[EngineCo52]

I love doing a lot of outside shots, time lapse, landscape, etc. what should be my next Lens from the kit lens?

should i get the
50mm??
17-40mm??
trying to keep it under $800

Camera Canon 60D

[RupertPupkin]

Canon 10 22

or Sigma 10 20

60 D is crop sensor, 17 40 wont be very wide on it.

[EngineCo52]

Originally Posted by jimmydever

Canon 10 22

or Sigma 10 20

60 D is crop sensor, 17 40 wont be very wide on it.

what about the 50mm(nifty fifty)?

[Chewy734]

landscape: 17-40mm f/4L
portraits: 50 mm f/1.4

Those would be my suggestions.

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by EngineCo52

what about the 50mm(nifty fifty)?

The 50 would be even more "zoomed in". I think you have to multiply around 1.5 with crop sensors, so the 50mm would be more like a 75mm on a full frame.

The problem I foresee with the getting the 50 would be if you are in an area where you can't move further back to get more of the landscape into the shot.

The image on the left is at 17mm and the one on the right is at 50mm:



As you can see, you have to be a lot further back with the 50mm to get the same shot, and sometimes when shooting landscapes there isn't room to move back any further. So the 17-40mm provides you with a lot more flexibility depending on what situation you are in.

If your price range is $800ish, why not consider a 17-55mm f/2.8?

The Canon version is a bit pricey: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-...1691218&sr=8-1

But Sigma makes one for less than $600: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-...1691218&sr=8-3

[EngineCo52]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

landscape: 17-40mm f/4L
portraits: 50 mm f/1.4

Those would be my suggestions.

Thank you!!

Originally Posted by Seminole

The 50 would be even more "zoomed in". I think you have to multiply around 1.5 with crop sensors, so the 50mm would be more like a 75mm on a full frame.

The problem I foresee with the getting the 50 would be if you are in an area where you can't move further back to get more of the landscape into the shot.

The image on the left is at 17mm and the one on the right is at 50mm:



As you can see, you have to be a lot further back with the 50mm to get the same shot, and sometimes when shooting landscapes there isn't room to move back any further. So the 17-40mm provides you with a lot more flexibility depending on what situation you are in.

If your price range is $800ish, why not consider a 17-55mm f/2.8?

The Canon version is a bit pricey: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-...1691218&sr=8-1

But Sigma makes one for less than $600: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-...1691218&sr=8-3

Thanks a lot for the suggestions and visual aids, im new to the DSLR world, and the pics helped tremendously!!

[Chewy734]

btw, your crop factor is 1.6x for the Canon's APS-C sensor.

[remmib]

Originally Posted by jimmydever

Canon 10 22

or Sigma 10 20

60 D is crop sensor, 17 40 wont be very wide on it.

Indeed, for landscape 10-22 is great.

[M_Six]

I love my 10-22, but keep in mind that the wide angle goes both ways. You get a nice wide shot side to side, but you can also end up with lots of foreground and sky if you're not careful.

I like 'Nole's suggestion of the 17-55 f2.8. Good, versatile lens.

[EngineCo52]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

btw, your crop factor is 1.6x for the Canon's APS-C sensor.

Thats like speaking french to me I need a book to read up on everything

Originally Posted by remmib

Indeed, for landscape 10-22 is great.

Thanks

Originally Posted by M_Six

I love my 10-22, but keep in mind that the wide angle goes both ways. You get a nice wide shot side to side, but you can also end up with lots of foreground and sky if you're not careful.

I like 'Nole's suggestion of the 17-55 f2.8. Good, versatile lens.

yeah im going to take a look into both of them...thanks for all the help guys, i really appreciate it

[tekmoe]

50mm is definitely nice for portrait style photography. i have a 35mm and love it because of the size but also because of the super low 1.8 fstop. makes shooting in low-lit conditions a breeze. then again, a 17-55 is very nice because of the extra zoom it provides. they each have their own advantages. at the end of the day, you might get both.

[The1]

Originally Posted by Seminole

The 50 would be even more "zoomed in". I think you have to multiply around 1.5 with crop sensors, so the 50mm would be more like a 75mm on a full frame.

The problem I foresee with the getting the 50 would be if you are in an area where you can't move further back to get more of the landscape into the shot.

The image on the left is at 17mm and the one on the right is at 50mm:



As you can see, you have to be a lot further back with the 50mm to get the same shot, and sometimes when shooting landscapes there isn't room to move back any further. So the 17-40mm provides you with a lot more flexibility depending on what situation you are in.

If your price range is $800ish, why not consider a 17-55mm f/2.8?

The Canon version is a bit pricey: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-...1691218&sr=8-1

But Sigma makes one for less than $600: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-...1691218&sr=8-3

this is similar to my recomendation.

As for crop factors like Chewy is saying. Because this is not a full frame camera (the size of film from back in the day) these cameras have a sensor that is roughly half the size, so they don't make full use of the lens.

so when you're looking at a 50mm lens, it's really shooting more like a 75 on a Nikon, and 85 on a Canon So, for an outdoor walk around lens, a 50mm may not be the first choice. It's a good choice, but may not necessarily work best for what you're looking for.

to get in that "normal"range you want like a 50mm would have been on film, then I would recommend looking at about a 28mm. Or the similar 24 or 35mm lenses just to make things a little easier for you.

I personally didn't like the 17-40, I thought for the price the optics should have been a bit better. I had it for about 3 days, and took it back to get the 17-35mm and am much happier, though it did cost more in the long run. However, I would not hesitate to recommend the 17-55mm F2.8. I think it is one of the best canon lenses for the $, but sadly the lens will not fit on the camera that I would want to use it on most of all, but it will fit the 60D for sure.

The 10-22 is a nice lens, it does distort a bit, but should be easy to work with.

[Spoolin335]

I have then Canon 17-55 F2.8 and its a pretty awesome lens for all around use. Its pretty heavy, but the clarity is much better then the stock lens. I paid around $1400 for mine, so it might be a bit out of your price range, maybe try to find a used one.

I would like to get a 10-22 in the future for some wide angle shots.

[EngineCo52]

Originally Posted by tekmoe

50mm is definitely nice for portrait style photography. i have a 35mm and love it because of the size but also because of the super low 1.8 fstop. makes shooting in low-lit conditions a breeze. then again, a 17-55 is very nice because of the extra zoom it provides. they each have their own advantages. at the end of the day, you might get both.

yeah i guess ill just have to see whats best for me when my friends lets me borrow his different lens

Originally Posted by The1

this is similar to my recomendation.

As for crop factors like Chewy is saying. Because this is not a full frame camera (the size of film from back in the day) these cameras have a sensor that is roughly half the size, so they don't make full use of the lens.

so when you're looking at a 50mm lens, it's really shooting more like a 75 on a Nikon, and 85 on a Canon So, for an outdoor walk around lens, a 50mm may not be the first choice. It's a good choice, but may not necessarily work best for what you're looking for.

to get in that "normal"range you want like a 50mm would have been on film, then I would recommend looking at about a 28mm. Or the similar 24 or 35mm lenses just to make things a little easier for you.

I personally didn't like the 17-40, I thought for the price the optics should have been a bit better. I had it for about 3 days, and took it back to get the 17-35mm and am much happier, though it did cost more in the long run. However, I would not hesitate to recommend the 17-55mm F2.8. I think it is one of the best canon lenses for the $, but sadly the lens will not fit on the camera that I would want to use it on most of all, but it will fit the 60D for sure.

The 10-22 is a nice lens, it does distort a bit, but should be easy to work with.

im thinking i want something with a little zoom just incase i want to get a tad closer

Originally Posted by Spoolin335

I have then Canon 17-55 F2.8 and its a pretty awesome lens for all around use. Its pretty heavy, but the clarity is much better then the stock lens. I paid around $1400 for mine, so it might be a bit out of your price range, maybe try to find a used one.

I would like to get a 10-22 in the future for some wide angle shots.

yeah i dont have a problem saving up a little longer to get something better

[spacemonkey1112]

I've been shooting on a canon 20d for about 6 years now (has the same crop factor as your 60d) and the one concern I'd tell you to look out for is to not go TOO wide. Unless you like that look since its all the photographer's preference. But personally the barrel distortion of such wide lens is very unappealing to me. Yes is nice to know that you'll have a wide range to cover but at the edges of the photo you will get a very unflattering stretch. Assuming you want to take pictures of your car as well (since we are on e90post), you want to find a lens whose character doesn't elongate the car in places it doesn't need to. If its too wide, your images turn out amateur no matter how you edit it because you've ruined the graceful proportions of the car or you've ruined the landscape you're trying to capture. Look at any image that you think is beautiful, when you critique the work yourself, you'll notice that the image is proportional. its just more appealing to the eye rather than something that is gimmicky and too wide.

from my understanding the kit lens of the 60D is a 18-135mm. If you plan on keeping this lens then know that you're have your range covered; I personally probably would not like to go more wider than 24mm on a cropped sensor (35mm is my limit on a Full frame camera).

Taking into consideration that your 18-135 covers you a very huuge range and serves as a general purpose lens you can go about your lens selection in a couple of different ways. You can get better optics out of your general purpose lens so you have more crisp and vibrant colors in your images by going with and 'L' lens (if you're going to go for something int he more general purpose i suggest Canon's 24-70L or Tamron's equivalent of this lens).. With this lens you can still do your landscaping as well as get some decent portraits out of it. the 17-40 is too slow IMO with its F/4 and the image is too soft; it doesn't carry the sharpness i would want out of it.

If you dont go that route, I suggest getting canon's 50mm 1.4 (skipp the 1.8 and just go for the better build quality and better optics; yes its a little more expensive but for what you get for 300 bucks, damn its a bargain). Your 18-135 is incapable of getting any nice shots with decent bokeh if f/3.5 is as fast as it will go. At least with the 50mm in your arsenal you can slap that on your camera and have very beautiful bokeh and hand hold a lot of your images at night. I took the following w/ my 50mm f/1.2 of a homeless man i met while in atlanta. ISO 800 if i remember correctly


Yes with a 50mm on our camera its a little tight, but you learn to shoot with it and you adapt to situations differently. if its too tight for your taste, then go ahead and look into the 35mm f/2 (not as fast as 1.4 but still beautiful bokeh is produced).

Sorry for the long comment but I think you gotta work with what your comfortable with. if you want better optics over your 18-135, get a better general purpose lens (24-70; i think this len's optics are better than the 17-40mm). If you're content with what that lens gives you, I say get a 50mm to add a different texture to your images. I wont regret it once you see how beautiful bokeh can be.

[M_Six]

I think the wide angle effect is a matter of taste. One man's gimmick is another man's art (right, rodi?). Wide angle "tricks" can be overdone and overused, but they can also add interest to an image if used properly. Same as soft focus. Canon actually makes soft focus lenses because enough people like portraits that way. Pixel peepers may hate them, but again, it's a matter of personal style and taste.

[spacemonkey1112]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I think the wide angle effect is a matter of taste. One man's gimmick is another man's art (right, rodi?). Wide angle "tricks" can be overdone and overused, but they can also add interest to an image if used properly. Same as soft focus. Canon actually makes soft focus lenses because enough people like portraits that way. Pixel peepers may hate them, but again, it's a matter of personal style and taste.

true it is a matter of taste; but I think you gotta limit how often you use such a wide angle lens such as a 17-40 or 16-35. If your photo series is filled with shots from these lens, I think you'll lose your audience very quickly. but like you said, this is all just my opinion on photography.

as for OP, I think they need to learn about the character of each lens and choose what lens he can adapt to and work with.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by spacemonkey1112

as for OP, I think they need to learn about the character of each lens and choose what lens he can adapt to and work with.

Not just the OP. I plan on sticking a lens on my 7D and working with it exclusively for a week. Then move to the next lens for a week and so on. Most of my usual targets are along my commute, so I'll have plenty of chances to shoot the same things with different lenses to get a feel for each. I'm hoping to develop a sense of how any scene would look with a particular lens.

[Inspired]

I currently have a wide angle. I'm looking into a prime lens for the bokeh. Would a 35 or 50mm be better for my situation?

[gcochard]

The longer the focal length, the better the bokeh, aperture for aperture.

[M_Six]

^^^What he said. The 50's bokeh is better than the 35's. I have both.

[The1]

Originally Posted by twinturbo335

I currently have a wide angle. I'm looking into a prime lens for the bokeh. Would a 35 or 50mm be better for my situation?

what is your planned use for the lens? if it's all portraits, hop onto a 85, 100mm or 1 135mm

if you're looking for an all rounder, then the 50mm

If you want a good lens with nature and such, then go 35mm