~300$ lens for T2i / EOS 550D ?

DILLINGER

DILLINGER

Member
Like the title says, I'd like advice on what lens to buy. (Build quality, image quality, etc.)
Nothing ridiculous on the zoom, 18-55mm works fine.
Nothing more expensive than 300 dollars.
For photography & filming, I'll buy other lenses in the future, just trying to decide on a good all-rounder to get me started.
 
How does the tamron 17-50 compare to the canon 18-55?
I could get the 18-55 in a bundle deal with the body for around the same price. What would be smarter?
 
The 18-55 is garbage. The tamron isnt great either but it is sharper, faster, and constant aperture. Definitely get that over the kit lens.
 
Let me rephrase that. Optically it is actually very good, but the build quality is meh and the focus ring sucks.
 
Also just found a deal for the following:
EOS 550D Camera Body18-55mm Canon Lens75-300mm Canon Lens
All for 719$
Worth considering?
 
Any lens you're going to buy in a kit will be garbage really. Just buy a body and save the rest for lenses.
 
cant agree more with eheath. And once you find out the lens is crap you wont be able to sell it, cause no one will want to buy it.
 
Rokinon 8mm!

Might not be the best quality but definitely the most fun lens to film with, always fun to just toss around between a group while hot lapping. Quality is decent and the lens is awesome for a broad range of filmers (beginners will get a decent shot and experts can get sick shots with it)

I know TWoods shoots photos with it and makes shit look pretty with it. Given he's a photographer, it looks better than video on a T2i. But the point is that you can get sick shots with it.

8049603424_45fd47876c_b.jpg
 
get out.

Those lenses are great. They are all around lenses. You know how they work? if you need more focal length, you get up off your ass and scoot in. If this kid is on a budget of 300, the only way to get a decent lens is to go prime.
 
Prime is fine by me.
I shoot photos with a few different old analogue cameras, all of which have prime lenses. I'm used to having to walk for better compositions :D
 
yeah man im just of the opinion that a prime lens is an all around lens. But hey, as long as you dont buy those kit lenses, im fine with whatever you do.
 
A 50mm-equivalent prime *is* an all-round lens. What you lose in zoom range, you gain in control over DoF and low light performance.

If you were buying a Nikon, I'd recommend you to skip the kit lens and get the excellent 35mm f/1.8G. This would give you results close to many professional lenses, at a price point of $190. You could then keep the rest of your money and save towards a more expensive zoom, tele or wide angle...

This lens doesn't exist for Canon unfortunately. You could either go with the 18-55 kit and keep saving, or go with a used Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or a new/used Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The 18-55 kit is pretty uninspiring, but there's nothing wrong with starting with a kit lens in order to get a feel of what you would want to upgrade to.
 
Really guys? the 18-55 is a bitchin' first lens. The build quality is whatever, but don't be a dumbass with it and you'll be fine. My copy was tack sharp and kept up with my L glass pretty well considering its price. I'd just get the kit lens, skip all of those mid-ground lenses, and start saving right then and there for used L glass: 70-200 f/4, then a 24-70, and maybe a tokina 11-16 for ultrawide.
 
y no orange name anymore?

sick photo. Was thinking about picking up a 8mm, but I think I might just save up for an 11-16. (inb4 fish vs UWA)

 
If autofocus isn't your biggest priority, you could adapt a couple vintage primes to the T2i for that price too. So many NSers have been adapting to canon so you could look at the vintage glass threads for ideas

 
I'm sorry I'm just trying to keep idiots like you from telling people false information.
 
It's not false information, have you even shot with one for a considerable duration of time? It honestly just sounds like you hopped on the hate train. For the cost, an 18-55 will do 90% of what L glass does. It isn't going to shoot at f/2.8 and the color rendition will be less accurate, but it WILL give you a very sharp image. An average consumer just getting into photography doesn't need to be spending 2-300 on a zoom, when he is just learning the ins and outs of what his camera can do. He should be focused on learning how all of that shit works, and then he should start finding the niche of work he wants to do. I'd much rather spend $100 on a lens, learn to know what I want from future lenses, and then blow the big bucks, instead of going through a bunch of intermediate steps like spending 2-300 on a zoom that I know I'm going to upgrade.

It is much more logical for the OP to use the $300 to get a 50mm, 18-55, and a 55-250 right off the bat, because it will let him be exposed to primes and zooms, plus a wide range of focal lengths, so he can make future decisions on where to specialize his kit. If you just get an 18-50, you're stuck in that zone and you cant explore the other options. I'd much rather cover my range than have one "nice" lens. Wanna take a photo of that lion at the zoo? Too fucking bad you can only reach 50mm because you only got one lens. Cover all of your bases and then upgrade the lenses, don't just get one focal length and leave the other areas out to dry.

Also I'm not an idiot. I sell stock images, I make good money doing so, and one of the tools I used for a very long time prior to purchasing my 24-70 was the 18-55. In fact, a lot if the images from the 18-55 funded the damn 24-70! Don't give me any bullshit about it being an inadequate lens. it might not be fast, it might not look cool, but it does its job very well considering its cost. If an 18-55 can get images accepted right alongside those from a 24-70 on upper end stock sites, I see no issue with the quality of that lens.

You're obviously going to say I'm wrong again because you're Evan motherfucking Heath, but please try to at least consider the that an 18-55 can take very good images if you put it in the right hands.

 
They both have very unique (and specific) purposes in my mind. The 11-16 is amazing quality and goes great with a steadicam. The biggest con about the 11-16 in my opinion is that it's the most frequently used lens in ski edits, which causes lots of edits to look alike.

The 8mm is not as sharp as the 11-16, but it is awesome because of its playfulness; the lens itself creates a casual tone. It is an acquired taste though, in that you gotta get stoked on lots of fisheye edits to really enjoy what a fish can do. I spent lots of time this fall watching snowboard videos (I'll leave some examples worth watching below), and I was able to realized what a fish can actually bring to the table. The other nice thing about fisheyes is that they're not too tapped into by the ski industry yet.

Scott Stevens and friends: IRPC sneak peek from I RIDE PARK CITY on Vimeo.

Haunted Hyland from House of 1817 on Vimeo.

^^This is an awesome movie, definitely worth watching. Filmed by some of the VG guys (VG is kinda like the level 1 of boarding in my opinion)
 
^ Oh yeah, those aren't 8mm example vids, just some testimony I thought worth posting as to why fisheyes are awesome
 
Both of those edits were dope. I guess i am kinda growing on the fisheye effect. I shot with my buddys brothers rokinon 8mm and despite the distortion, i figured i could get it as a poor mans UWA. Now, i havent shot with the 11-16 yet, but the 8mm seemed pretty damn sharp. I shot some basketball with it during the golden hour. Also, a thing that freaks me out is that i have to get so close to the subject when skiing, their skis/body might hit the lens on accident. I know i almost broke my friends brother's when getting to close to the player/ball. I might go a cheaper option with a UWA and pick this up to.
 
The canon kit lens is trash. The fact you are recommending some kid to get a kit, waste probably 150-200 bucks (depending on the kit) on the 18-55 when a tamron 17-50 2.8 is $300 and its significantly better. Cool bro, you're so pro and your 18-55 got you there! NOT if you know anything about anything, you know photo/video industries are based on connections/reference not if your fucking lens is good or not.

And yes, i've spent plenty of time with canon kit lenses to tell you theyre trash. Sure, any fucking lens is sharp at f11 but the fact that anything under f8 on the kit lens is going to look like the lens is smeared with Vaseline makes it a piece of shit. The tamron is even sharp at 5.6 and usable at f4-f2.8 while the kit lens is not even close to usable at 5.6!

And OMG IM EHEATH I KNOW EVERYTHING cut the fucking bullshit dude. Thats cool you used the 18-55 and loved it and whatever, but would you use it now? FUCK NO YOU WOULDNT. So why would you recommend a lens to a beginner when he's gonna out grow it in 2 weeks? A soccer mom is okay with a kit lens but for any kind of comprehensive minded young teen, they're gonna learn a lot and next thing you know, his toy lens he's been using for 2 months is worthless now he has to save $300 to buy a better one. HE FUCKING ASKED IN HIS TITLE FOR A ~$300 lens you cunt, the 17-50 is the fucking best lens for that price NOT A FUCKING KIT LENS.

Holy fucking shit, its called investing in your future and everyone fucking knows how important glass is and how long it lasts. Buying shitty glass to save 100 bucks is FUCKING STUPID WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.

OH and fyi, just becuase you make money doing something doesn't mean you're smart. Do you know how many dumb fucking ass holes make money doing shit like photo/video who are absolutely fucking retarded? Go on dvxuer or reduser if you havent, you'll shit your fucking pants.

Oh my god I haven't gotten this mad at someone in awhile. And you call yourself a professional? Jesus dude. What's the point of putting a shitty lens in someones hands when you can put a better one? That's like saying you can shit in a bucket and deal with it later but for the same price YOU CAN HAVE A TOILET. God damnit dude, get it through your dense skull. Sure, you can use the 18-55 and create an image. You can do the same thing with the tamron, for the same price and its 100 times better. Come the fuck on.

OP buy a fucking tamron 17-50, its the best lens for $300 for your t2i.

/THREAD FUCK
 
Meh. I'll repeat, what you lose in versatility in zoom range, you win in versatility of controlling DoF and low light performance. Everything from there is semantics and personal preference.

Claiming that a shitty 18-55 kit (and the Canon really is shit) is better than a good prime is funny, even for video, is funny.
 
Maybe not exactly that, but you've only contributed negativity to this thread, and no help whatsoever.

Whatever you claim, a 50mm-equivalent (which is a 30mm lens on a T2i) can be an all-rounder for many people (not you, we get that).
 
I'll be helpful.

Buy a Tamron. Cheap and versatile. You can do follow Cams(not possible with a 50 prime as a beginner) or throw it on a tripod. Don't buy a 50 prime because "you get more DOF control"
 
yeah the 17-50 is as far as I'm aware the greatest value for money lens around, f2.8, constanty aperture, awesome focus ring(compared to the 50/kit lenses anyway), good build, Focus markings(I know it's not exactly costly but It's good to have, I use them a lot, all for (for me anyway) twice the cost of the kit lens.
 
Way to be nuanced...

This doesn't change the fact that a good standard prime (which is *not* 50mm on a T2i as you keep repeating) will take 10x better pictures than the Tamron. And the OP talked about photo + video, so the answer is somewhere in between, as I posted above.

The Tamron is a good choice, because you can shoot wide (17mm), but it's not a miracle solution. It is also soft, has iffy focusing, bokeh is some of the worst I've ever seen, and if you want to shoot photo's in available light on a T2i it will be borderline... The Tamron is a lens that you will want to upgrade eventually, while a good prime is a keeper. Not saying the OP should go with a prime, just saying that he should make a conscious decision between these options.

Excluding primes when someone is looking for low budget & high quality is just dumb.
 
People keep saying that a 50mm prime would be a bad prime to use with the T2i.
Why is this and what focal length is more recommended?
 
Not necessarily bad, but not very versatile. A 50mm prime on a T2i works like an 80mm lens (crop factor). It is good for portraits and what not, but you would be limited to this narrow 80mm field of view.

If you are going to start with only 1 prime, it is usually better to start with something right in the middle (30mm, which is 50mm equivalent in your case), or even a little wider than that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top