File :-(, x, )
Canon lenses Anonymous
So I'm planning to buy a 40d for my birthday in june (using money I've saved plus asking everyone to chip in rather than buy me presents). Have been doing A LOT of research and it seems to be the right camera for me, and canon are doing big rebates.

But the next big decision - which lens? I figure I'll have about £600 or so for a lens. I was thinking of going for the canon 17-55mm f2.8 (28-88mm 1.6x FOVCF). I want the wide angle and the portrait size.
However would it be better to go for a couple prime lenses? Like the Canon 50mm f1.4 and something around 20mm or so. Obviously the benefits are faster lens and less distortion, but I loose the middle focusing distance of the zoom and a lot of the wider angle prime lenses are crap/really expensive.

/p/'s opinions?
>> Anonymous
get the zoom before you get the primes.

to all the fgts that are going to say "OMGZ GET THE PRIME YOU'LL GET BETTER" think of all the shots you'll miss by being limited to 50mm.
>> Anonymous
I agree with>>158339that zoom will be more appreciated for the versatility; I own a 50mm prime and while very nice and great for portraits, when I'm out walking around I use my 28-135mm IS and really appreciate the flexibility in composition it gives me.
>> Anonymous
In before jealous fags.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Okay, let's call that $1000 in real money (it's more than that, really, but things in England are pricier).

If I had that much cash to spend and didn't have any lenses, I'd go for the 50/1.4 ($350), the 28/1.8 ($400) and the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS ($200). That'll give you a fast normal (the 28), a faster medium-tele (the 50), and a sharp, stabilized zoom for your normal walking around lens.

Another option would be the same 18-55 IS but with the 50/1.8 ($75), the 35/2.0 ($200), and a telephoto of some sort. The 55-250 IS is only $280, though it's EF-S so you can't use it on film or full-frame digital (if that's important to you). There's also the various incarnations of the 70-300. The 70-300 IS is around $550 which would still probably be in your budget with those other lenses assuming the UK doesn't get raped *too* hard on prices.
>> Anonymous
>>158348
I second this, although I'd advise the 28 and 50 paired for walkaround, and the 18-55 for when you need a wide or more tele. As general advice.

But to really tell you what lens to buy, we need to know what sort of photographs you want to take. Well?

(Also, read this for why the primes for walkaround and general use:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/the-case-against-zooms.html

And don't worry about "missing shots," unless doing it for an actual, paying job. If you're doing it for art or enjoyment, getting better pictures over the long run is more important than getting some specific shot.)
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Something to consider for folk getting the Royal Shaft in the UK:

Seeing as you are UK, you could look on eBay. There are some dealers there that import lenses from the US so you can get a good discount on the pricier lenses without having the headache of dealing internationally and getting raped by customs, which is the only other way of getting a good discount on rip-off Britain prices.

kerso
123fstop
adani505

Those are all reputable dealers (check their feed back and email or message them if you want to see what their like) that won't rob you. If they don't have what you want in stock either message them or wait as it rotates quickly enough.

Something to keep in mind.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Why would he want 3 lenses when he can do the same thing with just one?

You should get the 18-200 VR instead of 3 different lenses. It will do everything and more.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158374
Well, aside from the obvious fact that you're kidding, he's getting a 40D (i.e., Canon's midgrade SLR) not a D40 (i.e., Nikon's low-end SLR). The Nikon 18-200 VR is not an option.
>> Anonymous
>>158374
>It will suck at everything and more.

fix'd

Also, this is a canonwhore thread, nikonfag.
>> Anonymous
>>158377

Uh, what does the "grade" have to do with it? You can use the lens on any model.
>> Anonymous
>>158374
There's no also no such thing as a no compromise super zoom. Except maybe the 28-300mm L, but that's like $2500
>> Anonymous
>>158381

No, you don't understand.

If you get 3 lens, you only have 3 angles. I have 18mm to 200mm.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158380
>Uh, what does the "grade" have to do with it?
Grade has nothing to do with it. I was just being extra descriptive of the difference between the two, since the similar names can lead to confusion.

>You can use the lens on any model.
No. You can use the lens on any NIKON model. Not a Canon. That's the point.

(Well, any Nikon model that lets you control aperture from the body. I'm pretty sure it's one of the lenses without an aperture ring, so the older Nikons won't be able to control aperture on it. And the *really* old Nikons won't be able to meter on it because it doesn't have the little bunny ears to tell the super old-school metering systems what aperture it works at)
>> Anonymous
Owned by troll.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>158387
You lose out on image quality though, you comprimise image quality and speed for that range.
>> Anonymous
Trolling aside, people really need to stop bitching about "image quality."

The Ken Rockwell lens probably does a damn good job when you have good conditions and if it's stopped down.

Stop pixel peeping.
>> Anonymous
>>158403

Troll.
>> Anonymous
>>158405

Nope. People should just stop pixel peeping.
>> Anonymous
>>158406

Superzooms don't need pixel peeping to see the difference between them and quality lenses. They are okay, but it just seems like a waste of money when they are not so cheap.

You also do not get the wide apertures with the superzooms.
>> Anonymous
>>158410

Never said primes didn't have their place.

I'm just saying people shouldn't automatically go 18-200 = massive failure.
>> Anonymous
>>158412

I'd rather have Canon's 17-55 2.8 than Sigma's 18-200 superzoom though. Image quality and aperture is better.

Not even looking at build quality and how it feels.

Superzooms are expensive and give the image quality of a kit lens.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>158410
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
One of those is a 50mm, one of those is a superzoom and one of them is a standard zoom.

Please find the 18-200 superzoom.
>> Anonymous
>>158406
I agree with this, but let's look at the whole image.

A search on Flickr for "18-200 nikkor portrait" ("portrait" in there to get some bokeh and to eliminate a whole first page of bad HDR) finds this, taken at 62mm.

http://flickr.com/photos/avidigital/2355139717/in/photostream/

The closest other lens in the Nikkor system to that focal length is the 60/2.8. "60mm Nikkor portrait" comes up with this:

http://flickr.com/photos/michaelshawkins/1245747525/

The 18-200 image lacks pop and has splotchy bokeh. The 60mm images has quite a great deal of pop and bokeh awesome enough to make me wish I owned it.

The 18-200 isn't a bad lens- probably no technically bad lenses get made today- but it isn't a very good one, either.
>> Anonymous
>>158414

Dude. I'm not arguing about which is better. Of FUCKING course the 17-55 is better.

I'm saying that the 18-200 isn't as bad as people make it out to be.

Yes, there are compromises. But unless you go peeping for faults, you won't see them.
>> Anonymous
>>158421
Please find, exif or gtfo
>> Anonymous
>>158422

The 18-200 one has the sun right in front of her goddamn face and the 60mm one has some stylized lighting done.

Goddamn I hope the 60mm is better when you're using artificial lighting.
>> Anonymous
>>158421

No. It is a retarded test. I can take one good picture with a $90 kit lens and have seen it done before, but that does not mean it is anywhere near as good as a $1400 lens.

You have just taken a bunch of pictures from a webpage and uploaded them. Not good enough to fool anyone. I can do the same buy uploading bad images from the superzoom and amazing from the 50 prime to make you look like a fool, but I am not as dishonest as you.
>> Anonymous
>>158424

I will link to original versions after.

Unless you mean it's impossible to tell without EXIF then that's kind of my point. A good picture is a good picture. People go into 18-200 = garbage way too quickly.
>> Anonymous
>>158428

Please show me where I have said a superzoom is as good as a $1,400 lens.

I sure as hell didn't. I'm saying: Stop fucking pixel peeping. Or stop foaming at the mouth every time 18-200 is mentioned because of Ken Rockwell.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
The 50mm 1.8 is the cheapest lens and the images from that look better than the superzooms that I've seen and tried. It's miles beyond the old 18-55 too, even on a 6x4 I've noticed it in shots.

The "please find the superzoom" test is cheating, really. Let's see three identical portraits taken with those lenses to compare in a fair way.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>158431

You cheated though. I could take shots with the lens cap on of every lens out there and no one could tell what it was without the EXIF. It doesn't prove anything though.

Under ideal conditions and with enough effort even the worst dog of a lens can look okay.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>158338
Back to the original topic.
The canon 17-55 is a damn good lens, but if you grab something like the tamron or sigma equivalent, you can pick up another nice lens too. You could pobably go with the sigma 18-55mm 2.8 ex ($350) a 50mm 1.4 ($300) and a sigma 10-20mm ($450) for a little more than the price of the one lens.
>> Anonymous
Whatever.

>> Stop fucking pixel peeping. Or stop foaming at the mouth every time 18-200 is mentioned because of Ken Rockwell.
>> Anonymous
>>158442

Real classy effort. "Whatever". Try harder next time. You fail.
>> Anonymous
Nope.

Unless you pixel peep, you can't tell the difference.

That was the point. Oh and:

>> Stop fucking pixel peeping. Or stop foaming at the mouth every time 18-200 is mentioned because of Ken Rockwell.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>158442
Serves you right for posting a nikon lens in a thread where a guy is asking what canon lens to buy.
>> Anonymous
>>158445

You are wrong and you are retarded and in the end you've shown you are simply a troll. Fail harder.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158416
I don't give a damn about this 18-200 vs. Everything argument, but I would very much like more pictures of this girl please.
>> Anonymous
>>158445

You are a bad photographer trying to avoid buyer's remorse by defending your purchase. LOL.
>> Anonymous
>>158447You are wrong and you are retarded and in the end you've shown you are simply a troll. Fail harder.

Uh, no.

My whole point: 18-200 is decent enough unless you go pixel peeping.

Everyone else: Foaming at the mouth because someone said the 18-200 is actually usable.

Sit down.
>> Anonymous
>>158452

I have a Canon. ;_;
>> Anonymous
>>158453

"Useable"? Even the cheapest, shitty lens is "useable". For the money that superzoom would cost I could get a quality lens instead that will be good rather than just "useable" as long as no one looked too hard.

It is a compromise lens for idiots who should have bought a P&S.
>> Anonymous
>>158453

you are as bad as those guys on dpreview in canon talk who spend all day arguing and trying to prove their g9 is just as good as a dslr.
>> Anonymous
>>158459

Oh, wow. How can people not understand such a simple statement.

>> The Ken Rockwell lens probably does a damn good job when you have good conditions and if it's stopped down.

>> Stop pixel peeping.

AHHAHHAAH NO KEN ROCKWELL SUCKS

DPREVIEW SUCKS

G9 SUCKS

Get the fuck out.
>> Anonymous
>>158461

NO U.

you're not even trying to troll properly now.
>> Anonymous
>>158461

3/10
>> Anonymous
Who the fuck is trolling?

All I've said is, people need to stop immediately going berserk and saying shit sucks whenever 18-200 is mentioned.

Is that so difficult?
>> Anonymous
>>158471
Because the nikonfag put this in a CANON thread talking about a CANON lens
>> Anonymous
>>158651
Nikonfag posted a pic of the Nikon 18-200 VR, sure, but Sigma makes a lens covering the same range with stabilisation too. So Nikonfag is just stupid, not trolling.
>> heman
nikkor 18-200 wins