, and save it for the 430EX II flash unit, or try to reach harder to get it now.

xroxer said:

Instead of a long winded story I’ll try and make it a quick question. I am getting the T3i body only and have only about 600$ to spend on a lenses (or a lens).

My first dSLR and I am torn between quantity vs quality. Some of the scenarios I’ve contemplated are as follows:

All lenses Canon unless specified

1 – 18-55 IS + 50/1.8 + 55-250 IS or 75-300 (all cheap but a lot of lenses for 600$)

2 – 18-135 IS + 50/1.8 (I hear the 18-135 is a better lens than the above zooms?)

3 – Sigma 17-70 OS + 50/1.8 (higher quality all purpose lens + nifty fifty?)

4 – Sigma 30(or 50) 1.4 OS + 18-55 IS (higher quality prime + cheap all purpose)

5 – 50mm/1.4 + 18-55 IS (same as 4?)

Click to expand...

--
Martin Ocando
-------------------------

Perhaps a semi L suggestion..
As with many others, my budget is limited.

After reading a lot of reviews and ordering/testing (and returning) a number of lenses, I ended up with three lenses found in the lower-priced segment, but performing very well (at least in my opinion).

1: Samyang 14mm f2.8 prime
2: Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non VC)
3: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

All of these lenses receive excellent reviews on various websites, deliver tack sharp images, and have a pleasant weight on a Rebel body.

I very much appreciate all the responses. They have given me a lot of help.

To answer some of the questions:

I am coming from a Canon S80 in which I used the manual mode quite often (also the video was amazing). I've taken 10,000 plus shots with this camera and I would break down my photo usage as such:

50% Indoors (3-15 feet) mostly my family and friends
30% Outdoors (10 - 50 feet) mostly family, friends, neighborhood, sports
18% Outdoors (50+ feet) Camping, hiking, travelling..etc
2% Macro (

All my scenarios have an all purpose mini zoom and a prime lens. The large zoom I can rent if I have to.

I guess what I really need to know is what is the quality difference between the cheap 18-55 and the more expensive 17-70 Sigma?

Also, how much better is the 50/1.4 going to be over the cheap 50/1.8?

xroxer said:

50% Indoors (3-15 feet) mostly my family and friends

Click to expand...

The Sigma 17-70 will have about a 1 Ev (stop) advantage over the Canon 18-55 indoors. The 50mm f/1.8 is another 2 stops faster, but you tend to work too close for a 50mm focal length.

Either will be much better quality than your point & shoot. On an unlimited budget, we'd send you straight to the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, but the Sigma 17-70 might be worth the money for you if motion blur is a real challenge.

xroxer said:

30% Outdoors (10 - 50 feet) mostly family, friends, neighborhood, sports

Click to expand...

I think you're underestimating your distances here. For sports, you'll want a telephoto lens like the 55-250

xroxer said:

18% Outdoors (50+ feet) Camping, hiking, travelling..etc

Click to expand...

Here you're back to wide angle in most situations. Either the 18-55 or 17-70 will do well.

xroxer said:

2% Macro (

Click to expand...

The 18-55 (and 55-250) actually has a very good maximum magnification of 0.33. I don't know what the maximum magnification of the Sigma is.

xroxer said:

I guess what I really need to know is what is the quality difference between the cheap 18-55 and the more expensive 17-70 Sigma?

Click to expand...

In terms of landscape work, the 17-70 doesn't have much of an advantage over the Canon kit lens. However, for indoor moving subjects, one stop of extra speed is a factor of two in shutter speed, which can be quite significant in terms of motion blur.

In terms of sharpness, the Sigma is regarded as being noticeably but not markedly better.

xroxer said:

Also, how much better is the 50/1.4 going to be over the cheap 50/1.8?

Click to expand...

Optically, by f/2.8 they're indistinguishable. The 50mm f/1.8 has a slow focus motor and can have hit & miss focus - though this isn't usually an issue by f/2.8. The 50mm f/1.8 is incredible value for money. I wouldn't spring for the f/1.4 on your budget unless someone is paying you to "get the shot".

Difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is also bokeh. 1.8 has pentagon bokeh highlights and similarly tends to have harsh bokeh in busy backgrounds. 1.4 has AF reliability concerns.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/112950753734069450468/albums/posts/5683105792287678770

There is an example showing that 2.8 standard zooms can produce shallow DOF as well. Many standard 2.8 zooms actually have better bokeh characteristics than the 50 1.8 at the cost of aperture and DOF control of course.

But at least as a starter you learn how aperture and focal length and focal distance relate to DOF vs prime its mostly just aperture and focal distance. After trying it out myself and being faced with the 50 mm crap bokeh or unreliable AF conundrum, I realize that the king of flexible bokehlicious shots would probably be a 70-200 2.8 on a FF.

Based on your preferences below, I suggest the following in the order
of which you should buy/acquire first:

1-lens system:
1) Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 VC / Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 / Canon 18-55 F/2.8

2-lens system:
1) Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 VC / Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 / Canon 18-55 F/2.8
2) Sigma 30 F/1.4 / Canon 28 F/1.8

3-lens system:
1) Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 VC / Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 / Canon 18-55 F/2.8
2) Sigma 30 F/1.4 / Canon 28 F/1.8
3) Tamron 18-270 F/3.5-6.3 VC PZD / Sigma 18-250 F/3.5-6.3

Don

xroxer said:

I very much appreciate all the responses. They have given me a lot of help.

To answer some of the questions:

I am coming from a Canon S80 in which I used the manual mode quite often (also the video was amazing). I've taken 10,000 plus shots with this camera and I would break down my photo usage as such:

50% Indoors (3-15 feet) mostly my family and friends
30% Outdoors (10 - 50 feet) mostly family, friends, neighborhood, sports
18% Outdoors (50+ feet) Camping, hiking, travelling..etc
2% Macro (

All my scenarios have an all purpose mini zoom and a prime lens. The large zoom I can rent if I have to.

I guess what I really need to know is what is the quality difference between the cheap 18-55 and the more expensive 17-70 Sigma?

Also, how much better is the 50/1.4 going to be over the cheap 50/1.8?

Click to expand...

Hi the 18-55 + 55-250 is a good start they are good lenses and the 55-250 punches way above its weight
A step up would be sigmas 17-70os plus the 55-250
It all depends on your budget and what you take pictures of

As other have already commented, the 18-55 + 55-250 is an excellent value combo with good IQ. I used these for a while but did find the cut-off very irritating at times. So, when I upgraded from the 500D to the 600D, a few weeks ago, I chose to buy the 18-135mm instead. I'd do the same again, the 18-135 has a great range, feels well constructed and is long enough for walking about. The only negative is the 67mm filter thread whereas the 18-55/55-250 share the same 58mm. I still have the 55-250 and will keep it. I've not got the nifty fifty. No doubt it is a great lens for the price but, if I were you, I'd just get the 18-135 for now and see how it goes. US prices tend to be much lower than the UK. The 18-35 is normally circa £350 here, I got mine brand new 'white box' for £240. Shopping around on quality lenses can make a significant difference of price and means that if you ever want to resell there's little loss on the original purchase

There are so many options. My other lens is the Sigma 10-20 f4, which I really like. I did consider the Tamron 10-24mm and would look more closely at it if I could turn back the clock.
Good Luck. Stuart

This coming from a noob but how about a Sigma 17-70 2.8 and a Canon 55-250. You can get prime like nifty fifty easily sometime later.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28498283@N00/

I think it depends on what you want to shoot.

As an all-in-one lens to eliminate lens changinh I'd probably go with the 18-200.

For a travel lens many people thinks they need length when in fact it's width that you really want.

I have a 15-85 and it's a fantastic lens. Sharp throughout.

Add to that the 55-250 and you have a great combo.

My daughter took my 55-250 to a night baseball game and took shots wide open and full tele and they were excellent. I was extremely surprised.

I was on a trip recently and I didn't bring my 55-250 because I didn't think I'd be shooting wildlife. What a mistake!!!

I'm getting a lens pouch and belt and for now on it travels with me when there's any chance.