Canon T2i lens Help!!!!

C.DeJohn

C.DeJohn

Member
OK so i bought a Canon T2i not to long ago and looking to buy a lens for it right now im shooting on the kit lens (18-55) and i want a lens that i would benefit the most from any ideas????
 
Well theres a lot of different variables you need to think about before getting another lens. The first thing I think you need to establish is what you're going to be shooting. Once I know what type of things you're gonna be shooting I'll get back to ya.
 
my budget right now it like $600 and i will be shooting skiing and skateboarding mostly tripod filming trying but some follows ( i could use the 18-55 for those though)
 
For tripod shooting i'd recommend definitely a zoom lens that goes to at least 200-300mm. I'm actually looking to buy one myself. But really it depend how close your going to be to your subject when shooting.
 
Either a used Canon 24-105 or used Canon 17-40L depending on if you want the wide 17mm over the 105mm zoom or vice-versa.
 
I may be interested in selling my Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 lens for the right price.

I may be looking to unload my whole Canon T2i setup as well as I may change to one of the new sony cams coming out.
 
70-200 f4L, Zeiss 50mm f1.4, 17-40 f4L, tokina 11-16 f2.8. So many directions to go. Or if you just want a do everything lens, the canon 15-85 f3.5-5.6 is a great lens and even though it is not a fixed aperture or an L series lens it's still a good buy if you can find it in good shape, lightly used.
 
Define works perfectly?

Its 18-55, ok range

3.5-5.6, so fucking slow

it has 11 elements, which isnt a ton but still alot

its not very sharp until like f8, bleh

it costs 100 bucks (only perk, but is a downfall too)

its a shitty lens, if you cant afford anything else then okay but a 50mm 1.8 is the same prive and 1000 times better
 
The Tokina 11-16 suffers from lensflare really, really badly. As you're shooting outside anyway: get the Canon 10-22. Muuuch better flare control! The fixed 2.8 you're not gonna use anyway, you'll stop it down badly.

And on-topic:

Maybe get a Takumar 50mm f/1.4. You're gonna need to manual focus anyway, and stopped down it's awesome, you can't beat this lens for the price (like 80$?)

To the people saying 17-40 on a crop: Seriously? Why the hell would you do that? Short range, no IS (not that important, but hey). The high f-stop is ok because of shooting outdoors, but it does make it a lot less versatile. Get the Sigma 17-50 OS or Tamron 17-50 over the 17-40 any day. The Sigma is siiick anyway and even rivals the 17-55 which costs twice as much. I've even seen extensive comparing and pretty much everyone agreed the Sigma 17-50 rocked all other mid-range zooms. The only thing the 17-40's got speaking for it is the weather sealing (bfd...)

Good lenses for/from all ranges:

- Canon 10-22

- Samyang 14

- Tamron 17-50

- Sigma 30 f/1.4

- Canon 50mm f/1.8 (used this goes for 70$, good lens)

- Canon 85mm f/1.8

- Canon 70-200 f/4

- Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

 
Oh, and invest in a good tripod instead of a lens. Mediocre lens+good tripod is gonna help you muuuch more. A 'good' tripod isn't that expensive anyway. Get like a manfrotto 190xdb, it's only 85$.
 
I'm not talking about the 18-55 I'm talking about the 15-85 (as in the replacement for the 17-85) and it costs about $600 used, closer to 750 new. 17 elements in in 12 groups which includes Aspherical elements. I know it's an EF-s lens with a variable aperture and it is a bit expensive but for a hobbyist shooter looking for a single lens with a versatile focal length it is a good choice... Like I said I have used it and I liked it.
 
Alright, miscommunication.

But, you could buy a much better lens for 600-750 dollars. Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is 450 and 1000 times better imo.
 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=4&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3

that's both of them in the center of the focal range at f/8. They are pretty close there.

notice that these charts are shot on two different bodies (unfortunately). However, that shouldn't really make much difference for the sake of comparison when they are cropped similarly.

At higher apertures and closer to 24, the tamron seems to shoot a lot better than the 24-105. Highest apertures and the extremes of the focal lengths are where flaws in lenses show up.

Also remember, as you stop a lens down more, there's a threshold you pass where you are likely to get some softening of the image due to diffraction.
 
Those are both very specific focal lengths. the 50 is a nice lens, but it's very limited, and a 10-20 is a very wide to kinda wide only lens.

for a general purpose lens, if you don't have much money, I would look into that tamron.
 
Someone's selling his Sigma 10-20 on here. Thread was made yesterday I think.

And just get the 50mm f/1.8 for the sake of it. You need to know if you like primes. Just buy one secondhand for 80$.
 
shitty ones. why would you ever sugest a tilt shift for someone who needs new lenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top