Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.

[TRIPL3try]

Regardless of the make just be prepared to have to have your lens calibrated - especially if you can't adjust af in your camera :'(.
I love my new sigma 17-50 2.8 is. I was prepared to need calibration but I was good out of the box .

What does it mean to calibrate a lens, anyone? Seems like something important I should know if I want to extend the longevity of my gear.

(you will be popular with the 40mm lens)

Ha ha ha, woo! 8) I think the pancake looks so silly. I'm excited to get my shotgun mic/shoulder mount in the mail this week. Last two things on my list (for now): battery grip + polarizer.

 

[pdirestajr]

If your primary focus is video, you should look into a few manual focus prime lenses. You can pick up beautiful Nikon manual glass for next to nothing. Add an adapter and you are good to go. Nikon AI-s lenses are great, E-Series are cheap as dirt.

Primes will help you become a better photographer, are more affordable and can offer you larger apertures (also good for video)

I don't know what advantage a cheap zoom gives you. The Canon Rebel 18-55 kit lens at least will give you a decent/ affordable wide angle lens.

Just my .02

 

[kdsand]

Regardless of the make just be prepared to have to have your lens calibrated - especially if you can't adjust af in your camera :'(.
I love my new sigma 17-50 2.8 is. I was prepared to need calibration but I was good out of the box .

What does it mean to calibrate a lens, anyone? Seems like something important I should know if I want to extend the longevity of my gear.

(you will be popular with the 40mm lens)

Ha ha ha, woo! 8) I think the pancake looks so silly. I'm excited to get my shotgun mic/shoulder mount in the mail this week. Last two things on my list (for now): battery grip + polarizer.

The af or auto focus can be calibrated to optimize or better match your lens focus to your camera. It doesn't really affect the longevity.

 

[adamdoesmovies]

You are going to want some other accessories as well for video, the cost of the camera is about 10% of the total beginning expense. hopefully, the school will have some of the lighting, microphones, audio recorders, tripods, video heads, etc, but wait and see. Odds are that a beginner level video tripod and head will eat up $500.

For 500 clams, you better be getting something better than "Beginner level." You can get a brand new Manfrotto tripod and fluid head, both more than sturdy enough for a DSLR, for about 200. You can also get a set of used sticks and buy a decent fluid head separately for about 150- just make sure it's compatible with the thread. It isn't exactly as nice as a Connor, but as long as you have the sticks secured, you won't have problems and it's 99.9% as effective. Despite what most people seem to think, you don't need a shotgun to kill ants.

 

[lopicma]

For my 2 cents, I can recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with vibration control, and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS. I paid $450 for the Tamron (Simply Electronics) and $190 for the Canon lens (Amazon).

Both of these lenses are good for stills, and I don't know about video as my Rebel XS can't perform the feat.

Take some classes as suggested, and go out and shoot everything and anything. I have started schlepping my camera everywhere, and looking for an excuse to photograph stuff. Go to events, feed birds, visit the zoo, line up your family members for mug shots. LOL Take pictures of the moon...

Take pictures of flowers, bugs, anything... and be prepared to throw out a lot of shots. I took 270 frames at the local nature center last weekend, and only kept 31 of them. Last month I took photos at a military rein-actor event and only use my 50mm prime. I took pictures of an indoor tennis match, and the lighting sucked, as did my 18-55mm kit lens (f/3.5-5.6), so I shot it all at 800 and 1600 ISO.

Most important is to have fun and enjoy your new camera.

 

[darrellrhodesmiller]

my vote would be a used tamron 28-75mm f2.8 you can find them on ebay pretty reasonably priced.
its got amazing quality and goes a little wider than your 40mm and gives you some zoom too.

D

 

[TRIPL3try]

For my 2 cents, I can recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 with vibration control, and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS. I paid $450 for the Tamron (Simply Electronics) and $190 for the Canon lens (Amazon).

Both of these lenses are good for stills, and I don't know about video as my Rebel XS can't perform the feat.

Take some classes as suggested, and go out and shoot everything and anything. I have started schlepping my camera everywhere, and looking for an excuse to photograph stuff. Go to events, feed birds, visit the zoo, line up your family members for mug shots. LOL Take pictures of the moon...

Take pictures of flowers, bugs, anything... and be prepared to throw out a lot of shots. I took 270 frames at the local nature center last weekend, and only kept 31 of them. Last month I took photos at a military rein-actor event and only use my 50mm prime. I took pictures of an indoor tennis match, and the lighting sucked, as did my 18-55mm kit lens (f/3.5-5.6), so I shot it all at 800 and 1600 ISO.

Most important is to have fun and enjoy your new camera.

Why thank you! I've been learning a lot in the last few days but I know it is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I took the t4i to the beach and to a fireworks show yesterday and had some fun with it.

My main issue is learning how to play with manual settings, mainly ISO/aperture. Hopefully I'll learn a lot in my photography course next semester (which I'm praying isn't just how to use Photoshop).

Thanks again, everyone, for the much-needed advice. I know I could have Google'd a lot of this stuff but I would rather have personal opinions from people who have a far better understanding of photography than me. =]

 

[TRIPL3try]

I know this is slightly off topic at this point, but would it make any sense for me to get a 50mm 1.4 if I already have a 40mm 2.8? Will I really gain much with that depth of field?

 

[EOBeav]

If you're a beginner, hold off on getting that next lens. Instead, use your 40mm to help you become a better photographer. Then, at some point in the future, you'll be able to make a better decision about your next lens.

 

[HeWhoShoots]

I know this is slightly off topic at this point, but would it make any sense for me to get a 50mm 1.4 if I already have a 40mm 2.8? Will I really gain much with that depth of field?

Right now, don't worry about that lens. If you want to experiment with shallow(er) depth of field, get the 50 1.8. It's one of Canon's best buys, and if you can get by its plasticy feel, its image quality will make you very happy. That's a sharp lens and a third the cost of the 1.4.

 

[paul13walnut5]

For reasons you won't yet comprhend, for video you will need:

A zoom with a fast constant max aperture. That means an f2.8 zoom.

You will need a zoom with a filter thread that doesn't rotate.

You will need a zoom with a nice tactile long throw focus ring.

Such a lens will be really good for your photography, but will really really help your video.

You won't be using AF if you are doing video seriously. People may take issue with this, but they are wrong. AF cannot pinpoint what you want in focus (that is the subjects eye) and cannot track fast enough.

So really forget AF.

You have $500 and a short telephoto.


I would therefore suggest a sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro or the same but with OS (not the f2.8-4 version or anything else that sounds similar) can be found used with lots of change, you may be lucky and find a non-OS verison new, and certainly this is the best bang per buck.

18-50 is also a good walkaround lens, decent wide angle, and ok tele. Would be a good interview and GV lens (thinking video) Also has good close focus, it isn't a true macro, but for practical purposes, unless you work in a lab, you wouldn't need a seperate macro lens with this.

I have one and so can recommend it.

 

[adamdoesmovies]

For reasons you won't yet comprhend, for video you will need:

A zoom with a fast constant max aperture. That means an f2.8 zoom.

You will need a zoom with a filter thread that doesn't rotate.

You will need a zoom with a nice tactile long throw focus ring.

Such a lens will be really good for your photography, but will really really help your video.

You won't be using AF if you are doing video seriously. People may take issue with this, but they are wrong. AF cannot pinpoint what you want in focus (that is the subjects eye) and cannot track fast enough.

So really forget AF.

You have $500 and a short telephoto.


I would therefore suggest a sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro or the same but with OS (not the f2.8-4 version or anything else that sounds similar) can be found used with lots of change, you may be lucky and find a non-OS verison new, and certainly this is the best bang per buck.

18-50 is also a good walkaround lens, decent wide angle, and ok tele. Would be a good interview and GV lens (thinking video) Also has good close focus, it isn't a true macro, but for practical purposes, unless you work in a lab, you wouldn't need a seperate macro lens with this.

I have one and so can recommend it.

The 18-50 is probably one of Sigma's best lenses. Don't knock the 17-70 2.8-4 OS, though. Slightly less sharp, but about 200 bucks cheaper, and does well with video.

 

[preppyak]

That's a sharp lens and a third the cost of the 1.4.

Normally I'd agree with that advice, except, we are talking video here. The 50mm f/1.8 is practically useless when it comes to video focusing, unless you are setting focus for interviews and not changing it. The focus ring is awful.

The 40mm will probably be equally annoying, so I agree with the above poster when he mentions getting a lens that has a convenient ring for AF. Whether its primes or a zoom, you'll regret not getting a lens that makes that aspect convenient

 

[HeWhoShoots]

That's a sharp lens and a third the cost of the 1.4.

Normally I'd agree with that advice, except, we are talking video here. The 50mm f/1.8 is practically useless when it comes to video focusing, unless you are setting focus for interviews and not changing it. The focus ring is awful.

The 40mm will probably be equally annoying, so I agree with the above poster when he mentions getting a lens that has a convenient ring for AF. Whether its primes or a zoom, you'll regret not getting a lens that makes that aspect convenient

I agree with what you're saying, but he'll have a rig as he's mentioned, and that'll make it easier. I've used both the 1.4 and the 1.8, and while the 1.8 may not have the best focus ring, it more than makes up for it in value. Also I've used it for interviews/fixed focus situations where youre right, the ring is a non-issue.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@adamdoesmovies

The 18-50 is probably one of Sigma's best lenses. Don't knock the 17-70 2.8-4 OS, though. Slightly less sharp, but about 200 bucks cheaper, and does well with video.

Hi Adam, I'm sure it is a good lens, for video I would argue venhemently against a lens with a variable max aperture, can make shot matching -particularly in low light- tricky.

The non-OS version of the 18-50 f2.8 (the version I have) cost about the same, or even a little less than the 17-70, and for me the constant fast max aperture was just more useful.

 

[daniemare]

I will not recommend anything specifically other than talk about my experience.
Starting with the 18-55 kit, I got the Canon 18-200 as a do it all walk around lens. I was very new to photography so got it based on salesperson recommendation. And boy, that lens is horrible in all accounts.
Indoor use - forget it to slow
Telephoto - well it basically stops zooming at 170mm or so and just turns to 200 on the barrel
Portrait - no bokeh and not very sharp

So if you really want that range just go for the Tamron and save a bunch

What I did - as I am on a budget as well:
Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS - helps indoors (with a bit of ISO bump), Useful range for walk around. Use it 90% of the time (crop sensor) and I believe the price vs quality beats the canon hands down
Canon 70-200 F4L (no IS) for $450 used. Gives you the range and awesome colour and sharpness.

When it comes to Canon L lenses, do not hesitate to go used. The lenses are well built, and from experience, people who pays thousands for lenses do take care of it.

 

[TRIPL3try]

Excellent feedback all around on page three. Thank you kindly, everyone.

So would that Sigma lens I originally posted be a decent choice for now? I don't need to make the decision ASAP, but would like to grab a telephoto lens by the end of the summer.

From what I've gathered from the veteran experience here, either wait for the STM 18-135mm or one of the Sigma 2.8's? Which one of these would suit me better, the fixed aperture or the ranged aperture? I know someone mentioned both above me but I'm kind of on the road at the moment (not driving!)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689620-REG/Sigma_583101_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670047-REG/Sigma_668101_17_70mm_F2_8_4_DC_Macro.html

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Excellent feedback all around on page three. Thank you kindly, everyone.

So would that Sigma lens I originally posted be a decent choice for now? I don't need to make the decision ASAP, but would like to grab a telephoto lens by the end of the summer.

From what I've gathered from the veteran experience here, either wait for the STM 18-135mm or one of the Sigma 2.8's? Which one of these would suit me better, the fixed aperture or the ranged aperture? I know someone mentioned both above me but I'm kind of on the road at the moment (not driving!)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689620-REG/Sigma_583101_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html

or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670047-REG/Sigma_668101_17_70mm_F2_8_4_DC_Macro.html

With the 17-40, if you start shooting at f/2.8 and 17mm and then zoom to 40mm (or much of anything inbetween), your exposure will change from f/2.8 to f/4 and the image will now be underexposed by a stop. Your only choice would be to change exposure while you zoom (not going to happen in a single video shot) or to limit yourself to f/4 at the wide end.

With the 17-50, you can start shooting at f/2.8 and it'll stay there no matter what focal length you use.

I imagine there might still be T-stop changes over the focal length range, but it's going to be a while before you're going to care about that sort of thing, and a loooooooooong while before you'll be able to afford gear that deals with it.

Cheers,

b&

 

[TRIPL3try]

With the 17-40, if you start shooting at f/2.8 and 17mm and then zoom to 40mm (or much of anything inbetween), your exposure will change from f/2.8 to f/4 and the image will now be underexposed by a stop. Your only choice would be to change exposure while you zoom (not going to happen in a single video shot) or to limit yourself to f/4 at the wide end.

That sort of went over my head. So basically, when I zoom in, my exposure will change due to the ranged aperture? That's why I want a fixed aperture?

So, bottom line: buy the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 or wait for the Canon 18-135mm STM? I would get either toward the end of August.


And yes, it will be at least two years until I graduate and can afford some serious L glass or mucho expensivo primes. Paying college tuition sucks. I'm trying to make the smartest and most reasonable buys, though...once again, why I am here.

 

[wickidwombat]

With the 17-40, if you start shooting at f/2.8 and 17mm and then zoom to 40mm (or much of anything inbetween), your exposure will change from f/2.8 to f/4 and the image will now be underexposed by a stop. Your only choice would be to change exposure while you zoom (not going to happen in a single video shot) or to limit yourself to f/4 at the wide end.

That sort of went over my head. So basically, when I zoom in, my exposure will change due to the ranged aperture? That's why I want a fixed aperture?

So, bottom line: buy the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 or wait for the Canon 18-135mm STM? I would get either toward the end of August.


And yes, it will be at least two years until I graduate and can afford some serious L glass or mucho expensivo primes. Paying college tuition sucks. I'm trying to make the smartest and most reasonable buys, though...once again, why I am here.

a constant aperture zoom will be better for video than the 18-135 STM since the 18-135 is variable aperture
I'd probably suggest going with the sigma f2.8 for starters