Lenses? at DVinfo.net

Jonathan Stoller-Schoff · September 25th, 2010, 09:25 AM

Hello all,

I'm very much considering buying a Mk. II, and it looks like I'll have a budget of around $600 for lenses after buying the body. I'm looking mainly for wide angles to standard. Is it worth my money to get a high quality zoom or should I stick with a few prime lenses? Thanks!

Bill Pryor · September 25th, 2010, 10:39 AM

I don't know of any high quality wide angle zooms in that price range but there are some cheaper ones. I prefer primes. I'm shooting everything with a 24, 35, 50, 105, and I have the Canon f4 70-200 L zoom which I got for shooting interviews so I can change focal lengths quickly between comments.

The 24, 35 and 105 are ancient pre-AI Nikkors that I've had for years. I got the chrome-coated brass adapter rings from eBay and they work great. The old Nikkors look better than anything else I have. The 50 is a Zeiss ZE f1.4, and it seems to be built as solid as the old Nikkors.

Only issue with the Nikkors is that they focus backward from other lenses. Who knows why. Somebody at Nikon decided that years ago and they still do it. So that's a bit irritating, but you can find good lenses cheap. However, do your research because, like Canon, they have made a line of cheap lenses in more recent years.

The only zooms I can think of that fit within your budget might be the Tamron 28-75. That's a pretty good range, and the lens is sharp. It's f2.8 all the way. I had one I used for interviews with a 7D but sold it with the camera when I got a 5D. On those cheaper zooms, the focus ring doesn't have much of a throw because they're designed for auto use. From closeup to infinity was less than 180 degrees turn. However, if you end up with a follow focus system eventually, that problem is not such a big deal. I believe I paid around $450 for that Tamron.

There are also the relatively cheap Canon kit lenses, but they have progressive f-stops and aren't as fast at the wide end. The EF 28-135, for example, is only 3.5 wide open and stops down to 5.6 as you zoom. However, it's not a bad lens, has IS and is reasonably sharp. I got it also with the 7D because it was only $200 with the package. I think alone it sells for around $400. The reason I got the Tamron was because I needed a faster lens. I liked the Tamron a little better than the Canon, but the longer range of the Canon is good.

Richard D. George · September 25th, 2010, 09:57 PM

A good argument could be made that you should put more money in lenses than bodies.........

Nigel Barker · September 26th, 2010, 03:42 AM

On such a low budget you would be advised to purchase second-hand. If you are OK with manual focus & exposure then the old Nikon (or other brand) lenses with an adaptor are a good buy but if you are taking any stills then the convenience of proper EF lenses cannot be over-emphasised.

I would endorse the recommendation of the 28-135mm zoom. It's a fairly decent lens if a bit 'plasticky' but it does have a nice chunky focus ring & the IS works well. As it is a kit lens supplied with the 7D there are a lot on the second-hand market as people look to upgrade hence you can pick it up as cheaply as $200-$250.

For low light the bargain sub-$100 'nifty fifty' Canon 50mm F1.8 is a good buy brand new.

Bill Pryor · September 26th, 2010, 04:07 PM

Good point--I had forgot about all those 28-135 kit lenses on eBay and Craigslist. When the 7D first came out, lots of people got the lens, as I did, because it was only $250. And the cheapo 50 is a must simply because it's cheap and looks much better than it should for that price. The f1.8 is nice too.

Mike Watson · September 26th, 2010, 07:02 PM

I agree with others that you'd be better off with a 7D or a 60D or a XTi and better (and more) lenses.

But if you insist, I think the best lens for the buck around $600 is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

Amazon.com: Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Gateway

I have the 50mm f1.8 and seldom use it now that I have a decent zoom in that range (the f2.8 mentioned above).

Jonathan Stoller-Schoff · September 27th, 2010, 09:05 PM

Thanks everyone! Some of ya'll are making me reconsider- The 7D is looking more and more attractive, and I'd have money for lenses, etc. I'm super new to the forum- Is there a way to move this over the 7D heading? I'm not sure...

Mitchell Lewis · September 28th, 2010, 08:03 AM

24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. You'll be covered for most every standard shooting situation.

Later you can save your pennies for special lenses like the 16-35 super wide angle and the 100mm macro lens.

The negative with these lenses is that the focus sweep is very short. In other words, turning the focus from one end to the other isn't a very long sweep. If I had a ton of money, I'd buy Zies lenses for this reason, but I don't like primes as I have to change lenses to frequently.

Just my $0.02. :)

September 25th, 2010, 09:25 AM	#1
Jonathan Stoller-Schoff Tourist Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Palatine, IL Posts: 4	Lenses? Hello all, I'm very much considering buying a Mk. II, and it looks like I'll have a budget of around $600 for lenses after buying the body. I'm looking mainly for wide angles to standard. Is it worth my money to get a high quality zoom or should I stick with a few prime lenses? Thanks!

September 26th, 2010, 07:02 PM	#6
Mike Watson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 1,082	I agree with others that you'd be better off with a 7D or a 60D or a XTi and better (and more) lenses. But if you insist, I think the best lens for the buck around $600 is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Amazon.com: Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Gateway Amazon.com: Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Gateway I have the 50mm f1.8 and seldom use it now that I have a decent zoom in that range (the f2.8 mentioned above).

September 28th, 2010, 08:03 AM	#8
Mitchell Lewis Trustee Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Kennewick, WA Posts: 1,124	24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. You'll be covered for most every standard shooting situation. Later you can save your pennies for special lenses like the 16-35 super wide angle and the 100mm macro lens. The negative with these lenses is that the focus sweep is very short. In other words, turning the focus from one end to the other isn't a very long sweep. If I had a ton of money, I'd buy Zies lenses for this reason, but I don't like primes as I have to change lenses to frequently. Just my $0.02. :) __________________ Sony EX3, Canon 5D MkII, Chrosziel Matte Box, Sachtler tripod, Steadicam Flyer, Mac Pro, Apple/Adobe software - 20 years as a local videographer/editor

September 25th, 2010, 10:39 AM	#2
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I don't know of any high quality wide angle zooms in that price range but there are some cheaper ones. I prefer primes. I'm shooting everything with a 24, 35, 50, 105, and I have the Canon f4 70-200 L zoom which I got for shooting interviews so I can change focal lengths quickly between comments. The 24, 35 and 105 are ancient pre-AI Nikkors that I've had for years. I got the chrome-coated brass adapter rings from eBay and they work great. The old Nikkors look better than anything else I have. The 50 is a Zeiss ZE f1.4, and it seems to be built as solid as the old Nikkors. Only issue with the Nikkors is that they focus backward from other lenses. Who knows why. Somebody at Nikon decided that years ago and they still do it. So that's a bit irritating, but you can find good lenses cheap. However, do your research because, like Canon, they have made a line of cheap lenses in more recent years. The only zooms I can think of that fit within your budget might be the Tamron 28-75. That's a pretty good range, and the lens is sharp. It's f2.8 all the way. I had one I used for interviews with a 7D but sold it with the camera when I got a 5D. On those cheaper zooms, the focus ring doesn't have much of a throw because they're designed for auto use. From closeup to infinity was less than 180 degrees turn. However, if you end up with a follow focus system eventually, that problem is not such a big deal. I believe I paid around $450 for that Tamron. There are also the relatively cheap Canon kit lenses, but they have progressive f-stops and aren't as fast at the wide end. The EF 28-135, for example, is only 3.5 wide open and stops down to 5.6 as you zoom. However, it's not a bad lens, has IS and is reasonably sharp. I got it also with the 7D because it was only $200 with the package. I think alone it sells for around $400. The reason I got the Tamron was because I needed a faster lens. I liked the Tamron a little better than the Canon, but the longer range of the Canon is good.

September 25th, 2010, 09:57 PM	#3
Richard D. George Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 351	A good argument could be made that you should put more money in lenses than bodies.........

September 26th, 2010, 03:42 AM	#4
Nigel Barker Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Posts: 3,531	On such a low budget you would be advised to purchase second-hand. If you are OK with manual focus & exposure then the old Nikon (or other brand) lenses with an adaptor are a good buy but if you are taking any stills then the convenience of proper EF lenses cannot be over-emphasised. I would endorse the recommendation of the 28-135mm zoom. It's a fairly decent lens if a bit 'plasticky' but it does have a nice chunky focus ring & the IS works well. As it is a kit lens supplied with the 7D there are a lot on the second-hand market as people look to upgrade hence you can pick it up as cheaply as $200-$250. For low light the bargain sub-$100 'nifty fifty' Canon 50mm F1.8 is a good buy brand new.

September 26th, 2010, 04:07 PM	#5
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Good point--I had forgot about all those 28-135 kit lenses on eBay and Craigslist. When the 7D first came out, lots of people got the lens, as I did, because it was only $250. And the cheapo 50 is a must simply because it's cheap and looks much better than it should for that price. The f1.8 is nice too.

September 27th, 2010, 09:05 PM	#7
Jonathan Stoller-Schoff Tourist Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Palatine, IL Posts: 4	Thanks everyone! Some of ya'll are making me reconsider- The 7D is looking more and more attractive, and I'd have money for lenses, etc. I'm super new to the forum- Is there a way to move this over the 7D heading? I'm not sure...