Lenses for 650D

[thesirren]

Hello. Long time reader, first time posting ^_^

I have finally decided to dive into the world of photography and am planning to do that with the release of 650D.

Want to pick it up as a "body-only" and purchase the lenses separately.

The first one, which I am almost 100% positive about is the 50mm f/1.4 USM or 50mm f/1.4 II if it is going to be announced before the shipping date of 650D.

The second one I consider purchasing is Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM.

What I was wondering about is if there are any zooms within this price range that might be a better option than this Sigma?

Thank you for the input!

 

[wickidwombat]

Typically the 18-55 kit lens and body sell for about the same as body only or only a tiny difference.
probably best to just get the kit and then you have the kit lens to sell with the body down the track
from what everyone here says the 15-85 canon zoom is a stellar lens so you might want to look at that
also since there is no AF micro adjust on the rebel range I would be hesitant to go sigma and stick with canon as tolerances seem tighter.

 

[candyman]

The second one I consider purchasing is Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM.

What I was wondering about is if there are any zooms within this price range that might be a better option than this Sigma?

Thank you for the input!

The Sigma is not stellar in IQ but with limited budget a good lens. You may want to avoid f/2.8 at 17mm. It is very soft (could be my lens specific)
I used this lens and its predecessor for years.


Check the reviews on Photozone, SLRgear - but you may already done that


If you have the budget then the Canon 15-85mm is a better lens though slower (aperture 3.5 to 5.6)


You may want to check the 17-50 non-VC of Tamron. People say it is also very good and not expensive - may be in your budget

 

[lexonio]

I have a 550D and I've used Sigma 17-70 extensively for the last six months. I'm thinking of switching to FF now, and that's why I got a 24-105mm L lens. The difference is astonishing - when I was shooting RAW I needed to bump vibrance and saturation quite a bit, correcting WB much more often than now, and then there's a sharpness difference - it's huge.

I don't miss those 7 extra mm, since the quality I get compensates for it 100%. So I'd say don't hesitate and buy a 24-105L, it's a good investment and it will last should you decide switch to FF. If you don't ever plan to switch to FF, you might want to consider 15-85, but I'd be reluctant to spend more than 1k on a lens that wouldn't work on a full frame body.

Just my 0.02$

 

[thesirren]

Sigma 17-70 is just $450, and I dont think any other lens beats it for that price?

15-85 is a great lens, no doubt, but costs 50% more - $750.

Having seen more of it now, I'm debating whether it is worth the additional $300 or am I better spending it elsewhere, i.e. better tripod, uv, accessories.

24-105 is definitely a good investment, especially since I will probably switch to FF in a couple of years, but costs $1000.

I was planning for $2.5k. ~$1k is going to be the camera itself. So with 50mm 1.4 costing around $400 and sigma costing $450, I'm already close past $2k and am only left with around $500 for everything else.

If I get a 24-105 L lens - I will not have any money left for tripods and will be forced to shoot on-the-go ^_^ If I can find some extra $1k I will consider getting 24-105, or may be 24-70, since the price for it decreased now.

Unfortunately with $2.5k budget my best option still seems to be 17-70.

Also, what tripod would you suggest? Not something too heavy, since I'm going to use it both indoors and outdoors.

 

[thesirren]

Reason I set myself a $2.5k limit is because if I go over $3k - I would be tempted too much to purchase the 5D Mk III, even if with a kit lens, and just buy additional lenses couple months later.

With where this discussion is going it looks like I might just have to do exactly that >_<

 

[thesirren]

I have just realized that Mk III kit will probably come out with a new 24-105 L lens, so it kinda makes sense to purchase 5DMk3 instead? ^_^

 

[Tijn]

A lens that might beat the Sigma you mentioned is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC. It's very sharp for its price. Less zoom range, but f/2.8 on the whole range. Cheaper too.

24-105 is nice if you don't take wide angle photo's (or are willing to switch lenses for those).

 

[SebSic]

I would suggest to own the 650d with initial 18 55 kit
plus 50 mm 1.4
plus EFS 18-200 for travels
and in a second time moove to the expensive but efficient EFS 17 55 2.8

 

[AvTvM]

A lens that might beat the Sigma you mentioned is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC. It's very sharp for its price. Less zoom range, but f/2.8 on the whole range. Cheaper too.

+1

had a Tamron 17-50 non VC and it delivered excellent IQ on 350D/400D and 40D.
Definitely recommended for a very good start if budget is limited.
I sold it after 2 years with little loss and "upgraded" to the Canon 17-55 ... just to get IS and USM, not due to better IQ.

 

[Loswr]

I was planning for $2.5k

For $2.5K, here's what I'd get:

• T4i/650D ($800)
• EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS ($735)
• EF 85mm f/1.8 ($425)
• Speedlite 430EX II ($275)
• Manfrotto 190XPROB and 498RC2 ($250)
• TOTAL = $2485

The lens prices I used include the dedicated lens hoods - I really recommend using a hood with your lenses, it makes a big difference in flare and contrast, and offers some protection, too. Unfortunately, Canon doesn't include the hoods with most non-L lenses.

If you can find a bit more money, I do think the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

I suggest the 85/1.8 over the 50/1.4 because the former has better build quality, better AF (ring USM vs. micromotor USM), and is sharp wide open (unlike the 50/1.4 which has halation from f/1.4 to f/2). The 85/1.8 is a great portrait lens for APS-C.

Good luck with your decisions!

 

[thesirren]

Thank you for such a detailed recommednation! I might just go with what you said, even if T4i turns out to be closer to $1k.

85 1.8 definitely looks like a better choice to me now that I have compared the samples from the net.
For the flash I was leaning towards 430EX II as well. But had no idea whatsoever about what tripod I should buy, so thank you for that!

Hopefully I will be able to allow myself to spend extra couple of hundred bucks, so that I can afford 17-55mm.

Best regards,
thesirren

 

[sama]

I have a Tamron 17-50 non VC since I started learning very basic photography with 1000D about 3 years ago. I switched to 7D a few months back and I am still enjoying the outcome of the lens. I think it's a good starter because apart from the feature of constant 2.8, the built is reasonably good for it's price. I bought it brand new (grey market) in Hong Kong for about US$280. Highly recommend.

If you need a tele zoom, why not consider Tamron SP AF70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD (Model A005), which I also owned one and love it so far. Reviews indicated that adding up to the 10X zoom in the video shooting (600D), the lens has an unbelievable reach of 300mm X 1.6 X 10 = 4800mm. I believe that 650D will keep this feature too.

Both lenses come with original lens hoods.

Finally, the resell value of these 2 well-built lenses are not bad at all when you want to upgrade in the future.

 

[ksuweh]

Before I got into photography I was given some advice by a guy that has been into photography for many many years. His advise to me was that lenses are the real investment. I have been in photography a few years now & I whole heartedly agree with his advise to me. The first lens that I bought along with my 7D was the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This lens is great. Optically it is as good as the two L lenses that I have. It is built well, not L quality, but still a very solid lens. They aren't a sealed lens & they tend to get some dust in them, but that shouldn't be a huge concern, just something to keep in mind. Invest in the lenses & as you grow as a photographer you will not be disappointed in them. The camera body you will want to upgrade much more often then the lenses. If you take care of the lenses they will last you a long time to come!

With that said & the fact that you have expressed that eventually you will go to a FF body I would suggest either the Canon 24-70 or the 24-105.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

[00Q]

Hello. Long time reader, first time posting ^_^

I have finally decided to dive into the world of photography and am planning to do that with the release of 650D.

Want to pick it up as a "body-only" and purchase the lenses separately.

The first one, which I am almost 100% positive about is the 50mm f/1.4 USM or 50mm f/1.4 II if it is going to be announced before the shipping date of 650D.

The second one I consider purchasing is Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM.

What I was wondering about is if there are any zooms within this price range that might be a better option than this Sigma?

Thank you for the input!

I strongly recommend the following. Especially because you have $2500 to spend. That is a lot of money to get a nice gear with an outlook towards the future.

The body

The body I recommend getting a second hand 450D. This is because you will learn all you can possible learn on the 650D on the 450D. It is the most popular canon dslr even now. Because it is a significantly step up from the 400D with regards to the screen size and live view. With the 500D, 550D and 600D the only improvements are the only slightly larger sensor size, high ISO ( 3200 and 6400 but these are not really useable), and also video. The reason for the 450D is that it is very cheap. You can get a second hand one on ebay for £250 max.

If you want to shoot video, then get a second hand 550D. It has the same size sensor as the 600D, 60d and the 7D, so you wont notice any significant image improvement. And it shoots video. of course it is slightly more expensive. There is little point getting a new entry level camera, I made that mistake. It is expensive and by the time you are good enough to shoot photography, a newer body is out and I bet you will want to go full frame then. So save your money, get a cheap body.

Now the lenses,

As everyone will tell you, put all your money into lenses. And good lenses. This is because they preserve their value unlike the body that drops in price. Ideally you want to buy the best canon glass. Sigma lenses drop value very fast. finally you want to buy the Full frame lenses. Because you are thinking long term as you will move into full frame eventually. And you wont have to change lenses. The EF-S lenses for APS-C bodies like the 600D are not as good in terms of build and image quality.

You mentioned the 50mm 1.4. It is a very nice lense on full frame. It is rather tight on the cropped body. But it is a lense you should buy because you will learn that

1) primes offers the best IQ
2) and you will appreciate why the fast lenses with large aperatures are more expeive and desirable with that 1.4.

May i reccommend putting your money into a 24-105 f/4 or a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. The 24-70 MKI is selling quite cheap as the MKII is coming out. You could afford to buy that and still have loads of cash left. Another idea is to buy the 24-70 MKII new with a used 450D body. Then a year later, you can afford to throw away that body, and if you are ready to move into full frame, the 24-70 MKII will be awesome as it seems to be a amazing lens looking at the MTF chart. The downside is that you will lose a bit of money on the MKII lens a year later. So both MKI and MKII 24-70 are worth to look at.

Just my 2 cent and my experiences. Ive had loads of cheaper EF-S lenses, tamron lenses, sigma lenses, started with super zooms, and slow aperatures, but like everyone else, I learnt about he L lenses, the fast aperatures. I hope you will get there without spending too much unecessary money, and in as short amout of time as possible.

p.s. The sigma f/1.4 is much better than the canon 1.4 USM. It is more expensive. The bokeh you get is much better. it is also significantly heavier. You can find one second hand that will help to reduce the price.

 

[Marsu42]

The body I recommend getting a second hand 450D.

... but if you want to run the firmware addon "magic lantern" (which is why I bought a Canon at all) you need at least a 500D (550D for the most up to date 18MP sensor): http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki

The EF-S lenses for APS-C bodies like the 600D are not as good in terms of build and image quality.

This is an often discussed issue, and while ef-s lenses are never dust/weather-sealed, I flatly disagree about the image quality - eg. the 15-85 or 17-55 are top lenses, many red-ring ef lenses are crappy, and generally aps-c ultrawides are easier to build for crop bodies than for full frame. Remember: If don't plan to upgrade to full frame bodies (2000€+), you are wasting part of the lens you bought because a crop camera just uses the center part.

You mentioned the 50mm 1.4. It is a very nice lense on full frame. It is rather tight on the cropped body. But it is a lense you should buy because you will learn that 1) primes offers the best IQ 2) and you will appreciate why the fast lenses with large aperatures are more expeive and desirable with that 1.4.

... and you will learn the reason why people dream about large aperture "shoot in the dark" lenses, but many pro lenses use f4:

a) the most overlooked issue: at large apertures, the depth of field is so thin you can only shoot a flat piece of paper, or something important will be out of focus. f1.4 is great for creative shots, but you won't use it very often. You cannot fix a sensor's iso noise problems just by using a lens with large max. aperture.

b) f2.8 (which indoor/tele pro lenses use) and up requires a very good auto focus system (a good af is *not* only important if something moves), which you won't find on any aps-c body except the 7D

c) a large aperture requires a spot-on adjustment to your body (this is called af micro adjustment) because of possible front/backfocus - again, except for 50D/7D, it's very likely you have to give your body+lens-combination to Canon support for this adjustment.

p.s. The sigma f/1.4 is much better than the canon 1.4 USM. It is more expensive. The bokeh you get is much better. it is also significantly heavier. You can find one second hand that will help to reduce the price.

+1 for that - I myself nearly got a Canon 50/1.4 but the micro usm motor is outdated, slow and loud, the sharpness with larger aperture then 2.8 is horrible , and the bokeh is indeed very unpleasant. Get the Sigma if you must, but it is heavier and much more expensive. And then see issue c) above.

 

[AvTvM]

I strongly recommend the following. Especially because you have $2500 to spend. That is a lot of money to get a nice gear with an outlook towards the future.
...
The body I recommend getting a second hand 450D. ...
...
If you want to shoot video, then get a second hand 550D.
...
It has the same size sensor as the 600D, 60d and the 7D, so you wont notice any significant image improvement.
...
The EF-S lenses for APS-C bodies like the 600D are not as good in terms of build and image quality.
...
May i reccommend putting your money into a 24-105 f/4 or a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. The 24-70 MKI is selling quite cheap as the MKII is coming out.
...
Another idea is to buy the 24-70 MKII new with a used 450D body.
...
Then a year later, you can afford to throw away that body, and if you are ready to move into full frame ...
...
Just my 2 cent and my experiences. Ive had loads of cheaper EF-S lenses, tamron lenses, sigma lenses, started with super zooms, and slow aperatures, but like everyone else, I learnt about he L lenses, the fast aperatures. I hope you will get there without spending too much unecessary money, ...

Sorry, but I wholeheartedly disagree with all of your above quoted recommendations. And all of your quoted assumptions are factually wrong. While giving you all my respect for trying to be helpful here, I do consider your entire posting very bad advice.

$ 2500 are NOT a lot of money to purchase a whole DSLR system plus all accessories (tripod). It basically allows you to get a decent APS-C starter stet. Luckily the OP is very realistic and fully aware of that.

I would NOT recommend buying an used rebel/xxxD. The current models all offer more than worthwile updgrades in a number of areas over the older models.

FF is NOT the holy grail of photography. UNLESS somebody makes A LOT of large-sized prints, APS-C is perfectly fine for amateurs/enthusiasts (and many pro's too), unless money is littlle or no object.

You have obviously never tried the Canon EF-S 17-55. It beats the humdrum EF 24-70 by quite some margin, despite the latter being an "L" lens. Nothing magic about that L. And recommending the not even yet available, totally unproven but incredibly expensive 24-70 II to somebody who has a total budget of 2.5k is just ludicrous.

 

[Marsu42]

I would NOT recommend buying an used rebel/xxxD. The current models all offer more than worthwile updgrades in a number of areas over the older models.

While I generally agree with you: Please name the "worthwhile upgrades" and why a new 600D/650D is worth buying over a 550D with the same sensor, then the op can decide (or research the differences himself ).

The good thing about used aps-c bodies is that amateur users are more likely to have seldom used them, so the shutter count and general condition might be near new. A used full frame pro body might have 150000+ shutter cycles on it and break down the very moment you get it, and a repair would be as expensive as a new aps-c body...

 

[AJ]

First of all, let me second the recommendation for Tamron 17-50/2.8. If you're after optical performance on a budget, this is the lens to get. I love mine and it's probably my most used lens. I have a 24"x36" canvas print hanging right here above my computer, and it looks absolutely great.

Secondly. Don't wait for future announcements. Get a camera now, there's some great deals on right now. With a $2500 budget you can get a 60D ($900 until March 3) plus a 430 EX speedlite, which qualifies you for a double instant rebate.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=60D&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

You can get a 18-135 IS lens for an additional $300, which is not a bad deal. It's a good, but not great, lens. Or you could get Tamron 17-50 plus Canon 55-250

Put any additional money towards a lens that does you favorite type of photography. Like portraiture? Get Canon 50/1.4 or 85/1.8. Are you into landscapes? Try Canon 10-22. Wildlife/telephoto? Canon 70-300 IS or Tamrom 70-300 VC will get you started.

Have fun!



Edit to add:
You can get a 70-300 IS for an additional $300 right now when you click on "Buy together and Save" on the B&H website. This is a screamin' deal, one you should not pass up. You can get this price with the T3i or 60D, with or without kit lens. Again you need to order before March 3.

 

[thesirren]

As much as I'd like to start out right now. I do not like to purchase stuff, when I know that right around the corner is a new and better (if even slightly) model that will cost about just as much as models from previous years.

Thank you everyone for your input. Do not forget that for this money I also have to buy a flash, tripod, and some other minor accessories.

Neuroanatomist's recommendation still looks like the best option now. I will try to do my best and get the 17-55 over 15-85mm, and if I run very tight for some reason (i.e. T4i turns out to be costly), I will settle for Tamron 17-50.

Question is, how do 17-55 and 24-105 compare to each other in terms of IQ and everything else? I bring this up, because 17-55 is EF-S and I won't be able to use it after I switch to FF. I don't mind this much, because I'm not planning to sell nor body nor glass and keep them in case I will sometimes feel like using APS-C, even after I have FF. But if lenses are not too much different, then I would probably be better off with 24-105?

I imagine that in general 17-55 would be better on an APS-C body than 24-105?

24-105 actually costs even less than 17-55 nowadays.

For prime it looks like it will have to be 85mm f/1.8, seeing as according to you it is much better than 50mm f/1.4