Didn't know how to title this topic.
First, I have the 18-55 kit lens and I am having a hard time deciding what I should upgrade to. I don't want to lose Image Stabilization I think it's a pretty big feature in getting good shots. I think if I go to a none IS lens I'll have trouble getting smooth shots and I am going to test this today or tomorrow by turning on/off the IS and doing different things (such as driving a car). This should help me decide whether IS is worth it or not to keep.
I don't see the point in dropping 500$ on a prime lens when you can get almost all the focal lengths in a zoom lens.
I heard primes are better in Image Quality, but I don't know by how much. I much rather have all my focal lengths on a zoom lens, but there must be something special about primes.
Is there any sites that pitch the same photo taken with two different lenses at the same settings against each other? (There's a site like this for Monitors and it really helped me see the difference between IPS,TN,MVA panels etc)
I really like my video to look the best when it comes to encoding. Eversince H264 popped up I've used it (currently using x264 and some community programs) Vimeo and Youtube are horrible, they really degrade the quality IMO but they do make the video able to stream. -random sentence so you know I'm into getting good quality and not just whining-
I want to upgrade to a better lens but, I don't know why...
Here's a quick list of reasons actually:
It feels like a toy, it looks like a toy.
I think the images are a bit soft (not sure, have nothing to compare it to.)
3.5-5.6 is limiting, but not by much. (I can't do the dolly in zoom out super cool retro effect, and my low light is sub par)
I don't know how to tell if one lenses Optical Quality is better or not, I tried looking at the Resolution Charts on The Digital Picture but I don't really understand them. Canon 18-55 looked pretty close to Tamron 17-55 (one of the lens I'm thinking of getting)
About Tamron 17-50:
It's almost the same focal length as my current lens, it has constant aperture of 2.8, it doesn't have image stabilization, it's 450$ vs my 150$ one, it still has a zoom barrel that comes out ( I think ) but it's built better with a better focus ring and looks cool.
So I'm paying 350$ more for: Build quality, lower & constant aperture. But I don't get Image Stabilization anymore.
Am I getting better optical quality though?
if I could just go to some kind of store and try them out right there It'd probably make everything so much easier but I don't live around any stores like that and to rent that Tamron lens would cost me 60$ for a few days.
So to end this messed up post:
I got around 600$ to upgrade my lenses, If primes are -that- much better I'd love to get some but they aren't within my budget unless I go with vintage lenses which I'm scared of mostly cause of the radioactive stuff I read about. Everyone's going to say I'm silly now for mentioning that.
So with my current budget and if find IS isn't that useful ( I do have a cheap shoulder mount I use, but I do like to hold the camera in my hand)
here are the lenses I was thinking of:
17-50 Tamron 2.8 (none VC) Reason: 2.8 constant, looks cool.
55-250 IS Reason: Covers rest of my focal range pretty much, and I always wanted to take pictures of rabbits...
11-16 Tokina Reason: Covers rest of focal range, can't afford it now but will probably get later..
First, I have the 18-55 kit lens and I am having a hard time deciding what I should upgrade to. I don't want to lose Image Stabilization I think it's a pretty big feature in getting good shots. I think if I go to a none IS lens I'll have trouble getting smooth shots and I am going to test this today or tomorrow by turning on/off the IS and doing different things (such as driving a car). This should help me decide whether IS is worth it or not to keep.
I don't see the point in dropping 500$ on a prime lens when you can get almost all the focal lengths in a zoom lens.
I heard primes are better in Image Quality, but I don't know by how much. I much rather have all my focal lengths on a zoom lens, but there must be something special about primes.
Is there any sites that pitch the same photo taken with two different lenses at the same settings against each other? (There's a site like this for Monitors and it really helped me see the difference between IPS,TN,MVA panels etc)
I really like my video to look the best when it comes to encoding. Eversince H264 popped up I've used it (currently using x264 and some community programs) Vimeo and Youtube are horrible, they really degrade the quality IMO but they do make the video able to stream. -random sentence so you know I'm into getting good quality and not just whining-
I want to upgrade to a better lens but, I don't know why...
Here's a quick list of reasons actually:
It feels like a toy, it looks like a toy.
I think the images are a bit soft (not sure, have nothing to compare it to.)
3.5-5.6 is limiting, but not by much. (I can't do the dolly in zoom out super cool retro effect, and my low light is sub par)
I don't know how to tell if one lenses Optical Quality is better or not, I tried looking at the Resolution Charts on The Digital Picture but I don't really understand them. Canon 18-55 looked pretty close to Tamron 17-55 (one of the lens I'm thinking of getting)
About Tamron 17-50:
It's almost the same focal length as my current lens, it has constant aperture of 2.8, it doesn't have image stabilization, it's 450$ vs my 150$ one, it still has a zoom barrel that comes out ( I think ) but it's built better with a better focus ring and looks cool.
So I'm paying 350$ more for: Build quality, lower & constant aperture. But I don't get Image Stabilization anymore.
Am I getting better optical quality though?
if I could just go to some kind of store and try them out right there It'd probably make everything so much easier but I don't live around any stores like that and to rent that Tamron lens would cost me 60$ for a few days.
So to end this messed up post:
I got around 600$ to upgrade my lenses, If primes are -that- much better I'd love to get some but they aren't within my budget unless I go with vintage lenses which I'm scared of mostly cause of the radioactive stuff I read about. Everyone's going to say I'm silly now for mentioning that.
So with my current budget and if find IS isn't that useful ( I do have a cheap shoulder mount I use, but I do like to hold the camera in my hand)
here are the lenses I was thinking of:
17-50 Tamron 2.8 (none VC) Reason: 2.8 constant, looks cool.
55-250 IS Reason: Covers rest of my focal range pretty much, and I always wanted to take pictures of rabbits...
11-16 Tokina Reason: Covers rest of focal range, can't afford it now but will probably get later..
