Reading mode: Light Dark

My lens cost compromise

Go to last post
P

Paljas

Guest
I wonder what you think of my lens cost compromise as opposed to my dream kit

At present I have a 1000 D with a 18 - 55 IS and a 55-250. I have a 430ex speedlite and a satisfactory Manfrotto tripod.

No ambition for full frame

I have not settled on a specific type of photograph that I would like to target. I like to take a camera with me as much as possible. Less weight and bulk is always a plus for me

My dream:
  • 7D
  • 10-22
  • 17-55
  • 70-200 F4 IS
My cost compromise:
  • 7D
  • 15-85
  • 55-250
  • 50 F1.8
My compromise will also have the advantage of less lens changing - ie not missing some shots

Any thoughts?

Thanks

--
Observing dreaming seeking
 
What does your existing camera kit not do that your cheaper upgrade will do? Going from 18-55 to 15-85, when you really wanted a 10-22, isn't going to do much except waste money. Likewise, a 50 f/1.8 isn't good when you really wanted IS and a high-quality zoom lens.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug
 
Paljas said:
My dream:
  • 7D
  • 10-22
  • 17-55
  • 70-200 F4 IS
My cost compromise:
  • 7D
  • 15-85
  • 55-250
  • 50 F1.8
Click to expand...
Overall I'd say that's a reasonable compromise, but just a few thoughts.

There is no fast prime in your 'dream' set-up, so why does it appear in your compromise? Is it maybe trying to compensate for losing the f/2.8 of the 17-55? I don't think it will do that effectively, since it will be a) locked at 50 mm, b) lacking ring USM focusing, and c) too often not on the camera when you want it! It would be far better to pool the cost of the 15-85 and the 50/1.8 and buy the 17-55 if that's what you really want.

The 7D has certain very specific advantages over the 60D, but they come at a high price and since you are not buying lenses for actions sports, wildlife etc., I'm guessing you won't get much benefit from the 7D. And the 60D has an articulating LCD and better video, as well as being lighter which you say you want.

Few people buy a 'dream set-up' all at once then keep it unchanged for a long period. It's much more common, and makes more sense, to buy/upgrade what you can, when you can, and let your kit evolve. This is especially true if you are are on a limited budget and/or don't yet know what you will get the most use out of - both of which apply to you.

My suggestion would be:

60D
17-55
55-250 you already have of course

... then wait a bit and see how your interests develop. You may decide the ultrawide capability is what you miss, or it may be a longer lens (a lot of photographers develop an interest in wildlife), or it may be something you haven't considered such as macro.
 
If you do want a new camera body and you do want to take a camera with you as much as possible the 7D is too heavy a choice. By settling on a 600D you suddenly have much less of a lens compromise to consider.

And while the 17-55 is an outstanding lens (I know, I have one) the 15-85IS can complement a 600D into a not too large and heavy package that you can carry with you as much as possible indeed.

Anything else to get purely depends on priorities: what do you like to shoot most. If you're a tele-guy, go for the 70-200L f/4 IS or even 70-300 L IS, but if you are a wide shooter, look at the 10-22 or even the Sigma 8-16.

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
 
Steve Balcombe said:
Paljas said:
My dream:
  • 7D
  • 10-22
  • 17-55
  • 70-200 F4 IS
My cost compromise:
  • 7D
  • 15-85
  • 55-250
  • 50 F1.8
Click to expand...
Overall I'd say that's a reasonable compromise, but just a few thoughts.

There is no fast prime in your 'dream' set-up, so why does it appear in your compromise? Is it maybe trying to compensate for losing the f/2.8 of the 17-55? I don't think it will do that effectively, since it will be a) locked at 50 mm, b) lacking ring USM focusing, and c) too often not on the camera when you want it! It would be far better to pool the cost of the 15-85 and the 50/1.8 and buy the 17-55 if that's what you really want.

The 7D has certain very specific advantages over the 60D, but they come at a high price and since you are not buying lenses for actions sports, wildlife etc., I'm guessing you won't get much benefit from the 7D. And the 60D has an articulating LCD and better video, as well as being lighter which you say you want.

Few people buy a 'dream set-up' all at once then keep it unchanged for a long period. It's much more common, and makes more sense, to buy/upgrade what you can, when you can, and let your kit evolve. This is especially true if you are are on a limited budget and/or don't yet know what you will get the most use out of - both of which apply to you.

My suggestion would be:

60D
17-55
55-250 you already have of course

... then wait a bit and see how your interests develop. You may decide the ultrawide capability is what you miss, or it may be a longer lens (a lot of photographers develop an interest in wildlife), or it may be something you haven't considered such as macro.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

What you are suggesting is the combo I was also considering. Now you have me thinking again.I just felt the extra at the bottom particularly and also the top would move me to the 15-85 as a really useful walk around. But it is slow.
mmm... must analyse how I will use it!
Thank you
--
Observing dreaming seeking
 
Paul De Bra said:
If you do want a new camera body and you do want to take a camera with you as much as possible the 7D is too heavy a choice. By settling on a 600D you suddenly have much less of a lens compromise to consider.

And while the 17-55 is an outstanding lens (I know, I have one) the 15-85IS can complement a 600D into a not too large and heavy package that you can carry with you as much as possible indeed.

Anything else to get purely depends on priorities: what do you like to shoot most. If you're a tele-guy, go for the 70-200L f/4 IS or even 70-300 L IS, but if you are a wide shooter, look at the 10-22 or even the Sigma 8-16.

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
Click to expand...
Thank you for the sensible analyses.

I am not really a tele-guy. I sense that the 55-250 will be fine on a better body.
Is a 17-55 too unbalanced on a 600D?

Would a 17-55 on a 600D and scrape up some nickels for a 10-22 in a while be worth a look at?

Thanks for the suggestions and asking the right questions

--
Observing dreaming seeking
 
Paljas said:
Steve Balcombe said:
My suggestion would be:

60D
17-55
55-250 you already have of course

... then wait a bit and see how your interests develop. You may decide the ultrawide capability is what you miss, or it may be a longer lens (a lot of photographers develop an interest in wildlife), or it may be something you haven't considered such as macro.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

What you are suggesting is the combo I was also considering. Now you have me thinking again.I just felt the extra at the bottom particularly and also the top would move me to the 15-85 as a really useful walk around. But it is slow.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was being led by your stated 'dream' and 'compromise', but it's possible to argue that the 15-85 is the better lens, depending on your needs.
 
ARShutterbug said:
What does your existing camera kit not do that your cheaper upgrade will do? Going from 18-55 to 15-85, when you really wanted a 10-22, isn't going to do much except waste money. Likewise, a 50 f/1.8 isn't good when you really wanted IS and a high-quality zoom lens.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug
Click to expand...
Thanks, those are good questions for me to answer. I am attracted to the 15-85 as it is kinda a nice compromise on the short end and gives some extra reach but is a bit slow.

Thank you you have got me looking at this freshly again. Better make a decision before all my best photo opportunities vanish by thinking too much.

--
Observing dreaming seeking
 
Steve Balcombe said:
Paljas said:
Steve Balcombe said:
My suggestion would be:

60D
17-55
55-250 you already have of course

... then wait a bit and see how your interests develop. You may decide the ultrawide capability is what you miss, or it may be a longer lens (a lot of photographers develop an interest in wildlife), or it may be something you haven't considered such as macro.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

What you are suggesting is the combo I was also considering. Now you have me thinking again.I just felt the extra at the bottom particularly and also the top would move me to the 15-85 as a really useful walk around. But it is slow.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was being led by your stated 'dream' and 'compromise', but it's possible to argue that the 15-85 is the better lens, depending on your needs.
Click to expand...
Now you got me thinking hard about that 17-55 and maybe even a 600D. I will drive you and me nuts soon if I don't decide :)
--
Observing dreaming seeking
 
I submit the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS as a cheaper alternative to the 17-55. I had both for a week (rentals) and compared and they are so close that it's a wash in my view. The Canon better at the corners at f2.8, even by f4, the Sigma better in the center....pretty much all of the time. The Sigma is smaller, built well (I think it's better here), sharp and much cheaper. The only real downside is the lack of full time MF.

the 55-250 is nice, but the 70-200 f4 IS is stellar.
 
Paljas said:
Steve Balcombe said:
Paljas said:
Steve Balcombe said:
My suggestion would be:

60D
17-55
55-250 you already have of course

... then wait a bit and see how your interests develop. You may decide the ultrawide capability is what you miss, or it may be a longer lens (a lot of photographers develop an interest in wildlife), or it may be something you haven't considered such as macro.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

What you are suggesting is the combo I was also considering. Now you have me thinking again.I just felt the extra at the bottom particularly and also the top would move me to the 15-85 as a really useful walk around. But it is slow.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was being led by your stated 'dream' and 'compromise', but it's possible to argue that the 15-85 is the better lens, depending on your needs.
Click to expand...
Now you got me thinking hard about that 17-55 and maybe even a 600D. I will drive you and me nuts soon if I don't decide :)
Click to expand...
Not me :-)

I saw Paul's suggestion of the 600D and what he says is correct. However if you're moving towards larger lenses such as the 17-55 and 70-300L (or 70-200/4L) then in my view the 60D is a better choice.
 
Paljas said:
Less weight and bulk is always a plus for me
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that point to a Rebel, rather than a 7D?

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/

Canon 5D, 17-40mm, 70-300mm IS USM, 50mm f/1.8 II, 100mm macro, 28-135mm, 28mm f/2.0 Kiron, 135mm f/2.8 Rikenon, 200mm f/3.5 Komuranon, 500mm f/7.0 Komuranon
 
When did 50/1.8 stop being fast prime?

--
KEG
 
The 15-85mm is in the same class as the 17-55mm and it saves you $1000 between the 10-22mm and the 17-55mmm. It's a very good idea.

The 55-250mm is a bit too much of a compromise compared to what you're doing at the wide end.

I would strongly recommend you go with the Tamron 70-300mm VC instead of the Canon 55-250mm. The Tamron sits both price and quality wise between the 55-250 IS and the 70-200mm F/4 IS, although after 200mm it's equal to the 55-250, below 200mm it's vastly supperior.
 
filmluvr said:
Paljas said:
Less weight and bulk is always a plus for me
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that point to a Rebel, rather than a 7D?
Click to expand...
Yes - but I am trying to find a (probably mythical) sweet spot. Is a 60D classified as a Rebel in the US?
filmluvr said:
--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/

Canon 5D, 17-40mm, 70-300mm IS USM, 50mm f/1.8 II, 100mm macro, 28-135mm, 28mm f/2.0 Kiron, 135mm f/2.8 Rikenon, 200mm f/3.5 Komuranon, 500mm f/7.0 Komuranon
Click to expand...
--
Observing dreaming seeking
 
I'd suggest: -

550D / 600D - If you want to save money, as well as reduce weight and bulk, I'd definitely consider one of these over the 60D or the 7D. The sensor is the same, and if you can't already name features that you'd miss from the more expensive models, you probably don't need them.

10-22 - I love my UWA, so I'd suggest this is the one area you don't compromise. There's nothing that can replace the shots you can get with a lens like this, and 15mm simply isn't going to cut it compared to 10mm.

55-250 - This is a tougher call. I love my 70-200 f4 IS, but the 55-250 is a pretty good lens for a lot less money. It's lighter and smaller too. You can always think about replacing it at a later date if you're unhappy with the quality in any way.

50 F1.8 - This will give you a nice inexpensive portrait lens, and a way to play with DOF control, without resorting to the expense of the 17-55. Sure, you're stuck at 50mm, but using a prime lens is quite a liberating experience in some ways, and you'd be surprised at what a variety of shots you can get with it.

This leaves you without a standard zoom, which might seem like an odd choice at first glance. But the 18-55 kit lens is really quite nice optically for the money, not to mention a heck of a lot lighter than the 17-55. Besides, I find that I rarely miss the gap between my 10-22 and my 50 - but that's just me!

Hope that helps, or at least gives you some ideas.
 
Paljas said:
Paul De Bra said:
If you do want a new camera body and you do want to take a camera with you as much as possible the 7D is too heavy a choice. By settling on a 600D you suddenly have much less of a lens compromise to consider.

And while the 17-55 is an outstanding lens (I know, I have one) the 15-85IS can complement a 600D into a not too large and heavy package that you can carry with you as much as possible indeed.

Anything else to get purely depends on priorities: what do you like to shoot most. If you're a tele-guy, go for the 70-200L f/4 IS or even 70-300 L IS, but if you are a wide shooter, look at the 10-22 or even the Sigma 8-16.

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
Click to expand...
Thank you for the sensible analyses.

I am not really a tele-guy. I sense that the 55-250 will be fine on a better body.
Is a 17-55 too unbalanced on a 600D?
Click to expand...
I used the 17-55 on a Rebel XSi for 2 years and it felt fine! Never felt "Unbalanced".
Member said:
Would a 17-55 on a 600D and scrape up some nickels for a 10-22 in a while be worth a look at?
Click to expand...
Most definitely!
Member said:
Thanks for the suggestions and asking the right questions

--
Observing dreaming seeking
Click to expand...
--
Yogi

When you get down to the nuts and bolts of photography, the results depend on the 'nut' behind the camera!

See the 'Gear List' in my 'Profile' for my current equipment.

Check out WilbaW's beginner FAQs at - http://snipurl.com/RebelFAQ
 
Many thanks to everyone for you valuable contributions. My next step is to visit Orms and see what big/small heavy/light really means and to get a gut feel
I really appreciate your replies
--
Observing dreaming seeking
 
Paljas said:
Steve Balcombe said:
Paljas said:
Steve Balcombe said:
My suggestion would be:

60D
17-55
55-250 you already have of course

... then wait a bit and see how your interests develop. You may decide the ultrawide capability is what you miss, or it may be a longer lens (a lot of photographers develop an interest in wildlife), or it may be something you haven't considered such as macro.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

What you are suggesting is the combo I was also considering. Now you have me thinking again.I just felt the extra at the bottom particularly and also the top would move me to the 15-85 as a really useful walk around. But it is slow.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was being led by your stated 'dream' and 'compromise', but it's possible to argue that the 15-85 is the better lens, depending on your needs.
Click to expand...
Now you got me thinking hard about that 17-55 and maybe even a 600D. I will drive you and me nuts soon if I don't decide :)
--
Observing dreaming seeking
Click to expand...
A comment or suggestion: Why not take what you currently have and take Photos of something rather than analyzing the subject into tears. Then, before long you should determine (find out) what type Photos you actually enjoy from your ventures of determining what you actually use your camera and lens for.

Sometimes, we all have a tendency to over analyze our tools (Cameras/Lens) instead of actually using them and learn to enjoy the results.
--
Vernon...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
n
Next
w
Next unread
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top