Good, inexpensive zoom lens? Beginner here.

[kdsand]

I bought my sigma just this spring.
I will 2nd the opinion or is it 4th - that the sigma 17-50 is a great buy & value & huge improvement over kit lenses.
When it was first released it apparently often needed to be recalibrated but based on reviews in the last year that is now much less an area for concern.

I would buy the canon if it was $100 bucks more but not at around $500 more ( bad canon bad ).
Sigma also throws in (for free gasp!) a very nice hood & an awesome case.

Thankfully my nifty new Shorty 40 is giving me some hope for the words Canon & value belonging together in a conversation, minus a lens hood of course :.

 

[revup67]

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.

Trumpet power - these are excellent points no doubt but I might add 2.8 might not necessarily always fit the bill with its narrow DOF and lesser IQ if I am understanding your point correctly or was that just an example? Also, even if the OP did use the 17-40, set the camera on Aperture Priority @ F4 (or Manual) with Auto ISO perhaps that might be an alternate solution no?

On a side note, didn't see anyone mention the 15-85mm Canon EF-S. Just take a look at http://www.the-digital-picture.com and compare that lens with others even the 16-35 L and it holds up quite well especially in the corners its razor sharp as I am a previous owner and hesitantly sold that lens when I got the 5DMK3. The lens is around $650 new but have seen it for less used.

Mt Spokane is right. $500 is on the low end for a tripod with a fluid head. The Manfrotto 701HDV is very reasonable fluid head at around $170. Love the secondary security lock on the plate which stops the camera from accidentally sliding off the head - a gear saver no doubt. Very smooth as well and can easily sustain the weight load. A great buy. PS Loads of good fodder in this thread!

 

[Matthew19]

isn't the canon 70-200 f/4 non IS like $500?

 

[robbinzo]

I like the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. It's less than $500.
It's relatively inexpensive, auto-focuses quickly and is nice and sharp. I have no hesitation in recommending this lens.
It suffers from zoom creep, isn't a "fast" lens and is obviously not top end. It does have image stabilisation which will help for hand held shots and video.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@revup67

Trumpet power - these are excellent points no doubt but I might add 2.8 might not necessarily always fit the bill with its narrow DOF and lesser IQ if I am understanding your point correctly or was that just an example? Also, even if the OP did use the 17-40, set the camera on Aperture Priority @ F4 (or Manual) with Auto ISO perhaps that might be an alternate solution no?

Constant max aperture lens is easier to shot match. F2.8 is more versatile than F4. On the note of shot matching, then a shot at say ISO 400 cut with a shot at ISO 800 is going to look visually different, in terms of noise at least. Video needs manual controls.

On a side note, didn't see anyone mention the 15-85mm Canon EF-S. Just take a look at http://www.the-digital-picture.com and compare that lens with others even the 16-35 L and it holds up quite well especially in the corners its razor sharp as I am a previous owner and hesitantly sold that lens when I got the 5DMK3. The lens is around $650 new but have seen it for less used.

15-85 is a slow and variable aperture lens. The 16-35 is a constant F2.8. And if I was looking for a paragon of sharpness I wouldn't look an an UWA.

Mt Spokane is right. $500 is on the low end for a tripod with a fluid head. The Manfrotto 701HDV is very reasonable fluid head at around $170. Love the secondary security lock on the plate which stops the camera from accidentally sliding off the head - a gear saver no doubt. Very smooth as well and can easily sustain the weight load. A great buy. PS Loads of good fodder in this thread!

701HDV is a toy. No counter-balance. Limited drag controls (head is either locked or unlocked)
The 501HDV has a limited counterbalance and drag controls. Although not fluid (teflon disc based) for the little more it is far better. The MVH502 is about the best in the budget range.

I use pro vintens and sachtlers for my ENG camera, and a sachtler ace for my HDV and DSLR cameras. There is nothing like the ACE for the cash. Variable counterbalance, 3 horiz and vertical drag settings.

A counter balanced camera is easier to turn tilt and ramp. It is one of the most misunderstood aspects of a decent tripod. Without counterbalance you are fighting against gravity and whiplash. The 701 is probably ideal for spotting scopes. if you are serious about video it is a waste of time, when there are far better heads for only a little more.

 

[adamfilip]

Good and inexpensive don't go together in photography
its like saying.. cheap gas

 

[TRIPL3try]

paul13, you seem to know a lot about fluid heads. That's a whole new can of worms but I plan on getting one around the same time I get a new lens.

Do you have one you would recommend that would be compatible with a Glidetrack? I'm know we use the 701 or 501 at school. Theirs is in crappy shape, though.

Good and inexpensive don't go together in photography
its like saying.. cheap gas

Well you're no help.

 

[HeWhoShoots]

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?

Everything trumpet power said about zooming and the aperture adjustment of zooming is true. The thing is though, and you'll see this fairly quick, is that zooming with a lens on a dslr looks like shit, due to the cmos sensor. Rarely does a zoom on a photography lens look good, at all. This is one of the main reasons people keep saying to get a prime and use your manual zoom (feet).

 

[HeWhoShoots]

paul13, you seem to know a lot about fluid heads. That's a whole new can of worms but I plan on getting one around the same time I get a new lens.

Do you have one you would recommend that would be compatible with a Glidetrack? I'm know we use the 701 or 501 at school. Theirs is in crappy shape, though.

This is off topic, but I figured I'd throw in my opinion...since that's what this forums for. Anyway, tripods come in handy for plenty of stuff, but I never ever think about them first. I think they're a waste of money if you spend over a couple hundred bucks. The surest way to make sure that your footage looks exactly the same as your peers is to use a tripod. Tripods are stale. You're getting a rig. Use it every chance you get to add a human element to your shots.

(Obviously if you're shooting an interview with 2+ cameras, a tripod is somewhat needed, but you dont need one with a head worth wasting money on.)

 

[paul13walnut5]

@HeWhoShoots

Everything trumpet power said about zooming and the aperture adjustment of zooming is true. The thing is though, and you'll see this fairly quick, is that zooming with a lens on a dslr looks like S___, due to the cmos sensor. Rarely does a zoom on a photography lens look good, at all. This is one of the main reasons people keep saying to get a prime and use your manual zoom (feet).

Primes are great. However fast aperture zooms are more workable in terms of overall range.

I have 3 f2.8 zooms covering 11-200mm on APS-C. That would take a lot of primes. It also means I spend less time changing lenses and more time shooting (I work with a producer, thats the crew, pretty much run and gun, trying to shoot an interview with varying frame sizes would be very difficult without zooms)

Whilst I don't want to live zoom, I often want to change shot size without changing lenses.

So don't write of zooms entirely. But if you are going to shoot with a zoom lens, make sure it's constant max aperture (on a 18-55 lit lens for example your shot is 3 times darker at f5.6 than at f3.5... ) and if you can afford it make sure that that max aperture is f2.8.

There are times when you won't want to add any more ISO. And as your shutter is best locked at 1/50th or 1/60th for regular recording... the extra aperture is invaluable.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@TRIPL3try

paul13, you seem to know a lot about fluid heads. That's a whole new can of worms but I plan on getting one around the same time I get a new lens.

Do you have one you would recommend that would be compatible with a Glidetrack? I'm know we use the 701 or 501 at school. Theirs is in crappy shape, though.

Just as I've said. Get one with counterbalance at the very least. The 501 HDV. The MVH502 is a newer design with better fluid cartrdges, and is only a little more. It's a standard tripod 3/8th mount, so should fit any slider.

A good tripod should be in every kit. Rigs have their place, so do tripods. All the cool dudes with shooting on a rig at f1.4 don't realise that every other cool dude is shooting on a rig at f1.4. Sometime you need a focal length that is longer. Sometimes you have a longer record run time. Sometimes you need a fluid repeatable movement (see the sachtler ACE for steppable drag) sometime you shoot timelapse. Sometimes you shoot an interview.

Different hammers for different nuts. When I hear folk writing off tripods, I just think, 'fools'.

Rigs are not for everybody, and even for the folk who they are for, they are not for every occassion.

 

[EOBeav]

Good and inexpensive don't go together in photography
its like saying.. cheap gas

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, <$500UDS. And now, apparently, the new Canon 40mm, at ~$200. Both are very good, and reasonably inexpensive.

 

[bdunbar79]

I picked up a 50 f/1.4 for $369. The color rendition outdoors shooting ISO 50-200 is just magical.

 

[EOBeav]

isn't the canon 70-200 f/4 non IS like $500?

A little under $700USD, from what I can remember. I bought it a couple of years ago. Fantastic glass for the money, depending on what you need it for. I do mostly landscapes, so that IS or f/2.8 version of this same lens doesn't do me a lot of good. However, if you're shooting inside sporting events, or need to go wider than f/4 for some reason, it might not be the best choice.

Also regarding OP: Do NOT get that Canon 75-300, the one with the silver ring you'd mentioned in the first post. That lens will do more harm than good in terms of holding you back as a photographer. The IQ is quite poor.

 

[ScottyP]

I didnt read the entire thread, so I don't know if this was already mentioned or not but Canon makes a 70-200 F4L lens for $700 brand new. You might find one second hand for your $500 budget range.

It does not have IS, but optically it is one of the sharpest lenses canon currently produces. I would not hesitate at all to get this lens. IS is great, but if you are going to shoot at at least 1/200 or faster at max focal length on this lens and develop steady handling you certainly don't need it.

Just my 2 cents worth....

I would agree with that.

 

[Richard8971]

The best advice I ever received from a Camera friend is to "use the equipment you have and learn how to use it well."

Buy the best equipment you can afford that best suits your needs and be happy with your decision.

It's not the cheapest lens Canon makes nor is it the most expensive but one I would recommend without question is the EF 70-300 IS USM. It is easy to carry and has a great focal range. I have gotten thousands of beautifully sharp images from this lens on everything from my XTi to my 7D and my new 5D2.

The IS is well worth having as well as the focal range for the savings over an "L" lens.

This discussion is like an 18 year old buying an 8 passanger van because he hopes someday to get married and have a family. Down the road you can always upgrade your glass if needed. I have "L" lenses now but I still use my 70-300. It's a great lens and you won't be disappointed with it.

D

 

[K-amps]

I'm going to school for video, so keep that in mind. Sadly, I can only spend about $500 tops on a lens, since I spent the rest on camera gear. I wish I could get a 70-200mm :'(

Be enlightened...

70-200 f4 is $567 on Canon's refurb lenses. Right up your alley.

 

[paul13walnut5]

@Richard8971

It's not the cheapest lens Canon makes nor is it the most expensive but one I would recommend without question is the EF 70-300 IS USM. It is easy to carry and has a great focal range. I have gotten thousands of beautifully sharp images from this lens on everything from my XTi to my 7D and my new 5D2.

I had this lens a few years back and was very impressed with it, optically at least. I hated the extending zoom and rotating focus thread. In hindsight I wish I had just spent the extra 25% on the 70-200 f4 non-IS instead.

However, the lens is capable of excellent shots, but the 55-250 IS lens isn't far behind in any sense and significantly less pricey... provided again that the concessions to cost in the construction aren't too much of a barrier.

The variable max aperture, and overall slow aperture might just be a killer for video applications though... f2.8s. Primes over zooms if you can't run to f2.8 zooms.
The wild card may be a used sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG HSM....

 

[archangelrichard]

you didn't mention price range

for around $300 you can find the 17 - 85, 28 - 135 (these are actually the same lens body with different glass; better build quality than the) or the 18 - 135 on craigslist

Here's the simple facts: The longer the zoom range the less sharp it will be at the ends - zooms are CONVENIENCE lenses, they have the make compromises to work so they use lots of pieces of glass (each of which lowers the sharpness of the final image) HOWEVER the longer zoom range lenses let you get "some picture" which is better than "no picture". These are "walking around" lenses for when you can't be prepared with the proper lens. There are many good quality 135 F 2.8 lenses with 4 pieces of glass (the Canon has 7 pieces of glass for 500 new on Amazon), in a zoom that will be $1250 for a Canon 70-200 F 2.8 with (wait for it ..... ) 23 pieces of glass to create that similar quality of focus

That is why people are suggesting primes - better image quality at a lower price ... BUT it depends on your usage as to whether this would work for you

should you be able to afford it, there are people making HD movies (for the theatre) with the Canon 5d and the 70 - 200 - so you can buy the lens now and upgrade the camera later (even find a used 5D Mk II which is what people have been using

go to http://blog.planet5d.com/ to see people doing videos on Canons (not just the 5D but mostly)

 

[Videoshooter]

Anyway, tripods come in handy for plenty of stuff, but I never ever think about them first. I think they're a waste of money if you spend over a couple hundred bucks. The surest way to make sure that your footage looks exactly the same as your peers is to use a tripod. Tripods are stale. You're getting a rig. Use it every chance you get to add a human element to your shots.

You've obviously never shot wildlife or surfing with a 600mm lens on a 1.6x crop body.

A good tripod is essential to film-making. It is a necessity for using a slider properly, and that is something that will let your footage stand apart from your peers.