Lens Recommendations

[bmb3]

I became the proud owner of a DLSR Canon Rebel T1i this summer and am looking at different lenses to purchase. My current lens (standard with the camera) is nice - but I would prefer lenses that will zoom and enhance my photography for a decent price. (I've been checking out KEH.com for deals - but would like to spend under $250 per lens.) What lenses do you recommend? I currently take photos of nature, people and vacations. Thanks!!!

 

[VVFF]

I became the proud owner of a DLSR Canon Rebel T1i this summer and am looking at different lenses to purchase. My current lens (standard with the camera) is nice - but I would prefer lenses that will zoom and enhance my photography for a decent price. (I've been checking out KEH.com for deals - but would like to spend under $250 per lens.) What lenses do you recommend? I currently take photos of nature, people and vacations. Thanks!!!

By zoom do you want a lens that can take pictures from farther away or do you want a lens that has a more "all in one" range?

Also how do you want the new lens to "enhance your photography"?

 

[SrisonS]

Although it's a little more than you want to spend (KEH has a 'like new' for $350), I've been really impressed with my Canon 18-135mm. It produces great image quality, and the zoom range is very useful... without the need to switch out lenses.

Most of my Flickr pictures were taken with that lens (on my T1i), if you want to give them a look.

A quick example of the range (these are untouched pictures, under crappy weather conditions though):

18mm

IMG_6319b by Scott Smith (SRisonS), on Flickr


135mm

IMG_6321a by Scott Smith (SRisonS), on Flickr

 

[JimbobJimbo]

Since you have the 18-55 IS, I would say to look into the Canon 55-250 IS. You can pick one up new for around $230. It's a good lens for the money, and it complements the 18-55 well.

 

[Mercenary]

Since you have the 18-55 IS, I would say to look into the Canon 55-250 IS. You can pick one up new for around $230. It's a good lens for the money, and it complements the 18-55 well.

If you are interested in the 55-250 send me a pm... I just bought a supper zoom. never used my 55-250.

If you are looking to replace your current lens with an all in one solution I would say save up for the canon 18-135 or 28-135.

quote from bobatkins.com

If you're willing to use two lenses, then the combination of the EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6is and the EF-S 55-250/4-5.6is gives you a very wide zoom range for about the same cost as the 18-135is. Although they aren't the best lenses in Canon's lineup either, they're both pretty useful lenses and capable of yielding good images.

 

[bob100]

Since you have the 18-55 IS, I would say to look into the Canon 55-250 IS. You can pick one up new for around $230. It's a good lens for the money, and it complements the 18-55 well.

true and it's only $199 at Adorama with one year warranty and free shipping

http://www.adorama.com/CA55250AFSR.html

 

[bmb3]

Thank you for the replies!

What is the difference between the 55-250 and the 18-135? From what I'm gathering, the 18-135 would 'replace' my current 18-55, just give me more zoom capabilities? Do either lens give a wide-angle as well?

 

[Wingman]

true and it's only $199 at Adorama with one year warranty and free shipping

http://www.adorama.com/CA55250AFSR.html

That is for a refurbished model.

 

[Wingman]

Thank you for the replies!

What is the difference between the 55-250 and the 18-135? From what I'm gathering, the 18-135 would 'replace' my current 18-55, just give me more zoom capabilities? Do either lens give a wide-angle as well?

The 18-135 would replace the lens that came with your kit. As noted by others in this thread, the 18-55IS combined with the 55-250IS covers 18-250 with two very good lenses for the money.

It is a great place to start until you decide where to spend the next batch of money.

 

[AlbertZeroK]

That is for a refurbished model.

I would recomend Adorama's refurbished lenses any day of the week and twice on tuesday.

 

[Wingman]

I would recomend Adorama's refurbished lenses any day of the week and twice on tuesday.

All well and good, just making sure it is clear to the OP that the lens is refurbished.

 

[VVFF]

Thank you for the replies!

What is the difference between the 55-250 and the 18-135? From what I'm gathering, the 18-135 would 'replace' my current 18-55, just give me more zoom capabilities? Do either lens give a wide-angle as well?

You are correct, 55-250 would be a "complement" to your current lens whereas the 18-135 would replace it. The 18-135 has about a 5x "zoom" to it. Whereas using the 18-55 and the 55-250 would give you a total of about 14x.

I don't normally like to use the "#x" convention for zoom but it can help put it in terms someone new to focal lengths can understand. Keep in mind that with the two lens solution you would have to change lenses when you wanted to change between the two focal length ranges.

 

[disneyboy2003]

Thank you for the replies!

What is the difference between the 55-250 and the 18-135? From what I'm gathering, the 18-135 would 'replace' my current 18-55, just give me more zoom capabilities? Do either lens give a wide-angle as well?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with focal lengths. The smaller the focal length number (ex. 18mm), the wider the view. The larger the focal length number (ex. 200mm), the more telephoto (or "zoomed in") the view.

For focal lengths, a 50mm lens is usually considered a "normal" lens. The range for "normal" is usually between 35-70mm.

Focal lengths less than 35mm are usually considered "wide angle" lenses. Anything less than about 21mm are usually considered "ultra wide angle".

Anything above 70mm is considered "telephoto".

(btw, here's some nerdy trivia: our eyes typically have a focal length of 22mm)


So, to answer your question, the 18-135mm lens will give you a range of views, from wide-angle up to telephoto.

The 55-250mm lens, however, will NOT have a wide-angle view. Instead, it will give you a normal to telephoto view.

Hope that helps!

 

[Cinbride]

I'm considering the 18-135 and the t2i body. I've read some reviews about it being heavy and big. Can someone help me out and give me more of a measurement so I can get an idea of how big? I'm looking for a nice walk around lens, would you consider it a pretty good quality for the price or is there one about the same that produces better images? I was also looking at the 50 mm 1.4 or 1.8 for portraits but would the 18-135 do good for that also?


using mostly kid shots, portraits, family events indoors/outdoors, parks.

thanks

not trying to take over op but I think we are looking for similiar things

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm considering the 18-135 and the t2i body. I've read some reviews about it being heavy and big. Can someone help me out and give me more of a measurement so I can get an idea of how big? I'm looking for a nice walk around lens, would you consider it a pretty good quality for the price or is there one about the same that produces better images? I was also looking at the 50 mm 1.4 or 1.8 for portraits but would the 18-135 do good for that also?


using mostly kid shots, portraits, family events indoors/outdoors, parks.

thanks

not trying to take over op but I think we are looking for similiar things

Superzooms are always going to be bigger than a prime. But it's a tradeoff for the flexibility of not having to change lenses all time. SrisonS posted above. Follow his flickr link and check out his images. I believe he uses the 18-135 most of the time. He does some really amazing work with that tool.

Primes will generally beat the zooms in image quality too. But you can miss a lot of shots changing lenses all the time. That's why many opt to keep both on hand. They get out the prime for portrait sessions and times when they won't need a zoom. Then they use the super-zoom for walking around the zoo, or Disney or places where you never know what the next shot will be.

 

[VVFF]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with focal lengths. The smaller the focal length number (ex. 18mm), the wider the view. The larger the focal length number (ex. 200mm), the more telephoto (or "zoomed in") the view.

For focal lengths, a 50mm lens is usually considered a "normal" lens. The range for "normal" is usually between 35-70mm.

Focal lengths less than 35mm are usually considered "wide angle" lenses. Anything less than about 21mm are usually considered "ultra wide angle".

Anything above 70mm is considered "telephoto".

(btw, here's some nerdy trivia: our eyes typically have a focal length of 22mm)


So, to answer your question, the 18-135mm lens will give you a range of views, from wide-angle up to telephoto.

The 55-250mm lens, however, will NOT have a wide-angle view. Instead, it will give you a normal to telephoto view.

Hope that helps!

Keep in mind a 50mm lens is considered normal on full frame cameras. This makes 30-35mm a normal lens on a typical crop camera. 17-24 or so is wide angle on a crop. UWA is lower than 17mm on crop. 50mm and on is telephoto.

 

[AlbertZeroK]

Superzooms are always going to be bigger than a prime. But it's a tradeoff for the flexibility of not having to change lenses all time. SrisonS posted above. Follow his flickr link and check out his images. I believe he uses the 18-135 most of the time. He does some really amazing work with that tool.

Primes will generally beat the zooms in image quality too. But you can miss a lot of shots changing lenses all the time. That's why many opt to keep both on hand. They get out the prime for portrait sessions and times when they won't need a zoom. Then they use the super-zoom for walking around the zoo, or Disney or places where you never know what the next shot will be.

The definition of a walk around lens is different for each of us. If I truely want freedom, I'm using my Nex, but if I'm carrying a DSLR, then it's a pair of 50d's with a belt and multiple lenses.

The 18-135 is a good lens, but it's no where near the best in Canon's line up. Now it will kick the butt of almost any point and shoot and for the money, as Kevin would say, "It has Value". Especially considering first, their is nothing comparable in Canon's Professional "L" glass and the closest thing, the 24-105 f/4 is $1k.

 

[Cinbride]

I messed up I meant I was looking at 28-125.

 

[AlbertZeroK]

I messed up I meant I was looking at 28-125.

You mean 28-135?

 

[Cinbride]

You mean 28-135?

oh good gosh!! yes. this is what I get for trying to type w/ kids talking to me.

thank you.