Upgrading lenses for college student

[collegetech]

Hey everyone! I am college student on a very limited budget. I currently shoot with a Rebel XT and its original 18-55mm kit lens. I recently sold one of my old film cameras and a very slow 28-90mm lens. I plan on purchasing a 50mm 1.8 with that money. I was also thinking about selling my kit lens and buying a used EF 28-105 http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-105mm-3-5-4-5-Standard-Cameras/dp/B00004YZQ8
Or buying a used EF 28-135
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006I53S/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687462&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00004YZQ8&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0KNZYNKJHD1ERYPWQQWX
I am not sure if this is a good idea or not, I do not have a lot to spend and I figured these lenses are probably better quality then my kit lens. I tend to shoot a lot of landscapes. I will use my 50mm 1.8 as my portrait lens. My work can be found here: http://photographsbystevenrussell.pixieset.com/russell/ It is important to note that I also currently have a 80-200mm EF lens, however I do not used this much. Maybe I could sell both the kit and 80-200mm for something better?

 

[Jim Saunders]

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC) was good to me, even if the zoom ring goes the wrong way and it hums a little when it focuses. Also I saw an article here about a Samyang (?) 50 f/1.8 which sounded competitive with the Canon one. I tried a 28-135 briefly, I didn't see any reason to complain.

If you're near a camera store, try a few different lengths and see if there are any different focal lengths you like that you don't have.

Jim

 

[steepjay]

Nice portfolio on your website, Steven.

Your lens musings on a tight budget seem pretty reasonable, the 50/1.8 is a very useful lens.

If you're looking for the best image quality on a really tight budget, I would personally stick to primes for now. 24/2.8 would be in reach of your budget as well. This is if you're not shooting in an environment where quickly changing focal lengths is a big concern. If you're looking for ultrawide, the sigma 10-20 is out there under $400, not sure if that's within reach but probably better price than any other single focal length shorter than 24.

 

[FTb-n]

There are lots of options to consider. The XT was my first DSLR and you may want to consider a body upgrade. The T2i and up have 18 MP sensors based on the 7D. It's huge improvement over the XT, especially at higher ISO's. It's not a bad idea to consider lenses first, but keep you eye out for a good deal on one of these bodies.

As for lenses, I'd be more inclined to consider the 40 f2.8 pancake and the 85 f1.8. You have some great shots on your site and I think these two lenses will give you more creative control over your images than another slow zoom. The creative advantage lies with the opportunity for thinner DOF and sharper lenses. These two lenses are likely to be a better long term investment.

I suspect that the 28-105 and the 28-135 will be short-term lenses. My bet is that you'll want to replace these in the not too distant future with something like the 17-55 f2.8 (IMHO the best "normal" zoom for crop) or the 15-85 f3.5-5.6. The latter is very sharp, but too slow for my tastes.

Anyway, back to the 40 and the 85. The 40 is a stop slower than the 50 1.8, but it's much sharper corner-to-corner. It focuses quicker and quieter than the 50 and is similarly priced. I think it's a more useful focal length for crop.

On a full frame body, the 40 and 50 compare to 64 and 80 mm lenses. The 50 would be a better focal length for portraits on a crop body, but the 40 is a much better lens and more useful for other subject -- including group portraits.

For individual portraits, I prefer the longer lenses. I use the 70-200 on FF for portraits and often work within longer half of its range. The 85 f1.8 will give a FF equivalent of 136 mm which many consider to be the ideal portrait focal length. Plus, it will offer more pop with thinner DOF than the 50 mm lens. Of course, your taste and style may differ from mine, so consider this accordingly.

The-Digital-Picture.com is a great resource for lens reviews and image quality comparison tools.

Look at Canon's online refurbish store for good deals with factory warranty. Also look at CanonPriceWatch.com to find the best price for new or refurbished lenses and bodies.

Good luck with your search for your next lens.

 

[nc0b]

I had two 28-135mm lenses have the IS fail. One was purchased new and the other one came with a 40D I wanted. Those are the only Canon lens failures I have ever had. Even though some people bad mouth the 24-105mm L lens, I find it a fine walk around lens on a FF body. Unless I am reach limited, I shoot my 6D or 5D classic about 85% of the time over my two crop bodies. No plans for any additional EF-S lenses. My 15-85mm is fine outdoors, but too slow when racked out on the long end indoors. Would not buy it again but cannot sell it for enough to warrant getting rid of it. My wife uses it on a 60D outdoors and when taking photography classes. It takes good pictures if there is enough light.

 

[gigabellone]

First of all, i really like your pictures, the long exposures in particular.
To be honest, when i first started with my first dslr (550D/T2i + 18-55 IS II) i loathed the kit lens too, but then i realized it takes serious money to get something better. I would say stick to it. It's good enough if you use it at narrow apertures (f/5.6 and smaller). I wouldn't recommend the 28-135 either, because 28mm can be too tight on an apsc sensor (if you wonder what the difference between aps-c and full frame is, check here). My first lens after the kit was the 50/1.8 from canon; for the money, nothing beats it: it's got good sharpness and a quite large aperture. Keep in mind that its autofocus system, while reasonably accurate, is slow and noisy. Some months ago Yongnuo launched a knock off of this lens that sells for barely 2/3 of the price of the canon. The reviews seems good, you might consider it. If you really have an itch for a new toy, i would consider either a Canon 10-18, a brand new ultrawide zoom with good quality and reasonable price, or, if you are into portraits, a couple of flash with remote triggers and light modifiers. Sorry for the long post, i hope it'll help you make your mind!

 

[sulla]

I owned the 28-135 lens a long time ago, but I didn't like the build quality too much. But IQ was good. I can recommend it, if a used 24-105L is out of your reach. On an APSC-body both might be too long, however. There are not really better budget wide-angle alternatives available. I would stick with the kit lens, if this is acceptable.

IQ of the 50 1.8 is not good until f/2.8 or f/4. I would recommend you try the EF 40 2.8 STM for portraits instead and the EF-S 24 2.8 STM for wider shots. Both lenses offer professional grade image quality (better than the 24-70 2.8 II (!!)) at a tight budget and are much much faster than your kit lens.

You didn't ask for it, but if you need something on the long end, you could go for a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM. It is dead cheap and has good IQ as well. If you can get a used 70-200 f/4 L (with or without IS depends on budget) it would be better, naturally.

 

[wyldeguy]

Nice portfolio on your website, Steven.

Your lens musings on a tight budget seem pretty reasonable, the 50/1.8 is a very useful lens.

If you're looking for the best image quality on a really tight budget, I would personally stick to primes for now. 24/2.8 would be in reach of your budget as well. This is if you're not shooting in an environment where quickly changing focal lengths is a big concern. If you're looking for ultrawide, the sigma 10-20 is out there under $400, not sure if that's within reach but probably better price than any other single focal length shorter than 24.

I'm with steepjay, the canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 pancake is only $150 on B&H right now and since you like landscapes that is a pretty decent lens at a reasonable price.

 

[wyldeguy]

If you sell the 18-55 and use that as extra cash you might consider the new EF-S 10-18 stm for landscapes. I am not 100% that older cameras are compatible with stm focus tech but I'm sure someone here will correct me if I'm wrong. B&H has it for $300.

I see someone else has recommended it as well in this thread. I've been considering it myself.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I've had a Rebel XT. Not recommend 28-105mm or 28-135mm to not offer some important viewing angles.
If you do not really use your 80-200mm should sell it.

I will suggest two different options:
* Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 + Canon 55-250mm STM.
* Canon 18-135mm STM

 

[wsmith96]

I understand photography on a budget and also agree that small primes may be the best way to extend your buying power. Check into the 24 and 40 pancake lenses.

Since you are doing a lot of landscape/architectural shots, you also may want to consider the 10-18 ef-s lens, or the older 17-85. I think you will notice the missing width of your 18-55 if you swap for the 28-105.

I hear that the tamron 17-50 f2.8 is an excellent lens. I don't know what they go for though.

Good luck and let us know what you decide to get.

 

[Yankeedog]

I think getting a 50mm f/1.8 as your very next step is a good idea, especially if you want to do portraits on a crop sensor as the XT. The wider prime options mentioned here like the 40mm f/2.8 are great inexpensive lenses, but they are a little wide for portrait work unless you really want to focus on wider, 3/4 or full body portraits.

You may want to consider the new Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 rather than the Canon, though. Most reviews I've seen indicate that it's at least as good as the Canon, and it's $30-40 cheaper new.

I'd get the 50mm prime first and play with it a bit before deciding upon your next purchase priority; a lot depends on what and how you like to shoot and working with a bright prime will teach you things about your shooting style.

Looking at your photos, I don't think you are going to want to give up the 17-28mm range so I'm skeptical that swapping the 17-55mm for a 28mm-xxx will be good choice for you. If you decide that you do want a longer zoom, the aforementioned Canon 55-250mm is a good budget option; it's a remarkably good lens for the price. But if you currently have an 80-200m and find you aren't using it much, I wonder how much you really need a zoom with long tele range right now. If long tele isn't a priority for you, selling the 80-200mm and 17-55 to get something like a 17-85mm might be a good option as this will give you a somewhat higher quality zoom with a bit more range. Primes are great, but sometimes you really want the flexibility of a zoom to take advantage of unexpected opportunities.

Or, after playing with the 50mm f/1.8 you may find you really like working with bright primes and decide that you want to get another prime before you upgrade your zoom -- once you have the 50mm, the 24mm f/2.8 is a good option if you like shooting wider. Or if you want to go the other way, you can save your pennies for the 85mm f/1.8, which is a bit more expensive but is definitely a very good lens for the price.

 

[Eagle Eye]

I would avoid the 28-105 or 28-135 because neither is wide angle on your Rebel. If you shoot landscapes, you'll miss the 18mm focal length your current lens offers. I agree with the suggestion for the EF-S 10-18mm. STM is compatible with your XT. I've shot with the 10-18 on a 20D, which is slightly older than your camera. But since you're talking about selling your kit lens to do this upgrade, you could instead upgrade to the newer 18-55 STM lens ($100). The optical formula and build quality is far better than the kit lens on the XT. One step above that would be the 18-135. There's a newer STM version that is even better image quality ($300), but the original ($120) is very good, much better than the 17-85.

Personally, if I were building an inexpensive kit, I'd start with the 18-135 STM, then add the 40mm pancake instead of the 50mm 1.8 (40mm is slower but more flexible as a walk-around prime on a crop sensor than the 50 and has a more robust feel for roughly the same price). Then I'd add the EF-S 10-18mm for ultra wide angle, then the 24mm pancake for a wider angle prime. This means only two filter sizes: 52mm and 67mm. This whole lens setup runs $800 with good deals; less if you buy used.

 

[ecka]

Best budget lenses:
EF-S 18-55 IS STM
EF-S 55-250 IS STM
EF-S 10-18 IS STM
EF-S 24/2.8 STM
EF 40/2.8 STM
YN 50/1.8

 

[dak723]

I'm going to give you a bit of a different take. The results of higher priced lenses depends a lot on what you are doing with your final product. I recently bought the new SL1 with a newer version of the kit lens. I had the original 18-55 kit lens and the newer STM version is definitely an improvement. I believe the IS II version was also improved over the original kit. I recently shot the same scene with the SL1 and kit and the 6D with the 24-105mm L lens. On a 1280 x 1024 monitor and printed at 8" x 10" on an Epson photo printer, there is virtually no difference. I have showed the prints to two people and neither could tell which one was taken with the FF and L lens. So, you may find that the kit lens is quite good enough! Perhaps selling yours and buying a newer version of the kit lens on ebay is a possibility. I agree with those who think that the other lenses you mention (28-105 or 28-135) won't give you a wide enough angle on a crop camera. I also don't think (my opinion only) you will see any difference in IQ.

If you do want a older, cheaper lens (less than $100 on ebay) then I would recommend the Canon EF 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 II.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR1.TRC0.A0.H0.Xcanon+ef+28-70mm+3.5-4.5+II&_nkw=canon+ef+28-70mm+3.5-4.5+II&_sacat=0

I would consider the IQ to be equal the 24-105 L lens on a crop camera. Since it does not go very wide, I would keep the kit lens. I used the combo of a kit and this lens for years with my original digital rebel.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Finding a supurb lens on a budget can be tough. The 28-105mm is one of those, the 80-200 is not. I've found all of the lenses used that I mention below for $125 or less (Mostly Less).

Upgrading the original 18-55mm lens to the newer 18-55mm IS version is a big upgrade for little cost.

If you can find one of the older 70-210mm f/4 lenses, they can be a good deal.

I have a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime that I bought on the cheap, and found it to be excellent.

If you are willing to manual focus, there are a number of Olympus, Nikon, Pentax, etc lenses that can be adapted with good results.

28-XX mm is not a good focal length range for a crop body, so I'd recommend passing it up.

 

[collegetech]

Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions! I was able to read through all of them and have a lot to process on what I should do. Right now I am all of the place and am now considering a used 17-40 F/4 L or a used 24-105 F/4 L IS. I think the 17-40 would be better for me right now because I enjoy landscapes, however being at only F/4 scares me and think the IS would be a nice feature. After much research my end goal is the new 16-35 F/4 L IS, what a nice lens for a landscape photographer! However I can purchase the 17-40 for almost have the price used. Does anyone have any experience with any of these lenses? I like the prime ideas, however I fill it it a bit limited for and I may just keep it at the 50mm 1.8 for the time being. Again, thank you for your responses to my thread!

 

[wyldeguy]

I have the 17-40 and since you will be using it for landscapes the f4 won't be an issue. I use mine all the time. It's a great lens. The 16-35 f4 is is supposed to be even better overall.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have the 17-40 and since you will be using it for landscapes the f4 won't be an issue. I use mine all the time. It's a great lens. The 16-35 f4 is is supposed to be even better overall.

Check out a site like photozone to compare lens performance. The 18-55mm IS and the STM models have outstanding performance on a crop, better than the 17-40. The 17-40 fares better on FF than crop.

So, you can do extremely well with a low cost lens.

If you want f/2.8, a 17-55mm EF-s is extremely good, and used prices match the 17-40. But notice, the 18-55mm IS is sharper, and at the edges, its amazing.!

 

[e17paul]

Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions! I was able to read through all of them and have a lot to process on what I should do. Right now I am all of the place and am now considering a used 17-40 F/4 L or a used 24-105 F/4 L IS. I think the 17-40 would be better for me right now because I enjoy landscapes, however being at only F/4 scares me and think the IS would be a nice feature. After much research my end goal is the new 16-35 F/4 L IS, what a nice lens for a landscape photographer! However I can purchase the 17-40 for almost have the price used. Does anyone have any experience with any of these lenses? I like the prime ideas, however I fill it it a bit limited for and I may just keep it at the 50mm 1.8 for the time being. Again, thank you for your responses to my thread!

I have owned the 50/1.8, and replaced it with the 50/2.5 macro. This week I tried a 50/1.4 belonging to a colleague and was impressed. It also seems to focus significantly closer than the claimed 45cm.

If the 16-35/4L is your long term wish, then Mt Spokane's suggestion of the 18-55 STM might be the way to go now, releasing some budget for a better 50 (faster, better AF) that remains with you for the long term.

Alternatively to a 50, the newer 40 STM reviews well, as does the 24 STM. However, neither will give the degree of subject isolation that can be had from the 50 1.8 or 1.4

I appreciate the budget juggling dilemma. It never goes away, the numbers just get bigger when you go from a student budget to a wage earner's budget.