-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Advise please (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Freako
- Start date
Marcus Conway - ebirder
Well-known member
What's your budget?
Freako
Well-known member
Yeah, thats a good question. To be fair I don't want to go mad as it will only be used on occcasions, but I would like to produce decent images. £500 tops.
Marcus Conway - ebirder
Well-known member
The Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is reputably a very nice lens, but maybe a bit much. £500 is a bit of a no mans land for short lenses.
I have;
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II
Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM
And pound per lens the 50mm at £80 is an absolute beauty. Worth having in the kit bag for sure.
I have;
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II
Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM
And pound per lens the 50mm at £80 is an absolute beauty. Worth having in the kit bag for sure.
Freako
Well-known member
Thanks Marcus,
If it is any help, i am in LA next month, do you reckon I could get cheaper over in the States?
The old 28-70 f2.8 is my main 'person' lens, having used it for the last couple of years I can see why it still fetches a good price. The focus is fast and accurate and the images quality is stunning, according to many reviews it's IQ is better than the 24-70 f2.8 that replaced it. You could well pick one of these up for less than £500 and at that sort of price it is very hard to beat. The 24-105 f4 is probably a better alrounder are it has a wider range, IS and is a bit lighter - the image quality is also very good but you'd have to go over budget to get one (even used).
It's worth considering what you want to shoot, a 28-70 f4 is lovely in a studio or at a wedding but not much crack for candid street shots. For candids you really do need a longer focal length, the 70-200 f4 is a great lens for this - super sharp, fast focus and relatively small/light. Used a 70-200 f4 will be ~£400 so you could get one and then look at a cheaper short lens, something like the Sigma 17-70 perhaps.
hollis_f
Well-known member
Let's check it out. Samy's in LA charge $750 for the 17-40 f4 - that's roughly £470. Add to that the duty (around 5-7%, can't remember exactly - let's call it 5%) makes it about £500. Then VAT at 15% gives you about £570. Warehouse express are charging £630 - so you can save yourself about 10% on that lens. I presume the same will apply to others.
Of course, you could try smuggling it in the the Green Channel. But if you're willing to make yourself a criminal to save £100 then you may as well just steal the lens and save even more.
tdodd
Just call me Tim
For a one lens solution for wedding work, on a 40D, you'll be wanting a 17-55/2.8 IS. There are other options, but that is THE lens of choice for many wedding pros shooting weddings with crop bodies. I would not recommend anything slower than f/2.8. If you want to economise then you could consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8, which will lose you the IS and the focusing will, I believe, be slower and noisier, but otherwise it is a very good lens for that range if you are on a budget.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=720419&highlight=17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=716811&highlight=17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=708144&highlight=17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=648440&highlight=17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=660968&highlight=17-55
For the long end you'll want the 70-200/2.8 IS and it would be worth having a fast prime or two handy - 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L - or 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 on a budget - for when f/2.8 can't deliver the goods. I've had to shoot at 200mm, 1/60, f/2.8, 3200 ISO in the past, and that was with a 50D. Fast glass and IS can prove very important for good results.
I know you said the budget was £500, but I'm afraid I can't do much about that. To deliver results reliably under all weathers and lighting conditions requires fast glass. Remember, as well, that fast glass is not only about the exposure; it is also about DOF control and bokeh.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=720419&highlight=17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=716811&highlight=17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=708144&highlight=17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=648440&highlight=17-55
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=660968&highlight=17-55
For the long end you'll want the 70-200/2.8 IS and it would be worth having a fast prime or two handy - 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L - or 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 on a budget - for when f/2.8 can't deliver the goods. I've had to shoot at 200mm, 1/60, f/2.8, 3200 ISO in the past, and that was with a 50D. Fast glass and IS can prove very important for good results.
I know you said the budget was £500, but I'm afraid I can't do much about that. To deliver results reliably under all weathers and lighting conditions requires fast glass. Remember, as well, that fast glass is not only about the exposure; it is also about DOF control and bokeh.
Last edited:
I don't think that many pro wedding togs are using crop bodies, I would bet that the most popular wedding lens for Canon shooters is the 24-70 f2.8 followed by the 24-105 f4. Even with a crop body a 24-70 will be fine the vast majority of the time and you can still use it when you get a full frame camera (or shoot film).
Jaff
Registered Member
Or not. Tamron not too long ago released a new version of this lens with IS or VC as it's known in Tamron speak. Comes in at just over £500 on Warehouse. Don't know how it compares to the old one IQ wise though as it no doubt has had more done to it. Knowing Tamron though it still probs gives truly excellent results.
Just to add. The 18-55mm IS is a nice little lens for the money and will save you a heap. Can't match the more expensive lenses IQ wise but it is till very good for what you want it for Mick. Other than that I can't fault the 17-40mm which was recommended to me when I posed this same question many moons ago. Agree with Marcus re the 50mm f1.8. Be worth budgeting to include one of those. Just don't drop it! I dropped mine and it shattered to pieces. :-C
Last edited:
tdodd
Just call me Tim
Why not?....
- because the AF is fussy and unreliable and may let you down in the exact lighting situations for which you bought an f/1.8 lens in the first place;
- because the AF is noisey and may be obtrusive during a wedding ceremony;
- because MF is very difficult to achieve with precision as the AF gearing mechanism does not disengage and thus seems to fight you, even if you are not attempting to AF. Also the MF ring is added almost as an afterthought, seemingly not intended to be used in all seriousness;
- because when stopped down the pentagonal bokeh is pretty unattractive;
- because the build quality is poor and it will not take knocks well.
I speak from experience. I used to own the 50/1.8, barely used, it for the reasons stated, and replaced it with the 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 has its faults as well, but for weddings it is certainly a few steps ahead of the 50/1.8.
You should find some 50/1.8 (nifty fifty) love/hate threads over on POTN (example thread, and another) if you want to delve deeper. It's a great lens for newbies progressing beyond the old 18-55 kit lens and wanting to see what fast glass and shallow DOF looks like, but I would not rely on it to deliver sharp results time after time during a pro gig when the pace of events (e.g. during the service) will not wait for the photographer to get the focus right. If you have the luxury of time to get the focus right then the lens does offer good VFM, but just be aware of the limitations for more serious engagements.
Last edited:
cab1024
Well-known member
Why not hold out for the release of the new Canon lenses? I think I'm changing my next planned lens purchase from the 18-200 to the new 15-85mm. It's $800US for an f/5.6 lens, but it's got aspherical elements and covers the 24-135 range. That's everything I think I'd need until I have to pull out the 100-400.
But if you are seriously thinking about the 24-105 L lens, then you're starting from about a normal-lens focal length anyway, not a true wide angle. So maybe you want the less expensive but still brand new 18-135, which I assume has better IQ than the current 18-200.
I'm actually here to see what people have to say about those lenses, so why don't I just shut-up and do that before I recommend them to you....
[FWIW, my next planned lens purchase has migrated from the 50mm f1.4 (not the 1.8, which does not have the bokeh quality), then to the 18-200mm for an everyday walkaround lens. Then they announced the new lenses and threw off my plans and my budget...]
But if you are seriously thinking about the 24-105 L lens, then you're starting from about a normal-lens focal length anyway, not a true wide angle. So maybe you want the less expensive but still brand new 18-135, which I assume has better IQ than the current 18-200.
I'm actually here to see what people have to say about those lenses, so why don't I just shut-up and do that before I recommend them to you....
[FWIW, my next planned lens purchase has migrated from the 50mm f1.4 (not the 1.8, which does not have the bokeh quality), then to the 18-200mm for an everyday walkaround lens. Then they announced the new lenses and threw off my plans and my budget...]
Last edited:
Jaff
Registered Member
Another 50mm thread http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=133154
All I can say is buy one and see how you get one. If you hate it as some seem to then return it or if that's not possible then sell it on. Maybe you'll be £30 or so out of pocket at worst? I miss mine a great deal, it was fantastic for doing that very friendly Robin.
BTW Tim if you re-read the OP he said the 'odd wedding'. He's not trying to become a professional wedding photographer!!!
All I can say is buy one and see how you get one. If you hate it as some seem to then return it or if that's not possible then sell it on. Maybe you'll be £30 or so out of pocket at worst? I miss mine a great deal, it was fantastic for doing that very friendly Robin.
BTW Tim if you re-read the OP he said the 'odd wedding'. He's not trying to become a professional wedding photographer!!!
Last edited:
Freako
Well-known member
Thanks again, I am going to get one this week. I did say odd wedding, what I meant was one wedding which I can't get out of, but believe me I have tried:-O So are we saying I could shoot the wedding with this one lens?
tdodd
Just call me Tim
I fully understand that, but I've shot a wedding, as an amateur/guest, with a 17-85/4-5.6 IS zoom and it was not a good experience. IS is great, but slow shutter speeds can't freeze a moving subject and noise is just nasty. I bought a 50/1.8 as a cheap way to cover myself for poor light and found the AF performance to be unacceptable. The lens never got used and it has now been sold. Every wedding I've shot since then has used only f/2.8 glass (16-35/2.8L II, 17-55/2.8 IS, 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L IS), and this year I added the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 to my armoury.
You don't need to be a professional to benefit from good glass, but if advice is being sought then I will give the advice based on my own experience. Slow zooms with variable max apertures are pants when it comes to this sort of shooting, professional or not. I shoot almost exclusively with manual exposure and I would not now entertain the idea of a short to medium telephoto zoom lens with variable max aperture. I can't be fiddling about adjusting my exposure settings every time I adjust the focal length of the lens.
I appreciate that most of us have financial constraints, but buying the "wrong" lens, simply to save money, does not seem like a wise use of funds. Having a lens that doesn't quite hit the mark is a bit like having a sniper rifle that doesn't quite hit the mark either. Close is not good enough. Buy cheap, buy twice, or buy the right thing in the first place and enjoy it for years to come.
Of course, the above is only my opinion, so feel free to ignore it.
cab1024
Well-known member
Don't get the 50/1.8, if what you want is a decent everyday lens. That would be a decent everyday lens for 1985. Today's nifty fifty, IMHO, is the 18-55mm. It's as sturdy as the 50/1.8 (as in, not very sturdy), it has IS, which will more than make up for the low light sensitivity of the f/1.8. It does NOT have the shallow depth of field, but the 50/1.8 is not known for particularly pleasing bokeh anyway. And you lose all the flexibility of the wide-angle zoom. My 40D came with a great 28-135mm lens, but for an every day walkaround lens, what you want is wide-angle to normal flexibility -- you want to match the range of a point and shoot. So the 2nd or 3rd day after getting my kit, I ordered the 18-55mm.
If you really want the 50, get the f/1.4 and appreciate the build and image quality of a $400 lens vs. a $100 lens. Not to mention an extra stop of light sensitivity and silky smooth bokeh. If cost truly is a factor, then go for the 18-55mm for $140US because you're getting several lenses in one, and won't have to buy anything else for awhile.
It should serve you at least as well, and likely far better, in a wedding situation than the 50/1.8 would. Just make sure your flash is set to assist with autofocus.
If you really want the 50, get the f/1.4 and appreciate the build and image quality of a $400 lens vs. a $100 lens. Not to mention an extra stop of light sensitivity and silky smooth bokeh. If cost truly is a factor, then go for the 18-55mm for $140US because you're getting several lenses in one, and won't have to buy anything else for awhile.
It should serve you at least as well, and likely far better, in a wedding situation than the 50/1.8 would. Just make sure your flash is set to assist with autofocus.
Last edited:
