60D First and Second Lenses to get!?!? Opinions needed!

O

Orpheus

Active member
I am probably going to be jumping onto the DSLR bandwagon soon, and have somewhat decided on the 60D. I will be shooting short narrative films and want the option of very shallow depth of field. I will also be shooting still photography as well, so please keep this in mind.

What two or three lenses will I get the most use out of? I want to buy lenses with the future in mind--lenses that I will still be using on whatever camera body I buy next. Are canon lenses a good way to go? It feels like they will most likely come out with another blockbuster camera down the road seeing as they are dominating the DSLR market and will have plenty of profits for Research and Development.

I am very fearful of buying the wrong gear---please lend your expert opinions!

Concerning Budget: I am a noivce but want to jump in with decent gear, but budget is also a concern. Of course I want "bang for the buck," but I'm also willing to wait and save if a particular lens (or camera for that matter) would be better for the long term.

Thanks for your opinions everyone!

(P.S. I have a couple of friends who have Canon cameras (e.g. 7D and T3i), and being able to lend or borrow lenses to them is one reason I think a 60D would be a good camera body. I was considering the GH2, but it is not in stock and for some reason I feel partial to Canon in terms of brand perception. Although I did very much consider a GH2, I know I will be shooting lots of stills and Canon seems to have the edge.)
 
moving to the lens section. Might also want to search that section for the threads with nearly identical subjects.
 
Since u said u want lenses for still as well I will stick to recommending modern EOS mount autofocus lenses and ignore vintage
On a budget the two lenses I would recommend are the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for field of view coverage and a canon 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 so you can play with dof.
If u have a grand or two , I would recommend the canon 17-55mm f2.8 and either a canon 85mm f1.8, sigma 50mm f1.4 or canon 35mm f1.4 for the same reasons above.

If you want to go vintage start with manual nikons and a fotodiox f mount to eos adapter.

Also check the sticky thread at the top of this lens section - lots of good info there too!
 
Last edited:
search "tamron 17-50mm eos"
you will see two options, the cheaper one has no VR (also known as image stabilization), many regard the cheaper one as a much better image
 
you have a big tradeoff, I'm afraid:

* if you want to do photography, that means modern lenses, with autofocus
* if you want the lenses to work on future bodies, which may not be canon EOS, that means lenses with manual aperture rings

the tamron 17-50 non-vc is a great lens; it will work on a micro4/3 camera, but you'll have to focus manually, and it will be stuck at f/2.8 (unless you use an adapter which translates the electrical signals from the panasonic world to the canon world; I sense the search for that as a path full of pain)

this thread should help you:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?247211-L-series-lens-Help
 
Since I am basically just starting out with DSLR, I feel like modern lenses with autofocus might be the way for me to go for right now. Sacrificing the potential ability to use them with future cameras that aren't Canon doesn't seem like too much of a downside initially, because I don't know how invested in this I am going to get. Once I learn more about lenses down the road I will be able to make more informed decisions about them.

So, going forward, let's assume I just want a few Canon EOS lenses that complement eachother, giving me decent options in terms of types / styles of shots for both video and still.

Does this mean I am in for a more expensive or less expensive adventure?
 
Orpheus said:
So, going forward, let's assume I just want a few Canon EOS lenses that complement eachother, giving me decent options in terms of types / styles of shots for both video and still.

Does this mean I am in for a more expensive or less expensive adventure?
Click to expand...

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 non vc may be your best choice. Not expensive sharp and reliable. A second good lens is the Canon 85mm 1.8. Also won't break the budget and amazing image. Both these lenses will hold resale value well. I wouldn't buy modern lenses with the idea of using them on alternate brand camera systems. The electronics will be a problem and adapters for that purpose will be expensive. Just get what you need today to start and add on as you test and learn. The 60D is a solid pick.
 
This is a matter of personal opinion, but I am a big fan of starting out with vintage manual glass if on a tight budget.

In my opinion, automatic glass is a luxury that's great if you can afford it. But if your priority is the best possible images on a limited budget, I recommend looking elsewhere.

To be honest, I own that Tamron, and I still prefer the manual lenses most of the time with the exception of photographing kids or sports- that extra second needed to manually focus can mean missing the shot in those situations.
But for everything else (and I do product photography as well as video), I've found that I prefer the manual lenses in almost every way. The color, the full control of aperture from the ring, the nice big focus wheel (important for video), and the fact that I can buy several of them for the same price as a decent auto focus lens from Canon.

In fact, I often find that when shooting something interesting with shallow DOF, the AF will pick up the wrong part of my scene to focus on anyway. I've found myself flipping the switch to MF on my canon IS and Tamron lenses to tweak the focus the way I wanted. But that's just me...

There's plenty of folks who prefer the automatic stuff, and I don't blame them- there are reasons I keep mine around as well. But if you're on a tight budget, consider this:
For the same price of that Tamron, you can buy a full side of vintage primes (a wide, mid and telephoto) to cover an even wider range than the Tamron's zoom, can offer superior low-light and DOF, have more precise control over everything, AND be future proof since they are interchangeable with just about any contemporary camera body you might swap to later.

In other words: cheaper, more options, better light, more compatible.

I understand that you're considering the 60D, but most folks in this industry will tell you that its better to spend your money on lenses than the camera body. That's because these camera bodies are ultimately disposable. Like computers, they depreciate fast, and eventually become obsolete within a few short years (if even that long). Lenses, however, will easily outlast your body, especially if you buy good ones that are compatible with other types of camera mounts.

My 2 cents.
 
Alright, if I can get a wide, mid and telephoto for the same price--why wouldn't I? At least in my case, I think it would be beneficial to learn to manually focus, and the majority of my subjects probably won't be moving fast. I could also buy one nice AF lens for those situations when I need fast autofocus. Now, what kind of money am I looking at for that kind of setup?
 
M. Gilden said:
For the same price of that Tamron, you can buy a full side of vintage primes (a wide, mid and telephoto) to cover an even wider range than the Tamron's zoom, can offer superior low-light and DOF, have more precise control over everythingr.
Click to expand...

I agree with older manual primes being cheap and great image control, but unfortunately that range of primes won't include a 17mm 2.8, which in my case is why I bought it. I also have a set of Zuiko primes 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2.8 and use them all in controlled shoots, but need the 17mm much of the time.
Face it having one 17-50mm f2.8 that is relatively sharp and fast, with all the advantages of full auto or manual for a low cost is worth having. It's a daily driver, not the greatest lens ever made, but PDG.
 
ROCKMORE said:
I agree with older manual primes being cheap and great image control, but unfortunately that range of primes won't include a 17mm 2.8, which in my case is why I bought it. I also have a set of Zuiko primes 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2.8 and use them all in controlled shoots, but need the 17mm much of the time.
Face it having one 17-50mm f2.8 that is relatively sharp and fast, with all the advantages of full auto or manual for a low cost is worth having. It's a daily driver, not the greatest lens ever made, but PDG.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that 17mm isn't worth the entry price. Its a great lens for that exact purpose, and actually one of the reasons I keep it around for video as well.

But I'm not sure it would be my first choice if I had to pick only one lens. Maybe you need 17mm @ 2.8 more often than I do, but I've found the 28-50mm range to be the most useful personally. Its nice knowing I could go wider, but is that necessary for someone just starting out and learning the ropes?

This is all personal opinion, no one is right or wrong here. Personally, I'd rather have my nikkor 50mm 1.4 and the kit lens (for IS and wide shots that the 50 cant handle) than choose only the tamron. I may be alone in this sentiment.
 
Last edited:
I'd say, get the tamron 17-50 non-vc, and then some vintage primes

the 17-50 because:
* it is a great lens, sharp and reasonably fast, and not expensive at all
* it will be your only zoom (vintage zooms usually are not great)
* it is wide (I've found no vintage lenses under 35mm that I like)
* it will be your only lens with autofocus (keep in mind: the 60D doesn't have microadjustment, so, as M.Gliden said, you may still want to focus manually for anything important; but if you don't have the time, it is there)

and the vintage primes because they are great and cheap (beware: once you get that virus, it's difficult to stop buying old glass)

the vintage lenses I've tried are the following:
* carl zeiss jena flektogon 35mm: absolutely horrible
* leitz elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8: amazing
* carl zeiss jena pancolar 50mm f/1.8: amazing
* carl zeiss jena biometar 80mm f/2.8: meh (i.e. not spectacular)
* leitz elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8: amazing
* carl zeiss jena sonnar 135mm f/4.0: not stellar, and relatively slow; I intend to swap it for a leitz
* carl zeiss jena sonnar 180mm f/2.8: not as sharp as I expected, but beautiful bokeh; huge lens, pretty heavy
* carl zeiss jena sonnar 300mm f/4.0: not as sharp as I expected, but beautiful bohek; absolutely huge lens, big, big drawback, incredibly heavy

you can check out my tests here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/old/lenstestsa.html

edit: my zoom, the only one I have, is not the tamron 17-50, but the canon 18-55 IS, the ultra cheap kit lens that came with my 550D; I hardly ever use it: just when I need wide angle and can shoot at f/7 to f/11, or when I need the IS, or when I can only take one lens with me; I've got a shoot in the next few weeks and for the wide shots, instead of using my kit lens, I'll borrow my father's tamron 17-50; still, it was only $50, so I don't regret having that kit lens
 
Last edited:
Depends what u r doing. Vintage primes are good for personal or indi stuff but as soon as I started getting gigs with ad agencies the vintage gear started drawing unwanted looks. Big glass and brand names make client side art directors and account people comfortable. Keeps the cash flowing ur way
 
To the OP -- based on your later clarifications -- three very simple answers, listed in order of priority.

Canon 50mm f/1.4 - link

Canon 85mm f/1.8 - link

Canon 28mm f/1.8 - link

Those three lenses will bring the very best out of your 60D, give you autofocus capabilities (although your 60D doesn't have lens adjustments for autofocus), and will last you through many Canon bodies to come.

Classic Nikkors with manual aperture rings are ideal for video on Canon HDSLR cameras, but won't give the autofocus that is necessary for some things like meaningful event photography (candids, action, and not having to tell people to stand still and say "cheese" while you focus).

I'd pick those primes over any Canon "L" zoom lens. And, when you step up to the 5D Mark 3, those lenses will absolutely shine.
 
* the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8 are great lenses indeed

* if you can live with it being slower, I'd get the 24mm f/2.8 instead of the 28mm f/1.8; the 28mm is much softer and has an awful lot of CA
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/155-canon-ef-28mm-f18-usm-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/153-canon-ef-24mm-f28-test-report--review?start=1

* vintage primes will also work on the 5Dmk3; they can be just as good as these modern primes, sometimes a lot better; they can also be cheaper, although the truly great ones won't (they're not horribly expensive either: my leitz ones were about $400 each); and of course they have no autofocus (but they'll also work on an eventual nikon D800, a panasonic GH3 or AF200, etc)
 
Wow, I do appreciate everyone's opinion and I read through all the comments. That being said, I am almost less confident in picking anything out myself from all of the ranging opinions. (As Steventimothy jokingly pointed out. :cheesy:)

AGMedia's post feels the most clear cut to me, and narrows things down in a manner I like, but that's not to say I won't get some older, non-AF lenses either. Norman Bates and M Gilden both make a good argument too...

If I decide to follow AGMedia's advice and get a Canon 50mm f/1.4 - link instead of the kit lens, and then down the road in a couple months time I pick up the Canon 85mm f/1.8 - lin...what is everyone's opinion on that?

Thanks!



P.S. Microadjustments---not sure I understand, is it just slightly adjusting the focus manually?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top