85mm usm and 15-85mm IS usm lens


jin1421

New Member
Aug 24, 2011
153
0
0
Singapore City, Singapore
#1
Hi guys... i thinking to get a good lens to start learning photography... some ppl says get the 85mm or 100mm usm prime lens.

but~~ some other ppl says using 15-85mm IS USM it cover for landscape and portrait.

personally i thinking the third-part lens tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc....

any bro can share yours experience?
 

TWmilkteaTW

Senior Member
May 30, 2011
2,251
1
0
#2
IMO...a standard zoom or a "multi purpose zoom" would be a great start.. meaning to say.. get either the 15-85mm or the 17-50 (if u want constant F2.8) or get those 18-200 lens which would cover most of your needs. Why.. because you are new and i believe you arent sure what kind of photography you would like? and these lens mention above give u a good coverage from wide to zoom.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#3
Just use your kit lens. Cheap and good, will let you know if this hobby is really for you.
 

jin1421

New Member
Aug 24, 2011
153
0
0
Singapore City, Singapore
#4
juz thinking from 18-55mm upgrade to other lens only. actually own 60D abt half years ago... 15-55mm is not enuf for me now....
 

TWmilkteaTW

Senior Member
May 30, 2011
2,251
1
0
#5
Then u probably need to be more detail..
15-55 is not enough... not enough in what aspect?

It might even be better if you can share with us.. what kind of photography your more interested in.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#6
juz thinking from 18-55mm upgrade to other lens only. actually own 60D abt half years ago... 15-55mm is not enuf for me now....
I presume you meant the 18-55 kit lens. I don't think there's a 15-55mm lens out there.
What exactly is lacking with this lens?
 

kelchew

New Member
Feb 25, 2011
364
0
0
bedok
#7
juz thinking from 18-55mm upgrade to other lens only. actually own 60D abt half years ago... 15-55mm is not enuf for me now....
18-55 you find not enough for you, is the range not far enough or the lens not fast enough?
if it the range can try go for 15-85, if not fast can go 17-50 f2.8
if not far and fast enough, than you got to for like 50-150 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 (bt this lens you will lost the wide)
so can keep yr kits lens and get another longer lens

jus my 2cent hope it help
 

Oct 4, 2011
65
0
6
Singapore
#8
juz thinking from 18-55mm upgrade to other lens only. actually own 60D abt half years ago... 15-55mm is not enuf for me now....
The question here really is: what is your dissatisfaction with your current 18-55, I assume it's the EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS? Next question is, are you looking for a replacement or complementary lens. From what you have written, I gather that you are finding it a little short on the telephoto aspect of your current lens. With the 60D, an APS-C camera, 18-55 gives you a FOV of 73.8 to 27.6 degree. So you want a decent portraiture lens (to fill the frame with one person and not being too close to be intimating), the 85 is good in that it is f1.8 and not too expansive. It gives you a FOV of 18 degree which at 1.5 meter, you can take a respectable PP portrait with shallow DOF at your command. Also the lens can be used on all Canon cameras, so when you later upgrade to a FF Canon, you already got a 85mm lens. So if you are not buying a replacement lens, this is the lens to go for in your titled choice. OF course, if you want to sell your existing lens then there really is no choice, isn't it.

If you tell more on what you want to do and your current setup limitations, I am sure many here will be better able to help you narrow your choice. Happy hunting.
 

cirque

New Member
Aug 3, 2010
16
0
0
#9
I have the same question too. I have a 18-55 kit on 550D but the range is not good enough. I bring it mostly when I travel and shoot landscape and portraits, not so much of fast moving sports or anything. 15-85 or 18-200? That's my question. Thanks in advance for any advice!
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#10
I have the same question too. I have a 18-55 kit on 550D but the range is not good enough. I bring it mostly when I travel and shoot landscape and portraits, not so much of fast moving sports or anything. 15-85 or 18-200? That's my question. Thanks in advance for any advice!
You need not replace the 18-55, but rather get another lens which complements it. Something like 55-250, 70-200, or 70-300, etc.
 

kelchew

New Member
Feb 25, 2011
364
0
0
bedok
#11
I have the same question too. I have a 18-55 kit on 550D but the range is not good enough. I bring it mostly when I travel and shoot landscape and portraits, not so much of fast moving sports or anything. 15-85 or 18-200? That's my question. Thanks in advance for any advice!
if it only for travel, i will replace my kit with 18-200. :)
 

kelchew

New Member
Feb 25, 2011
364
0
0
bedok
#13
If it's only for travel, I would replace my kit lens with a UWA ;)
really can just use a UWA?
i so scare to go near my subject to shoot leh..
bt i think it good to have a UWA oso.. last week i just bring my 28-75 only.. miss my UWA so much :(
 

An drew

Senior Member
May 27, 2005
3,920
9
38
#14
Hi guys... i thinking to get a good lens to start learning photography... some ppl says get the 85mm or 100mm usm prime lens.

but~~ some other ppl says using 15-85mm IS USM it cover for landscape and portrait.

personally i thinking the third-part lens tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc....

any bro can share yours experience?
You are absolutely right. You need all these lenses for your photography 85 or 100mm, 15-85 or 18-200 and 17-50 non-VC. A non-VC or non-IS lens is good as you can then learn about camera shake. In any case, the more the merrier. ;)
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#15
really can just use a UWA?
i so scare to go near my subject to shoot leh..
bt i think it good to have a UWA oso.. last week i just bring my 28-75 only.. miss my UWA so much :(
I think you are using the Toki 11-16? That one is probably a bit more restrictive with regards to focal length.
I used to use a DX body and Toki 12-24, and found it to be (by far) my most-used lens. Went on holidays with just the UWA and the 35/1.8DX.
But at the end of the day, it depends on what you intend to shoot. Then choose the most appropriate lens(es) to bring :)
 

kelchew

New Member
Feb 25, 2011
364
0
0
bedok
#16
I think you are using the Toki 11-16? That one is probably a bit more restrictive with regards to focal length.
I used to use a DX body and Toki 12-24, and found it to be (by far) my most-used lens. Went on holidays with just the UWA and the 35/1.8DX.
But at the end of the day, it depends on what you intend to shoot. Then choose the most appropriate lens(es) to bring :)
yap i m using 11-16 that y i find by just using that i need to go really really close to my subject (which i dont like, more to scare of :) )
and i like to shoot from a dist oso
y thinkn it really depends what to shoot and lens to bring.. :)
 

Oct 4, 2011
65
0
6
Singapore
#17
I have the same question too. I have a 18-55 kit on 550D but the range is not good enough. I bring it mostly when I travel and shoot landscape and portraits, not so much of fast moving sports or anything. 15-85 or 18-200? That's my question. Thanks in advance for any advice!
Good recommendation from Zerocool, I just want to add that for Sports, even more so for fast moving sports, you are going to seriously consider the following: a. Fast lens, fast lens motor(for auto focus) and long telephoto. Better still with Image Stabilization. These are very expansive attributes to have in a lens. so depending on what sports you are into, even 300 mm may not be sufficient even for APS-C cameras. The other problem with APS-C camera in such application is that with a smaller frame, you really cannot afford to crop your picture for better framing when your lens is not long enough. Another short fall of zoom lens for such application is also that these lens are almost always slow in comparison to fixed focus ones. I too says keep your short zooms and complement it with a longer zoom or even a fixed focus specific for the sports of your interest. For general purpose sports then I guess a 70-200 or 70-300 IS USM low F number would be great, but costly.
 

Sep 15, 2008
470
0
16
#18
canon 15 85 or siggy 17-70 is the good choice if u want more FL.
if u're looking for faster lens , u can choose 17-50 (Sigma, tamron or might be the expensive canon)..:):)

just keep on shooting and u'll know what ur preference
u can try by renting or using your friend lens

im a happy user of UWA (Canon 10 22) and sigma 50 150

cheers and happy shooting
 

rhino123

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 1, 2006
5,243
15
38
NA
#19
Actually none of us know what TS really wanted and why was 15-55mm not enough (and we did not know any other type of info such as budget too), if it was just the range, then get a 55-250mm to complement the 18-55mm lens. There actually is no need to get any new lens. If he/she finds that the 18-55mm is not fast enough because of whatever reasons, then get the 17-50mm f2.8 lens from either the Sigma or Tamron... or better still, get the Canon's 17-55mm f2.8.

And if he/she wanted the speed and the range, then get the popular 70-200mm f2.8 (IS or no IS).
 

Last edited:

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#20
Good recommendation from Zerocool, I just want to add that for Sports, even more so for fast moving sports, you are going to seriously consider the following: a. Fast lens, fast lens motor(for auto focus) and long telephoto. Better still with Image Stabilization. These are very expansive attributes to have in a lens. so depending on what sports you are into, even 300 mm may not be sufficient even for APS-C cameras. The other problem with APS-C camera in such application is that with a smaller frame, you really cannot afford to crop your picture for better framing when your lens is not long enough. Another short fall of zoom lens for such application is also that these lens are almost always slow in comparison to fixed focus ones. I too says keep your short zooms and complement it with a longer zoom or even a fixed focus specific for the sports of your interest. For general purpose sports then I guess a 70-200 or 70-300 IS USM low F number would be great, but costly.
Don't confuse fixed focal length (i.e. "prime") lens with fixed-focus lens :)
I used to own a very simple PnS which wasn't able to adjust focus (be it auto or manual) at all. I don't even know if such cameras still exist any more :)

Actually with a smaller sensor you get a higher pixel density, which gives you more megapixels from which to crop :) This is contrary to what you have stated.
 

Top Bottom