Which lens to replace kit lens?

[Ben Davies]

Hi.

Ignoring the Canon 18-55 2.8, is there another good lens with a fixed appeture decent for video? I can't really afford the Canon version as I'm already buying a 600D and a Tokina 11-16 2.8.

I've heard a couple of people tell me the Tamron 18-55 v2 IS is a good lense, but before getting into video I remember people not recomending the IS version as the version without it was better? Is this the case with video?

I would also consider looking at getting two primes, (28/35mm + 50mm) but don't like the fact that they lack IS.

Cheers.

[Murray Christian]

Yeah, the IS free Tamron 17-50mm is quite cheap and quite a bit sharper in testing than the IS version (VC they call it). I guess it depends on how you shoot if that's big deal or not.
The sharpness difference probably isn't a vastly big deal if it's mainly for video (unless you're using the 600Ds zoom crop a lot I guess). But let me tell ya, boy is the older one sharp.

[Jay Corcuera]

I would recommend the sigma 17-50 f2.8 with OS/IS.. I think IS/OS is crucial for video specially if your going to be doing a lot of run and gun.. When I was looking for a good zoom it was between the sigma and the tamron 17-50 2.8 vc but a's mentioned the vc version of the tamaron is noticeably softer so I went with the sigma because it's on par with the canon equivalent in terms of Image quality.. Good luck!

[Ryan Jones]

I'm with James, although I thought it was 17-55 Sigma 2.8.

Fantastic lens and you'll love it thats for sure. Hardly gets removed from my camera these days.

I was lead to believe that the Tamron IS is considerably noiser and less reliable, so went with the Sigma and haven't looked back. Beautiful bit of kit, from the lens construction to the image quality.

[Ben Davies]

Cheers for the replies, that sigma indeed looks like a good bet. Its 17-50.

How is the manual focus ring? I heard it was a little short?

[Mark Ahrens]

Yeah, that's my main concern, the short focus throw. (i'm in the market for a short zoom, too)
My Canon 50mm 1.4 has about 170˙ of range; but my Sigma 28-70 has about 90˙ or less.
At f2.8 the Sigma focus control is at the micrometer level.

You guys don't have a problem with that?
BTW - is there a definitive site for lens review that covers these issues for video? Most reviews don't take these things into account.

[Ben Davies]

Originally Posted by Ben Davies

Cheers for the replies, that sigma indeed looks like a good bet. Its 17-50.

How is the manual focus ring? I heard it was a little short?

Can anyone confirm what the Sigma is like for focusing?

[Tom Miller]

I have the Sigma 18-50mm macro 2.8f. I haven't done a whole lot of video with it yet but so far I'm impressed. AF is very fast.

I attached some test photos I took with this lens

[Brian Manning]

I have a 600d which came with a bog standard lens 18-55.2.8 aperture I think.
My friend has a Nikon lens which is 1.8 I think and he gets beautiful shots...this is because the shalower depth of filed from the larger aperture, right? HIs lens is fixed 35mm. Would a lens like this be useful for filming too or is its advantages in photos only?
And could you recommend a lens?

Other lenses I have include an expensive wide angle and cheap zoom 70-300.

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by Brian Manning

My friend has a Nikon lens which is 1.8 I think and he gets beautiful shots...this is because the shalower depth of filed from the larger aperture, right?

I have a little bit of a bias. I don't believe that shallow DoF = beauty. I use shallow DoF and other tricks to isolate subject from background and foreground sometimes, yes. And some of those are beautiful shots, too. There are those who disagree...

Having gotten that off my chest, the 18-55mm kit lens is not of the same quality as a fixed focal length 35mm f1.8, whether that's a Nikon or Canon 35. And, yes, the wider aperature will allow shallower DoF when you want it.

I have a 600d which came with a bog standard lens 18-55.2.8 aperture I think.

That would be an EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6, I'd think. The most likely "kit" lens. I'd expect a LARGE difference in picture quality between that lens and your friends Nikon 1.8.

How does your "expensive wide angle" compare to his 35/1.8?

On the other hand, and perhaps more importantly, how would you compare his eye for composition with yours?

BTW, Canon does make an outstanding EF-S 17-55mm f2.8... that still might not quite meet the quality of a good fixed focal length lens, but is really quite good. Almost 10x the cost of your 18-55, though...

[Brian Manning]

Yep, he has a good eye for composition.
My expensive wide angle was meant to be mainly used on the Panasonic AF101 but Birger never came thru with the adaptor for EOS lenses and I got some bad advice that they had. The wide angle is almost fish eye and distorts the edges of the photo. I almost never use it.
Id love to sell it and try get a decent main lens.

Would you know of a decent lens under 1000 bucks for close shots. I would be using it for both photography and videography. In that case would I be better off with a fixed 35mm lens or maybe better to get a 20-70 or 20-100 lens to give me some more reach if Im running and gunning?

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by Brian Manning

Would you know of a decent lens under 1000 bucks for close shots. I would be using it for both photography and videography. In that case would I be better off with a fixed 35mm lens or maybe better to get a 20-70 or 20-100 lens to give me some more reach if Im running and gunning?

How close are "close shots"? If I'm taking wides, mediums, and closeups (in video terms), I like that range of 17-55mm on a Canon crop sensor like the 600D. It was the first lens I bought... since then I've rented a 70-200mm IS-II f2.8... and decided I didn't want to own one, but was glad it is available to rent when needed.

But that's me, and the stuff I shoot. I knew before I bought the camera that what suits me is a wide-angle zoom. A longer lens, for me, is a sports and wildlife lens. The 17-55 is great for how I want to shoot pictures and video of people. Wide enough to use indoors and get a whole room, long enough to isolate a face at 5 feet or so. Paid $850 for this lens, locally from a private party. Here, it's about a $1200 US lens, new.

It's a great lens and perfect for me, but that's for most of what I shoot and how I shoot it. There are times I wished it were a little longer, but I don't want to sacrifice the wide to get there.

OTOH, "close shots"... you can get closeup lenses that screw on like filters, or, much better, a real macro lens. Canon makes an EF-S macro 60mm f2.8, and an EF macro 100mm 2.8 that would be good starting points. 60mm on your cam is a classic "portrait" lens length. And it's got the close focusing for flowers & butterflies, a very good looking lens. Which is great until you need a wide look!

No magic bullets, really you should be looking for the lens that best meets your needs for most of what you shoot. How do you like the range you get with your 18-55mm?

[Brian Manning]

I totally feel like you actually about how wide my 18-55 is yet with the ability to zoom a bit and get a decent isolated face shot for example. Ive never tried better glass but maybe thats what i should be aiming for as I do like the dexterity of the 18-55 when filming. I should sell my kit lens 18-55 and the wide angle and try get a lens im happy with I guess. Many thanks for all the great advice from everybody on here!