Good upgrade for the Tamron 18-55 lens
Discussion
I'm looking to upgrade the lens of SWMBO's Canon 500D for a Christmas present.
It came with the the standard Tamron offering but she's now complaining the quality isn't as good as the second-hand zoom lens we bought so wants an upgrade. I'm happy to get a second-hand one if it means better for less. Budget is around £200, and suggestions?
eta
slightly above budget but looking at this one
http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Canon-17-85mm-F4-5....
It came with the the standard Tamron offering but she's now complaining the quality isn't as good as the second-hand zoom lens we bought so wants an upgrade. I'm happy to get a second-hand one if it means better for less. Budget is around £200, and suggestions?
eta
slightly above budget but looking at this one
http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Canon-17-85mm-F4-5....
Edited by CaptainSlow on Friday 19th November 14:12
Might help to know what type of photography she is into, what she likes shooting, what her style of shooting is etc etc.
That is not a bad upgrade, improved optics and more reach - but it depends if that is right for what she wants/uses it for.
For example, mainly portraits, or landscapes, candid shots, macro photography etc?
That is not a bad upgrade, improved optics and more reach - but it depends if that is right for what she wants/uses it for.
For example, mainly portraits, or landscapes, candid shots, macro photography etc?
Hi,
Well if you are looking for the same sort of range then the Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 EX DG works very well for me, nice and sharp and you should be able to pick one up s/h for under £200 (bear in mind it is not USM, that is probably why it is cheap'ish). For landscapes you might want to go a bit wider angle but then again I take a lot of landscape photos with this lens and often not a 24mm.
Lots of reviews available on the net:
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-z...
cheers,
Matt
Well if you are looking for the same sort of range then the Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 EX DG works very well for me, nice and sharp and you should be able to pick one up s/h for under £200 (bear in mind it is not USM, that is probably why it is cheap'ish). For landscapes you might want to go a bit wider angle but then again I take a lot of landscape photos with this lens and often not a 24mm.
Lots of reviews available on the net:
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-z...
cheers,
Matt
Edited by M@H on Friday 19th November 15:35
I bought a second hand 28-135 IS USM as a walkabout lens and am very impressed with it. It's a big improvement over the 18-55 IS. Nice to use, sharp enough and the colour and contrast is good. It's not L quality but as a general purpose zoom it does a great job. It was recommended to me by other people here.
There's currently four for sale at MPB at just over £200. They will give a bit of discount if you ring up and offer to buy there and then. I've bought a couple of lenses from them and they were at least as good as they described them.
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
There's currently four for sale at MPB at just over £200. They will give a bit of discount if you ring up and offer to buy there and then. I've bought a couple of lenses from them and they were at least as good as they described them.
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
Edited by Busa_Rush on Friday 19th November 22:55
CaptainSlow said:
Yeah my mistake it's actually the kit Canon 18-55 she's got.
My kit 18-55 actually produces pretty good photos on a 400D - better than I expected or had been led to believe it would. It seems that quality varies. It may also depend on subject matter and shooting distance of course - buying a new lens is not a guaranteed way to get specifically what she wants even if the update is, overall, better than the original.I assume we are talking about image quality rather than lens engineering quality?
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 20th November 18:03
dibbly dobbler said:
You're not going to get a decent zoom lens upgrade for £200 - I went to a 15-85 from the 18-55 but it was circa £500 ...
How about a 50mm prime lens - not much good for landscapes but highly recommended for portraits + general snaps
Problem with that is that a 50mm prime ( such as the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II ) is effectively an 80mm on a 1.6x sensor body so whilst it is ok for some portraits, often you really want to get further away from the subject and indoors that is a bit tricky sometimes. Saying that for £85 it is a corker of a lens and above f2.8 is very sharp indeed.How about a 50mm prime lens - not much good for landscapes but highly recommended for portraits + general snaps
Cheers,
Matt.
M@H said:
....what is the second-hand zoom lens she is enjoying now ?
It's a Canon 80-200 4.5-5.6 bought second hand for about £60.sigma have been recommend and I have seen this one:
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
..so I am confused as that lens you have bought s/h "should" give you a worse result than the stock 18-55.
A quick review hunt gives this:
Optically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is disappointing.
Sharpness generally requires the aperture to be stopped down to f/8 to become decent. Corners are soft at the wide end even on a 1.3x FOVCF body.
Distortion is present even on a 1.3x FOVCF body. Slight barrel distortion is apparent at 80mm. Pincushion distortion shows up from 135-200mm. CA (Chromatic Aberration) is apparent at the long end.
Vignetting seems to be well controlled.
Basically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is a very cheap telephoto zoom lens with performance relative to its cost.
..does she want a better image quality or a "better" (a difficult one to quantify) zoom range..?
Cheers,
Matt.
A quick review hunt gives this:
Optically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is disappointing.
Sharpness generally requires the aperture to be stopped down to f/8 to become decent. Corners are soft at the wide end even on a 1.3x FOVCF body.
Distortion is present even on a 1.3x FOVCF body. Slight barrel distortion is apparent at 80mm. Pincushion distortion shows up from 135-200mm. CA (Chromatic Aberration) is apparent at the long end.
Vignetting seems to be well controlled.
Basically, the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II Lens is a very cheap telephoto zoom lens with performance relative to its cost.
..does she want a better image quality or a "better" (a difficult one to quantify) zoom range..?
Cheers,
Matt.
I've owned the 18-55mm (non IS) kit lens, a 17-85mm IS and a 80-200mm f4.5 - 5.6 that I used on my old Canon 20D.
I've had good photos which have been printed, some quite large, from all these lenses. I sold an 18-55 with a crop frame camera and immediately bought another from eBay as I liked the light weight and compactness of it. The 17-85 was big improvement with the longer reach and image stabilisation. Equivalent to 28-135mm on full frame it lived on the camera more or less permanently. I've had 20"x30" prints from this that are more than acceptable (people have even said wow! when they have seen them). The only criticism was that it was bigger and bulkier than the 18-55 and not as easy to carry around. The cheapy, plastic 80-200 MK1 lens I had gave me some nice head and shoulders portraits.
The above lenses are OK to take photos with. I think they are perfectly adequate and not as bad as some people make out.
I would either get an 80-200mm zoom to complement the 18-55 she already has or go for the 17-85mm that will do both landscapes and portraits. There is something to be said for taking just one camera and one lens rather than taking two lenses and swopping them. You could have a look at a second-hand 18-200mm if you can find one that is within your budget. I like the idea of this but have never actually tried one. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-E...
I think women don't have the hang-ups about gear and looking at resolution charts like blokes do. I've bought a couple of second hand 400D cameras with cheaper lenses for a mother and daughter who went to Kenya on holiday. They came back with some great photos that they were perfectly happy with.
If it was me I'd go either for a 17-85 or try the 18-200.
I've had good photos which have been printed, some quite large, from all these lenses. I sold an 18-55 with a crop frame camera and immediately bought another from eBay as I liked the light weight and compactness of it. The 17-85 was big improvement with the longer reach and image stabilisation. Equivalent to 28-135mm on full frame it lived on the camera more or less permanently. I've had 20"x30" prints from this that are more than acceptable (people have even said wow! when they have seen them). The only criticism was that it was bigger and bulkier than the 18-55 and not as easy to carry around. The cheapy, plastic 80-200 MK1 lens I had gave me some nice head and shoulders portraits.
The above lenses are OK to take photos with. I think they are perfectly adequate and not as bad as some people make out.
I would either get an 80-200mm zoom to complement the 18-55 she already has or go for the 17-85mm that will do both landscapes and portraits. There is something to be said for taking just one camera and one lens rather than taking two lenses and swopping them. You could have a look at a second-hand 18-200mm if you can find one that is within your budget. I like the idea of this but have never actually tried one. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-E...
I think women don't have the hang-ups about gear and looking at resolution charts like blokes do. I've bought a couple of second hand 400D cameras with cheaper lenses for a mother and daughter who went to Kenya on holiday. They came back with some great photos that they were perfectly happy with.
If it was me I'd go either for a 17-85 or try the 18-200.
Edited by Ammo 7 on Monday 22 November 15:51
Ammo 7 said:
I would either get an 80-200mm zoom to complement the 18-55 she already has or go for the 17-85mm that will do both landscapes and portraits. There is something to be said for taking just one camera and one lens rather than taking two lenses and swopping them.
I took a fair bit of gear to Turin earlier in the year and ended up leaving the 17-85 on all trip.Ammo 7 said:
I would either get an 80-200mm zoom to complement the 18-55 she already has
I think that is the combination already in place, the 80-200 being the catalyst for dissatisfaction with the kit zoom.However, as has already been mentioned, I would not expect the 80-200 to outshine a properly working kit lens so I'm slightly doubtful that we have a good enough grasp of the situation to be precise with a recommendation.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff