Which lens should I buy?

C

Cunhosky

New member
Hello everyone,

This is my first post on this forum, so I would appreciate a lot of feedback please!

I recently bought a Canon 7D. I used to have a Canon Hv30 and finally decided I was ready for an upgrade. Nevertheless, my problem is that I wasted almost all my budget on the 7D and only bought a Canon 50mm f/1.8. Don't get me wrong, I find it to be a great lens for its price, but I'm lacking some wideness.

I have been saving some money and have about 550€ ( 775$ ) to spend on a new lens. I film a lot of stuff: Shorts, Music Videos, Sports, etc ... everything just for pure experience and to pursue the dream of possibly being a film director in the future.

These are the lenses i've considered buying:

- Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ( VC or Non-VC? )

- Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

Can anyone give me some advice or suggest me another lens? I would appreciate some help please!

Thank You.

Cunhosky
 
* they are both great lenses (I'd discard that VC version, because it is soft, but other people seem to like it)* it all depends on what focal lengths you think you'll use most; for me, the 11-16 is a specialty lens, while my leitz elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8 is what I use for over 50% of my footage (with the 50mm f/1.8 taking an additional 25% or so); other people like more extreme FoV, with an argument that "see like the eye sees" is precisely what they don't want; to each his own* given my preferences, I'd say: also consider the sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the samyang 35mm f/1.4* and of course also consider vintage glass... though it's not usually that good in the wide end (24mm and wider), or for zooms
 
Go for the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC. It's a great lens which covers everything from wide to slightly telephoto.

The 11-16mm is a specialty lens. It has it's uses (and is a standout in it's class) but like all super-wide lenses it also has un-natural distortion which renders people and faces in a very unflattering way. It also does not have much range and it won't be uselful for 95% of shooting situations.
 
The Tamron is a great, versatile lens for the 7d. The 11-16 is a nice lens, but like already stated, it's more of a specialty lens and couldn't just be left on the camera at all times like the Tamron.
 
get the tamron non VC. I have it. very nice lens except fro the short focus throw. You should have posted b4 you bought the 7d...we could have save you about $800-1000 by telling you to get a t2i or 60d. anyway....get the tamron non VC for a decent all round lens.
 
I've just been through this, and I ended up with the Tamron, but the VC version. I know it's reputed to have a little less sharpness than the non-VD, but I can't see it (tested both), and I like the ability to shoot at slow shutter speeds in low light. It's also a help for handheld video. However, if neither of those is a major issue for you. the non-VC is quite a bit cheaper, and very very good indeed
 
NormanBates said:
as I expected, somebody would come in and vote for the VC version; some people love it, others don't; my opinion is based on the iso tests at the-digital-picture, and on the fact that it is featured in lensrental's blog post about "stuff I wish I'd never bought", where you can also see the "why": http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/01/stuff-i-wish-id-never-bought
Click to expand...
Yes, I saw those, and for a while I was going for the non-VC. Then I started thinking about low light and slow shutter, and tested the VC version myself. I liked the results.But - that's just me and my opinion.
 
NickG said:
Yes, I saw those, and for a while I was going for the non-VC. Then I started thinking about low light and slow shutter, and tested the VC version myself. I liked the results.But - that's just me and my opinion.
Click to expand...

Even with the rather grim comparison on the-digital-picture, I'm sure your real life images will generally be better.
Everything in life isn't necessarily on the same flat plane. As we all know many situations are geared for a single focused image in center frame with the background as soft as we can get it at 2.8.
Although I also make lens decisions based on the-digital-picture tests, I did go against the judgment call when I picked up the Canon 55-250mm IS zoom even though all the tests showed how soft it was over 200mm.
The lens performs 100% better than I expected as I'm sure your Tamron VC version does.

It was bugging me so much that I had a soft lens in my bag I shot a sharpness test at 250 to see for myself how soft and low contrast it really was.
I know this isn't the same lens we are talking about, I'm just showing how the chart tests may not be showing the-entire-digital-picture, whichever lens is tested.

Below the Canon 55-250mm @ 250mm wide open. Not what I would have expected after seeing the poor chart test results.
 

Attachments

  • CANON-55-250-@-250-CLOSE-UP.jpg
    CANON-55-250-@-250-CLOSE-UP.jpg
    56.3 KB · Views: 0
  • 55-250-@-250-WIDE-OPEN.jpg
    55-250-@-250-WIDE-OPEN.jpg
    63.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top