If you were only going to buy one lens, what would it be?

J

jrod81

Veteran
So, I am not going to have money to buy more than one lens so I am torn on which to get. I have it narrowed down to 3 lenses:

1. Canon 16-55mm w/ IS EF-S
2. Tamron 18-50mm w/ IS

One of the above or:
3. Canon L 35mm 1.4

I am going to sell the stock lens on ebay to come up with some money to buy one of the above. Would love suggestions on which you think would be best.
 
How much money do you think that you'll get from the kit lens, after eBay, PayPal, and shipping fees? Isn't the kit lens itself only worth about $400?
 
Yeah I'd hold onto the kit lens- won't fetch much and it's better than nothing if you have no other lens. Maybe save up a few bucks- you really want more than a single lens.

Noah
 
Well seeing as I just asked myself this question a few weeks ago, I'll share my decision on the matter. I ended up buying a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC for $449 in lieu of the kit lens. I was unsure whether or not the kit lens would actually sell in a timely manner considering the large number of them I see for sale on CL.

Now if I were a full time production house I would have skipped the zoom and just started buying primes. I happen to be an editor who likes to shoot small projects and stills here and there so my needs are different.

If you are like me and plan to shoot a mix of stills and video on a small budget then a fast, constant aperture, parfocal, wide zoom might be just the ticket for you.
 
does anyone know the Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 ZE ? I have a 70-200 4L + 20-35 2.8L and looking for a 50mm. This one seems like a good choice, what do you think ?
 
romain said:
does anyone know the Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 ZE ? I have a 70-200 4L + 20-35 2.8L and looking for a 50mm. This one seems like a good choice, what do you think ?
Click to expand...

If you want effective 50mm- get the Canon 35mm 1.4.
 
Achel said:
Well seeing as I just asked myself this question a few weeks ago, I'll share my decision on the matter. I ended up buying a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC for $449 in lieu of the kit lens.
If you are like me and plan to shoot a mix of stills and video on a small budget then a fast, constant aperture, parfocal, wide zoom might be just the ticket for you.
Click to expand...


Hi,
do you think the VC is important on that lens, considering I only plan to use it for video ? There's a 150€ difference between the 2, so wondering if you chose the non VC for budget reasons or not ?
 
The VC will make a huge difference. It'll be even more beneficial to have as an aide in stabilizing your video.

I'll be waiting until the 17-50 2.8 VC gets released.

Kegan
 
I don't have any problem with handheld on non-IS lenses until more telephoto than a 50mm. I think the tamron without vc is the best choice because I don't think vc is worth $200 at that lens length. Also the tamron has great macro it can focus at something like 8 or 9 inches.
 
Only one lens

Only one lens

Tough decision prob have to be
Tamron 17-50mm f 2.8 Fast enough for most all light levels and insanely sharp. Wide enough for wide, and zoom enough for closeups. The only think missing is a wide aperture for low light stuff. 2.8 aperture on the 24mm 7d sensor still has kinda a video look @ wide angles, ie the background could be more blurry.

or...

Sigma 20mm f1.8
You can film an entire movie on this, just have to move the camera real damn close, but the 1.8 aperture makes the creamy background bokeh wonderful to look at.
 
Which would you choose between the sigma 30 1.4 and the tamron 17-50 vc ?
I already have a 50 1.8 that I adore but it's slightly too tight at times...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top