# Buying a DSLR - what lens to get?



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Campfamily said:


> So, spent some time yesterday evening chatting up the guys at Samy's Camera in Pasadena, and I'm pretty certain I'm going to buy the Canon T2i, with the standard 18-55 lens, and a second 55-250 lens. This will give me a good lens for home snaps (the 18-55), and a good zoom lens to take pics of the boys sports. I decided on the T2i rather than the T3i because other than the swing-out viewfinder, I couldn't really find any differences between the two cameras. For $175, I can do without the swingout viewfinder. I'm likely to be picking up my new toy in the next couple of days, I've been shopping price, and so far the best deal I've found is at Costco.
> 
> Thanks for all the help and suggestions. I'll start posting some pics once I get it!
> 
> Keith


Sammy's is the best. My home away from home...

:thumbup:

It will start with a T2i, then in six months a 7D, and then the endless procession of the coveted "L Glass" commences..


----------



## Tkaczuk (Aug 13, 2011)

If you buy the 18-55mm thats all you'll prob ever need but i would suggest the 18-135mm better all around lens for just shooting around town and at events. You wont have to deal with changing lens and what not. 

I prefer Nikon, but with the lower level cameras it doesn't really matter.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

Jon Shafer said:


> Sammy's is the best. My home away from home...
> 
> :thumbup:
> 
> It will start with a T2i, then in* six months* a 7D, and then the endless procession of the coveted "L Glass" commences..


it wasn't 6 months for me, but 6 years between the XTi to the 7D + 24-105mm L :rofl:


----------



## DeaconG (Feb 18, 2011)

Well, for me it was-six months after I bought my first rig (50D + 17-55) I had the 70-200 2.8 IS L Mark 1 in my hands...then two and a half years for the next one (24-105 L as part of the 5D2 kit).

Now I'm jonesing for a 16-35 2.8 L...it never ends!


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

i'm looking at either a 70-200mm L non-IS or IS. ... or something to fill the wide-angle deficit. 18-135mm to go with the XTi for traveling or something wider.


----------



## Campfamily (Sep 20, 2010)

UPDATE - bought a Canon T2i with the 18-55 and 55-250 IS Lenses. Just a smidge under $800 out the door. Just starting to get familiar with it, will post once I get some good pics.

Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions, they were very helpful.:thumbup:

Keith


----------



## DeaconG (Feb 18, 2011)

I guess now would be a bad time to mention Sigma EX lenses...:rofl:


----------



## Campfamily (Sep 20, 2010)

DeaconG said:


> I guess now would be a bad time to mention Sigma EX lenses...:rofl:


Give me time.........took me a month to convince the "accountant" that we needed this!!!


----------



## Tkaczuk (Aug 13, 2011)

DeaconG said:


> I guess now would be a bad time to mention Sigma EX lenses...:rofl:


Don't deal with that crap! Canon has enough trouble with some of there lenses.

Some friends who bought Canons bought Nikon adapters and use them on there cameras regularly. They use it for video.

Sigma doesn't have all bad lenses but if you pay for low quality you gonna buy the better lenses anyways.

Many of the lower range Canon lenses are rubbish. Mostly the wide angle stuff. 
Canon does have some great long range zooms.

The best thing you can do is ask around, look up lenses and the general consensus is stay away from third party.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Tkaczuk said:


> Don't deal with that crap! Canon has enough trouble with some of there lenses.
> 
> Some friends who bought Canons bought Nikon adapters and use them on there cameras regularly. They use it for video.
> 
> ...


Tamron offers some great glass for the money. The 17-50 f/2.8 is tack sharp.

If you get carried away like me, you will end up with all L glass and as assortment of Carl Zeiss lenses for Canon...


----------



## Tkaczuk (Aug 13, 2011)

Jon Shafer said:


> Tamron offers some great glass for the money. The 17-50 f/2.8 is tack sharp.
> 
> If you get carried away like me, you will end up with all L glass and as assortment of Carl Zeiss lenses for Canon...


This is why i bought Nikon. Great lenses, great cameras and you can find great used deals on them with great lenses quality. Most of Nikon's best lenses are under $500.00.

My next lens is going to be a 85mm 1.8. Used $350.00 great for me! Not paying 500 for the new G lens when this is just as good.

I favorite lens the 50mm 1.8 cost $125.00 off amazon. One of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes!

Why bother spending excessive money on lenses? Canon's L lenses, and Nikon's Fx nano Coding. Its a scam to get your money. :rofl:

A few primes is all i need. I have one zoom 18-200mm Nikkor. All i ever use that for is equestrian shows.

I waste enough on my E30


----------



## DeaconG (Feb 18, 2011)

Tkaczuk said:


> Don't deal with that crap! Canon has enough trouble with some of there lenses.
> 
> Some friends who bought Canons bought Nikon adapters and use them on there cameras regularly. They use it for video.
> 
> ...


Oh, snap...

Really? My 10-22 is crap? :rofl:

My 120-300 2.8 EX is crap? My 50 1.4 EX is crap? My 150-500 is crap?

Do you own ANY third party lenses at all? :tsk:

That's a rather broad statement to make, ain't it?

Look, if you wanna badmouth Canon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina you go right ahead. I can find quite a few reasons to badmouth Nikon, but I won't. I won't because at the end of the day, when all is said and done, _your needs-and your wallet-will dictate what you buy. If it means buying a third party lens and you've done your homework, then the only person that has to be satisfied is YOU._

I bought my 150-500 three years ago because Canon still refuses to update their 100-400 (and they're at least three years overdue their own refresh cycle), it gets the job done for what I wanted it to do. When they decide to update it, I'll buy one and retire my Sigma, otherwise, it works for me.

I'll put my 120-300 2.8 EX and 50 1.4 EX against ANY Nikon offering.

And when the new Tamron 24-70 VC comes out and has at LEAST the IQ of the old Canon 24-70 (which for some strange reason has no IS), will it be garbage? There are more than a few people on POTN, DPReview and Fred Miranda who will jump on it if it's the real deal-and some of them own the current 24-70.

Does Sigma have issues? Yes, they do...but guess what? So does Canon, Sony...and Nikon.

Now, here's a reading assignment for you:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/03/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation

Educate yourself!


----------



## Tkaczuk (Aug 13, 2011)

DeaconG said:


> Oh, snap...
> 
> Really? My 10-22 is crap? :rofl:
> 
> ...


Feisty.

I have never had much luck with Tamron or Sigma. I don't know about Tokina. Friends have bought a sigma or Tamron thinking they saved them self some money just to find out there pictures are way to soft, slow auto focus or doesn't even work properly on their camera.

Someone gave me a Tamron because they couldn't use it. Didn't work on their (D80) Nikon camera that it was made for. So i ended up with it. I can't do anything with it because its pretty much junk. Even on my D7000 it's slow, super soft and has trouble focusing. 

Anyways, lets just stick with the basics and not let opinions get the best of us. I'll just use my Nikon Primes and your can do what ever you do.


----------



## GoRavens (Jan 8, 2010)

Love my Sigma EX HSM2 70-200 2.8. My favorite lens. Cannot not beat it for quality-price.


----------



## DeaconG (Feb 18, 2011)

Tkaczuk said:


> Feisty.
> 
> Anyways, lets just stick with the basics and not let opinions get the best of us. I'll just use my Nikon Primes and your can do what ever you do.


Sorry about that. Here's your head. 

I see this on way too many forums-we get so wound up on our own brand that we don't even consider the possibility of using another, throw in a few postings of "My third party lens is the suxor" and we're off to the races.

I hesitated on buying my first third party for months (Sigma 150-500 5-6.3 OS) because of the whinging on boards about Sigma blew chunks...but several people convinced me to get one, after the first few times I used it I began wondering what all the screaming was about.

It was reading Roger Cicala's postings that opened up my eyes (as well as a lot of other people), but it's easier and lazier to just badmouth across the board; especially when I see posts from folks who are using 'problem' lenses on bodies WITH MICROADJUSTMENT AND WONT USE IT.

Does that mean I've never had a problem with Sigma? Nope...my 50 1.4 tends to get finicky with my 50D (not my 5D2), but it's not a show stopper.

As I tell folks, "it's YOUR ducats, not mine"...


----------



## Tkaczuk (Aug 13, 2011)

I'm not made of money and i refuse to go into debt. I like quality lenses so i shoot fast primes. That is pretty much the story of my photography life. I'm still young but i enjoy the depth of field and how useful they are in low light. I shoot not to make money, I shoot for art, and to show emotion. I don't want to take pictures that anyone else could take. So, to do that you have to be outside the box. Not just think outside the box.


----------



## DeaconG (Feb 18, 2011)

Tkaczuk said:


> I'm not made of money and i refuse to go into debt. I like quality lenses so i shoot fast primes. That is pretty much the story of my photography life. I'm still young but i enjoy the depth of field and how useful they are in low light. I shot not to make money, I shot for art, and to show emotion. I don't want to take pictures that anyone else could take. So, to do that you have to be outside the box. Not just think outside the box.


True dat.


----------



## Kamdog (Apr 15, 2007)

Tkaczuk said:


> If you buy the 18-55mm thats all you'll prob ever need but i would suggest the 18-135mm better all around lens for just shooting around town and at events. You wont have to deal with changing lens and what not.
> 
> I prefer Nikon, but with the lower level cameras it doesn't really matter.


That is what I just decided to do.

I am coming back to an SLR and decided to go with a T2i. The 18-55 kit lens was just too short for me, and I want to walk around with only one lens. I decided to go for a kit with the T2i and an 18-135 lens. This should give me the range I need, and not need to lug around 2 lenses all day, and switch them out.

I expect I will eventually add a prime lens, but I will wait and see if a higher ISO will give me satisfactory pictures in the lower light levels, and I won't need a faster prime lens.

Lugging all the crap that I had to lug with my old SLRs drove me to point and shoots when I went digital. Now that we are planning a trip where I want some pictures well above point and shoot quality, I am going back to DSLR.

But I still don't want to mess with lens changes all day. I am hoping that the 18-135 covers the range well enough, since it will shoot like a 28-215 lens on film.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Kamdog said:


> That is what I just decided to do.
> 
> I am coming back to an SLR and decided to go with a T2i. The 18-55 kit lens was just too short for me, and I want to walk around with only one lens. I decided to go for a kit with the T2i and an 18-135 lens. This should give me the range I need, and not need to lug around 2 lenses all day, and switch them out.
> 
> ...


Where are you going?

18-135 should be fine, but even with my new D7000, I need my prime lenses for low light, like indoors.


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

Kamdog said:


> That is what I just decided to do.
> 
> I am coming back to an SLR and decided to go with a T2i. The 18-55 kit lens was just too short for me, and I want to walk around with only one lens. I decided to go for a kit with the T2i and an 18-135 lens. This should give me the range I need, and not need to lug around 2 lenses all day, and switch them out.
> 
> ...


which film SLR do you have? maybe you can still use those old lenses. :dunno:


----------



## Campfamily (Sep 20, 2010)

Kamdog said:


> That is what I just decided to do.
> 
> I am coming back to an SLR and decided to go with a T2i. The 18-55 kit lens was just too short for me, and I want to walk around with only one lens. I decided to go for a kit with the T2i and an 18-135 lens. This should give me the range I need, and not need to lug around 2 lenses all day, and switch them out.
> 
> ...


You know, I originally thought the same thing, but the 135 just wasn't long enough for the kind of shooting I was doing, which was primarily shooting my kid's sporting activities (Little League baseball for my younger son, Cross Country / Track & Field for my older). The 55-250 has the range I need for these shots, so when I'm at their events, I just leave the other lens at home. I've used the shorter lens for around the house pictures, but that's about it.

Very happy with my T2i, but only had it a couple of weeks now.....

Keith


----------



## DeaconG (Feb 18, 2011)

HW said:


> which film SLR do you have? maybe you can still use those old lenses. :dunno:


If he's got Canon FD mount, the only way he'll be able to use them is with a FD-to-EF converter and the image quality will take a major hit.

If he's got the EF mount, then he's golden.


----------



## mkword (Mar 20, 2012)

DeaconG said:


> Well, for me it was-six months after I bought my first rig (50D + 17-55) I had the 70-200 2.8 IS L Mark 1 in my hands...then two and a half years for the next one (24-105 L as part of the 5D2 kit).
> 
> Now I'm jonesing for a 16-35 2.8 L...it never ends!


Join the club. I started off with a Canon Rebel, then went to the 20D, the 30D ... now I have a 50D and a 7D.

The lens issue was easier for me. I'm around professional photographers a lot. The ones that use the Canon rigs (and that's 80 percent of sports photogs) always carry at least these two lenses:

-EF 24-70mm 2.8 L

-EF 70-200mm 2.8 L IS

In fact, I have seen the Canon 70-200 L lens on every single pro photographers' kits that I've run into. It is an extraordinary lens.

For those who don't want all that bulk and weight, I do think the Lumix GH2 with the 14-140 lens is a wonderful camera with wonderful resolution and saturation. The lens is not as fast as I'd like it, but it's fast enough for most situations. The GH2 also takes HD video that actually rivals the 5D Mark II ... and with better IS.

The cameras I use most often are:

Canon G12: Not a pocket camera, but fits in a large jacket pocket and comes very close to the quality of a full DSLR. It's the only small digital camera I know that has a long soom lens that barely degrades image quality when fully extended (140mm).

Lumix DMC-LX5: This comes with the same Leica lens that you get on the Leica D-LUX 3. In fact, the LX5 is the same exact camera, just with the Lumix label and you can get it for $400 cheaper. This lens is super fast, the pixel count is lower, but the pixels are bigger, creating extraordinary saturation. They were smart also to make the lens have a shallow zoom. Too much zoom on these point & shoots and the image quality goes out the window. This is a specialty camera that is best for landscape and architecture and portraits.

Canon S100: In my mind the best true pocket camera available. The HD video has an IS so good it looks like you are shooting with a steadicam. Lots of other wonderful special features as well ... like super slo-mo video ... and specialty effects. But just shooting simple photos, this camera rocks and sometimes on trips I leave everything else at home (except the G12). The lens ring control is worth the price of admission alone.

Gee ... do ya think I have too many cameras?


----------



## kitchener (Jul 2, 2011)

Jon Shafer said:


> Tamron offers some great glass for the money. The 17-50 f/2.8 is tack sharp....


I thought I'd chime in, late in the game, with some of my own conclusions after doing the "which DSLR should I buy" research. Mind you, this is coming from a very lay photographer -- I was looking for idiot-proof.

Like the gist of this thread, one of the key aspects of DSLRs is the varying lenses available for different uses (shooting your kid from the stands in an indoor gymnasium game, to a low-light Christmas morning shot in the living room, etc.).

Seems one of the key differences, ESPECIALLY for the cost of lenses, is where that manufacturer decided to put their Image Stabilization: on the body, or in the lens. And from what I've read on photography forums, there really isn't a performance difference in either implementation. Both Nikon and Canon put their IS in their lenses, not their bodies. As a result, add-on lenses, especially fast, low-light f/2.8 zooms, are nearly twice the cost. Sony, Pentax, and Olympus put their IS in their bodies.

The other key aspect (for me) was what type of lenses to use. As a casual photographer (see above examples of likely applications that _I'd_ have...), it seemed the best lenses for me (read idiot-proof) would be the constant f/2.8 versions, which are fast to focus and work very well in low-light. So, I bought a Sony body, and with it, I bought the above mentioned lens, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens, and just as the above quote mentions, I found it to be spot on for what I needed -- it was tack sharp and it continues to blow my mind away with the quality of shots I get without a flash. My Christmas morning shots that year were worthy of framing, and the stop action photos I took of my young boys sledding a month later were epic. A year later, I bought the new Sigma f/2.8 70-200 zoom. The latter lens was a key aspect in my which-DSLR-should-I-buy research. That lens cost more than the body, but if I had a Canon or a Nikon, it would have been twice as much. I bought the Sony body with the knowledge that "down the road," I'd be buying an expensive 2.8 zoom for it.

I've read other posts here criticizing aftermarket lenses such as Tamron or Sigma, et al, but if you run some searches here and on photography forums, you'll find more yays than nays, This seems to be an age-old, your-mileage-may-vary argument. My own experience with both my lenses, one by Tamrom, one by Sigma, has been a super success.


----------

