Need lens guide for Canon APS-C

[WoXingWoSu]

Thank you all for the advises. I will research more on my own to see what I really need. Probably going for a canon 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 to fiddle with for fun since it's not expensive (though the f1.4 is more expensive but seems much sharper when I read and watch the reviews). Lol. Am going for the minimum amount of lens I guess. A prime, a telephoto, a potrait, a street photography, wildlife/birding and a landscape lens.

But like many pros here say, I should take it easy and master the cam and lens first.

How many is many still unprocessed? Why shoot 20k if you cant or dont processs the RAW files.

Hahaha... Learning and testing mah. See results on pc but no time to process everything. Only pick the good ones to process and keep. Ummmm. At least 2k to 3k+ photos haven't process I think.

 

[dennisc]

APC-C less distortion compared to FF on wide angles lah. But I use my APC-C 7D for sports, animals, portraits on 50 and 85mm f1.2L and sadly have to say, distortion is much less than in my 5d 3. Actually don't need expensive lenses 50mm f1.8 produce almost same quality as the L around 2.8 above so play around lah, find your niche.
Mine is definately portraits, though I can shoot anything lah.
Actually any cam can do almost whatever, no need to see lens

 

[WoXingWoSu]

APC-C less distortion compared to FF on wide angles lah. But I use my APC-C 7D for sports, animals, portraits on 50 and 85mm f1.2L and sadly have to say, distortion is much less than in my 5d 3. Actually don't need expensive lenses 50mm f1.8 produce almost same quality as the L around 2.8 above so play around lah, find your niche.
Mine is definately portraits, though I can shoot anything lah.
Actually any cam can do almost whatever, no need to see lens

Eh.. I was referring to the cheap 50mm canon lens that cost less than $300 (can't remember exact price). Lol

 

[dennisc]

Eh.. I was referring to the cheap 50mm canon lens that cost less than $300 (can't remember exact price). Lol

I seldom read backlogs. Can also consider the newer Canon EF 40mm f/2.8

 

[dennisc]

Eh.. I was referring to the cheap 50mm canon lens that cost less than $300 (can't remember exact price). Lol

I seldom read backlogs. Can also consider the newer Canon EF 40mm f/2.8

 

[SkyStrike]

TS, I think many of us know the joy you are experiencing right now after buying a camera not too long ago, shooting loads of photos and also looking at lots of gear reviews and other stuffs. But I really do suggest that you take it slowly.... at this rate, your wallet won't last that long (and eventually your interest too when you realize you are lugging too much gear along).

Just take a step back and think if you really need that sharpness? Many of the lens in your 'want' list gives great sharpness but at a price (which may be steep). But I suspect that most can't tell the difference in Facebook size and not that it really makes the difference in the photo anyway.

As for those super long lenses like 150-600, I suggest you rent those lens first. Definitely not your everyday lens. It's huge. And for the more expensive versions (E.g. Sigma sports ver), they are much heavier too.

If you really have to add extra reach to your current setup, consider the more inexpensive 55-250mm or 70-300 (not the L lens) version. These lens are in the "kit lens quality" category, but they will give you and idea of what you really want without spending THAT much.

 

[WoXingWoSu]

TS, I think many of us know the joy you are experiencing right now after buying a camera not too long ago, shooting loads of photos and also looking at lots of gear reviews and other stuffs. But I really do suggest that you take it slowly.... at this rate, your wallet won't last that long (and eventually your interest too when you realize you are lugging too much gear along).

Just take a step back and think if you really need that sharpness? Many of the lens in your 'want' list gives great sharpness but at a price (which may be steep). But I suspect that most can't tell the difference in Facebook size and not that it really makes the difference in the photo anyway.

As for those super long lenses like 150-600, I suggest you rent those lens first. Definitely not your everyday lens. It's huge. And for the more expensive versions (E.g. Sigma sports ver), they are much heavier too.

If you really have to add extra reach to your current setup, consider the more inexpensive 55-250mm or 70-300 (not the L lens) version. These lens are in the "kit lens quality" category, but they will give you and idea of what you really want without spending THAT much.

Thanks for the advice.

I am just building up basic lens for each type of photography and after that, probably will explore filters. Haha.

I did read and watch reviews of the 55-250mm lens and getting mix reviews. In the end, my conclusion is that it is has a good quality to price ratio, of which I am kinda adamant in getting lest I get disappointed.

I also will most probably not use the 150-600mm lens much except for the occasional birding or moon shots. Which is why I am consider canon 100-400mm L lens.

 

[Octarine]

I am just building up basic lens for each type of photography and after that, probably will explore filters. Haha.

Well, if you have the money to spend just go ahead. But keep in mind:
1) Lenses are consumer equipment, you won't be able to resell them without a (partially significant) loss.
2) There are groups of lenses more often used in certain genres, but that doesn't mean one cannot use all lenses in all genres. Therefore, the idea of 'lenses for types of photography' is somewhat flawed.
3) I have the impression (but I could be wrong) that your focus is on equipment. That means, your subject is out of focus right now.
We all went through GAS (Gear Acquiring Syndrome), nothing new. Some overcome it early, others only many $$ later. But none of your 20k pictures will show that. They will only show how you gun down each and everything without thought. And that's where photography starts [emoji6]

 

[SkyStrike]

Thanks for the advice.

I am just building up basic lens for each type of photography and after that, probably will explore filters. Haha.

I did read and watch reviews of the 55-250mm lens and getting mix reviews. In the end, my conclusion is that it is has a good quality to price ratio, of which I am kinda adamant in getting lest I get disappointed.

I also will most probably not use the 150-600mm lens much except for the occasional birding or moon shots. Which is why I am consider canon 100-400mm L lens.

There are so many type of photography genre around. And seriously, you don't need one for each type of lens. Get the ones you shoot mainly.

Filters, get them only when you need them. Not use 1 or 2 times then throw one corner for the years to come.

Comparing the mid range zooms... if you are going for the more expensive ones, those will run into > $1000 easily as compared to ~$350 (or cheaper at 2nd hand)

100-400, still, my suggestion is to try them out before you buy.


As Octarine said

We all went through GAS (Gear Acquiring Syndrome), nothing new. Some overcome it early, others only many $$ later. But none of your 20k pictures will show that. They will only show how you gun down each and everything without thought. And that's where photography starts [emoji6]

Anyway, just do whatever you are happy doing I think we all have enough stress already, dun have to make a hobby another thing to get stressed about :bsmilie:

 

[WoXingWoSu]

Well, if you have the money to spend just go ahead. But keep in mind:
1) Lenses are consumer equipment, you won't be able to resell them without a (partially significant) loss.
2) There are groups of lenses more often used in certain genres, but that doesn't mean one cannot use all lenses in all genres. Therefore, the idea of 'lenses for types of photography' is somewhat flawed.
3) I have the impression (but I could be wrong) that your focus is on equipment. That means, your subject is out of focus right now.
We all went through GAS (Gear Acquiring Syndrome), nothing new. Some overcome it early, others only many $$ later. But none of your 20k pictures will show that. They will only show how you gun down each and everything without thought. And that's where photography starts [emoji6]

Hi,

I do realise that resale prices will be low. No worries to that. Probably next time I will pass the equipment to some budding photographers to test out. Haha.

I do realise my kit lens @ F5.6 is very sharp. Lower than that, the details are not that sharp and the bokeh is not fantastic.

But I would like a faster lens that looks sharp even on low f-stops as I like night photography too. So I would like a fast and sharp lens so I need not crank up the ISO too high. Which is why the 17-55mm f2.8 lens looks very appealing to me. Another reason I am holding back on that lens is because a lot of people say it gathers dust easily.

Some of my photos are out of focus and I am attributing to the fact of low shutter speed which I overlook most of the time. Haha.

 

[WoXingWoSu]

There are so many type of photography genre around. And seriously, you don't need one for each type of lens. Get the ones you shoot mainly.

Filters, get them only when you need them. Not use 1 or 2 times then throw one corner for the years to come.

Comparing the mid range zooms... if you are going for the more expensive ones, those will run into > $1000 easily as compared to ~$350 (or cheaper at 2nd hand)

100-400, still, my suggestion is to try them out before you buy.

Well, I guess it's like what they say in mahjong.. Pay to learn. Hahaha.

I just wanna invest in a good lens and I believe that will last me for years to come?

 

[SkyStrike]

Nothing wrong with "investing" in good lenses.. But there's always something better out there.

Better lenses does come at a price (and/or weight too)

 

[macVince]

Permit me to share with you this:

Here are two examples of what a relatively inexpensive long zoom lens could produce - the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary fitted on an EOS 80D. I used the Sigma 1.4x Extender for the Moon; and without it for the Bird. Both the lens and extender have been optimized and their firmware updated using the Sigma USB dock and Sigma Optimization software. The equivalent full-frame focal length is 1344mm and 840mm respectively.

(As I've mentioned in my earlier post, I normally choose equipment that don't cost too much for the joy of photography as a hobby. However, my Canon EF 100-400 L Mk II lens will not be able to take the shots as near as these although the colours and sharpness produced are superior to the Sigma lens.)


#1 - Two-Days after Full Moon by Vince, on Flickr
(The craters can be seen; thus, for me, that is good enough.)


#2 - Hooded Pitta by Vince, on Flickr
(The feathers can be seen and the overall colours are natural and pleasing. That's good enough for me.)

 

[gardna]

ehh.. i was at your stage once and my rule is, get the focal length of the main three categories first, namely: wide angle, normal and tele then upgrade depending on where you want/feel/need/whatever.. (Others may disagree on how they approach buying (their first few) lenses but that how i went.


A 55-250/75-300 of any brand will always take better images than a 17-55 2.8 if you need to crop in. So what if its not so good, it gets the job done.



Personally, i got a 55-250 IS mk I for my first tele lens and it did the job fine, got me images that a kit lens wouldnt be able to get but now i have a 70-200 F4L IS. I demand quality from my equipment now so i upgrade.
P.S. 55-250 IS can easily get for 120-170 on second hand market. Once you decide to move on, you wouldnt make much loss, treat it as rental =)



However, if you have the money to go for a 100-400/150-500(600)/70-300L, sure. They are not going to disappoint much, if any sort at all. L lenses from canon are L for a reason.


If i were you, I would get these: 10-18 and 55-250(to compliment your kit lens) and 24mm pancake?, 50mm STM? 35mm F2(non IS), maybe even cheap manual lenses from samyang if you want to play with. Their 12mm is supposedly really sharp =).



You want glass you can keep? unless you stay with crop which is highly unlikely, the 17-55 is a good option but other than that, hard pressed to get high quality APSC glass, maybe the 10-18mm =)(Love that lens myself =))

 

[Octarine]

But I would like a faster lens that looks sharp even on low f-stops as I like night photography too. So I would like a fast and sharp lens so I need not crank up the ISO too high. Which is why the 17-55mm f2.8 lens looks very appealing to me. Another reason I am holding back on that lens is because a lot of people say it gathers dust easily.

Lens dust.. overrated by many in the beginning. A good article here:
https://photographylife.com/what-to-do-with-dust-inside-lens
Now you might ask about when would it really start to matter. The next level of damage is a scratch on the lens element.
Here the results:
http://petapixel.com/2015/07/02/how-much-does-a-scratch-affect-the-quality-of-a-lens/
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches/
(Lens Rentals has a lot of good articles about equipment handling. They also busted a couple of photographer's myths about equipment. Good readings for a rainy day.)

Some of my photos are out of focus and I am attributing to the fact of low shutter speed which I overlook most of the time. Haha.

That's skills, nothing about the lens. Spend 100 clicks in a low light situation and you will learn more than searching up and down for the perfect lens. Because in the moment when you don't have your beloved stabilized lens at hand but any other lens without IS, that's where skills make the difference to get the shot.

 

[one eye jack]

That's skills, nothing about the lens. Spend 100 clicks in a low light situation and you will learn more than searching up and down for the perfect lens. Because in the moment when you don't have your beloved stabilized lens at hand but any other lens without IS, that's where skills make the difference to get the shot.

To be fair IS has made photography almost idiot proof.Before IS camera shake/focusing was the number one problem after exposure for newbies.Sad to say with technology newbies now only preoccupied with image sharpness think camera shake is a thing of the past.Sure just throw money at the problem and for the most part it does solve it.No going back..haha.I guess if you are a journalist or sports orientated person stabalisation means getting the shot or not..getting the moment in time that is.

Even with IS unless one has a high end camera if you have auto focus problem (front or back focus)
for which with the march of time and improvements this is also a thing of the past? Newbies take things for granted about photography.For the most part it's just not pressing the shutter button
to get the image.It needs "planning" ,arranging or pre visualising of the outcome.For this no technology can replace the human.Sure there is artificial intelligence but that won't be photography either as only humans put meaning into the activity and images.

 

[SkyStrike]

But I would like a faster lens that looks sharp even on low f-stops as I like night photography too. So I would like a fast and sharp lens so I need not crank up the ISO too high. Which is why the 17-55mm f2.8 lens looks very appealing to me. Another reason I am holding back on that lens is because a lot of people say it gathers dust easily.

You might want to push your iso to the limit (just push it to 3200, 6400) before you want to start lowering it.

The moment is much more important than the image noise. Moment > image quality

Given the modern sensors, I think it can handle 3200 or 6400. *I was already pushing for 3200 when I was still using my 500d.

If you ever want to get into astro photography which is another type of night photography, you likely won't be using 17-55 anyway...you will be looking at wider 2.8 lenses.