I've just acquired a Canon 40D.
I have also just bought a 50mm 1.8 Prime that was too good to refuse - £57.60 delivered.
I'm probably going to go for the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens
But, am confused with regards to which short Zoom I should go for, for Beginners money.
The Canon EF-S Zoom Lens 18 mm - 55 mm - f/3.5-5.6 IS MK II
or
The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM
Confused?
Because I've been told/read that the Canon is a good lens even for a kit.
That the Sigma is better build quality, comes with a Hood & the end element doesn't rotate like the Canon & thus allows the simple use of a Polarising Filter.
Then, someone else says, go for a Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR VC Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
But it's double the price and a bit more.
Times are hard and I'm only starting my Image Capturing journey..
I agree with Daan. That 2.8 zoom will probably be the one lens that sticks with you while shot a crop body. Worth the investment. Beginner or not, you still will want a lens for general purpose and to shoot indoors and that fits the bill.
Now, you asked that question here and you will get even more confused . If 10 people post their answer to your question, you may get 10 different answers .
My suggestion is for you to get a Canon 18-55mm lens since it is really inexpensive (probably the least expensive lens from the list) and it also provides you with a decent focal length range, plus it has IS. Basically, to get your feet wet and get yourself familiar with you image capturing device or photography, in general. Use it extensively and after a while, you will get more and more familiar with your gear. You will find out what you can get from your gear and what limitation your gear poses to you. Plus, if you visit this forum and several other similar ones out there, and go over online reviews of lenses, you should be able to answer that question yourself in about several months. You can sell your inexpensive lens and get whatever lens that will suit you better then. Good luck and enjoy photography!
Just my opinion, but I think the Sigma 18-50 is crap. I didn't care for the build quality, feel, zoom ring, etc. at all, but it might have just been the copy I had. The Tamron 17-50 is a really nice lens, but it is my understanding that the non-VC version is better optically, plus it's cheaper (I've only used the VC model, which seemed ok, but it is pretty pricy).
If your're budget allows for the Tamron 17-50 VC, I would suggest looking at the Canon 17-85 first. It's a bit longer range, and it's a pretty nice lens, especially for starting out.
I have no experience with the 18-55's, so I can't speak on that.
I've used an 18-135 that a friend has a number of times, it's a pretty nice lens too for a beginner kit. Might be worth looking at also. If I were in your situation today (I was when I started, but there were different lenses out then), I would look to build a kit like this, in this order:
- 40D (Great beginner camera by the way, I really liked mine)
- 50mm 1.8
- 18-135IS (Or the Tamron 17-50 non-VC)
- Decent (Manfrotto or similar) tripod with either a grip head or a ballhead
- 55-250IS (or the much better 70-300 f4 IS)
If you're not able to splash out that much money, I'd say just get either the Tamron 17-50 non-VC (as stated above, the 2.8 aperture will make a huge difference for you) or the 18-135 Canon. They are actually pretty close in price. At the end of the day, just one lens with your camera will be a good starting point.
That stuff should keep you busy for a year or two, then you can start looking at more options as you get more serious, better job, etc.
Have fun! There are lots of incredible places to take pictures in the UK, I used to live near Alconbury in Cambridgeshire back in the 90s, I miss it.
When I started out last year the first lenses I bought were both f/4. It wasn't long before I realised the mistake and had to upgrade to f/2.8. I think a lens that is only f/4 or f/5.6 at around 50mm looks like a major limitation to me.
Hi -
First of all, if you don't understand what's meant by "fast" lenses and how lens apertures affect your photography, read about it on any number of online tutorials (here's one picked at random - http://www.digital-photography-tips.net/aperture.html). This can help you decide whether paying more for a "fast" lens is justified for you or not. But aside from that, the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC version) is a much better lens in all respects (sharpness, distortion, CA, etc) than either of the others mentioned. So if you expect to stay with photography, get it if you can afford it - it'll serve you well for a long time. And if, as your photography develops, if you decide it's not right for you, it'll have some resale value. If you can't afford it, get the Canon or Sigma and use it. When you "outgrow" it, and your 40d has become an antique, you'll have a "throwaway" combo you can use in situations where you wouldn't want to risk more expensive equipment.
Not to confuse the issue, but another lens to consider would be the older Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 (not the newer f/2.8-4 VC version). Not as good as the Tamrom but can be had used for $300 or less and is better than the the other two lenses you're considering.
Hope this helps.
I bet you will be even more confused after you get 50 opinions on these lenses. Buy whatever you can afford, learn with it and have fun. Some people use the kit lens for the life of the camera and never wish for anything else. Others replace it in a month. You won't know where you sit on that spectrum until you get more experience with photography. I used my first lens for several years before I got the cash to upgrade and even when I was upgrading I wasn't sure why. I now own nine lenses and totally appreciate fine glass. Did anyone mention that photography is expensive?
The aperture of a DSLR lens is wide open when you are looking through the viewfinder and focusing. When you press the shutter the aperture closes to the one you or the metering has selected. You can see this happen if you look into the lens with the camera set at f/22 and press the shutter. You'll see the aperture close and reopen.
The significance of a 2.8 vs slower lens, in addition to transmitting more light and producing shallower depth of field (DOF) is how it affects auto focus (AF) performance. The center AF point becomes more sensitive and accurate when lenses which are 2.8 or faster are used.
A difference between the less expense designs and most L lenses is that in the less expensive lenses as you change the focal length the effective aperature changes. With the more expensive L lenses like a 24-70mm 2.8 L the aperture stays constant regardless of focal length. Since aperture affects DOF and exposure the latter is more desirable.
So for your wide zoom the 2.8 Sigma or Tamron should in theory have better AF performance. In practice? At a beginner's skill level you probably will have much impact one way or the other. Shorter focal lengths have wider DOF at all apertures than longer focal lengths at the same distance so precise focus, while always desireable, isn't as critical. In other works shorter focal lengths are more forgiving.
Not on your list but worthy of consideration is the Canon 10-22mm. I've used it on my 20D and 50D and love the way is creates near/far perspective which is significantly different than what is seen by eye. The difference between 18mm and 10mm might not seem like much, but the 10mm provides a signifcantly wider field of view and allows creative distortion of perspective in situations like these:
What create the near/far size distortion isn't just the result of the FOV being wider, it's due to the fact the wider lenses also have shorter min. focal distances. To see this cause and effect take the 50mm you already have and shoot a familar face starting from min. focal distance. The walk backwarding 1/2 step at a time shooting as distance increases incrementally. Take the shots and resize so the head in each is a similar size and compare. In addition to the crop changing you'll see the rendering of the face change. When camera is very close to the nose it will look abnormally large relative to everything else. As you move back the face will look more "normal" because it matches you see by eye most fo the time.
In addition to the 10-22mm I carry the 24-70mm 2.8 L and 70-200mm 2.8 IS so I don't have any gaps. But I don't think a gap between 22mm and 50mm would be too much of a handicap.
Beginners tend to try to include focal point and background context in every shot. That results in compositions were the focal point and background occupy equal space in the photo and wind-up competing with each other for attention. In terms of storytelling it's usually more effective and interesting to tell a story visually with the combination of wide establishing shots to set the scene context followed by closer cropped shots of the action. Shooting that way you won't notice the gap between 22mm and 50mm much and in most situations can work around it as needed by moving closer or further away, respectively, to cover the gap.
I've always liked the 18-55 IS I/II Kit lenses as a beginning lens. I've only gotten "hands on" with the Sigma and Tamron lenses. I'd say get the 18-55 IS kit lens, exploit it to the best of it's ability!!! And in the meantime, save up for the well worth it expense lens 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM!!!
reno.peterson wrote:
I've always liked the 18-55 IS I/II Kit lenses as a beginning lens. I've only gotten "hands on" with the Sigma and Tamron lenses. I'd say get the 18-55 IS kit lens, exploit it to the best of it's ability!!! And in the meantime, save up for the well worth it expense lens 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM!!!
The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is a great all round lens on a crop. It is expensive though.
WannaTakePix wrote:
Times are hard and I'm only starting my Image Capturing journey.. WHAT DO I DO ?
Pick one, even at random, and don't sweat the decision. It won't commit you for a lifetime. If you end up deciding it was not the best choice, you can sell it and buy a different one. The difference in price will not be catastrophic. If you really want to have very little cost of ownership then buy used in the first place.
I have the (Mark I) IS version of the Canon lens you are contemplating, and it is decent. I hear the Mark II is better. I have never owned Sigma or Tamron, but I dould buy Tamron and probably never will buy Sigma, based on reports on the internet.
First off, Welcome to FM. If any apologies are owed, I apologize for not noting that you joined very recently.
WannaTakePix wrote:
Apologies, if I've got things wrong. I thought "Tog" was a term of endearment used for a Pho*TOG*rapher...
It's ok. "Tog" is often used as diminuitive in the UK and maybe Australia, so therefore it does occasionally show up in other places too. However, in North America, it has a faintly disrespectful ring to our ears. I know that you meant no such thing, so I just pointed to the more usual meaning of the word.
Different types of photography require different types of methods to get the best results...some you want to shoot in aperature priority and sometimes shutter priority...some with fast shutter speeds...some with slow...
#1...learn the relationship between ISO...Aperature...and Shutter Speed...when you do, you can create the image and effect you want under different conditions...
WannaTakePix wrote:
Apologies, if I've got things wrong.
I thought "Tog" was a term of endearment used for a Pho*TOG*rapher...
In North American English "tog" is an abbreviation for "toga" which is a loose fitting garment often worn in men's bathing establishmens of a specialized kind.
Thus, "tog" can also mean a patron of such establishments.
. If 10 people post their answer to your question, you may get 10 different answers 
.