Need lens guide for Canon APS-C


Dec 12, 2016
10
0
0
Singapore
#1
Hi all,

I just started photography as a hobby recently. Bought a EOS 80D with the new 18-135mm USM kit lens (micro motor).

I had fun with it and now I am thinking of getting a better lens.

I am having fun with taking street photography, buildings, events and my company products at the moment. Still exploring what I am most interested in and I am leaning towards street photography and potraits.

My questions are as follow: Is the efs 17-55mm f2.8 lens sharper in comparison to the kit lens I have?

Or any kind souls can advise me any sharp lens that I can start with for APS-C camera? I would need lens stabilization as I have shaky hands.

Thank you in advance!
 

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
844
18
18
#2
Welcome.

To have more fun you need to improve/increase your knowledge of photography,the technical/hardware as well as the artistic aspects.I think you have already feel resistance to the idea..haha.

First what is sharpness? The term accutance comes in..that is the difference in edge sharpness.
Next is resolving power of the lens..whether it is well designed or not meaning cheap or expensive..
it's all a compromise to give a saleble product.It does not mean most expensive is best.
Just look at the buy/sell section of Leica and Zeiss lenses..not sharp copy?..haha.

It has also to do with your camera's image sensor,the higher the megapixel the more challenging to lens quality.In the end sharpness is your own visual perception which through post processing of image file can mitigate against camera and lens' distortions.Example if you shoot in jpeg the camera's internal image processing already "degrades" the actual output in RAW for convenience of user in that you "don't" need to process the photo by yourself in image editing software.

In image editing you can fix a lot of problems due to loss of sharpness.Too technical to describe here.Bare in mind that even if everything is sharp corner to corner if the photo has no artistic merit? You can actually have a blurry photo and still be beautiful and artistic.So don't get worked up or be hyped by other peoples' opinion and websites.This is not photography, it's about telling stories and invoking feelings through visual beauty or no beauty like disaster/war.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sharpness.htm

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/17/perceptual-megapixel-mtf-charts-boiled-down-to-a-single-number/

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/content/rules-thumb-finding-your-lens-sweet-spot

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/how-test-your-lens

Next comes your question about EFS 17-55 F2.8, this lens is specifically designed for apsc format.
Like all lenses it is a design compromise.If to read the review linked below, it's best advantage is lens stabalisation but suffers from vignetting at all focal range like old people vision and other faults.

It's all in your mind..do not label yourself as shaky hands and think you are that.If you follow photography guideline of using shutter speed which is double the focal length, eg. 50mm = 1/100 sec.
chances are you should get a stable and sharp image if the focus is correct..haha.

So what's going for 17-55mm is IS and brand, if you want that then spend the money but I think you want sure thing right? Of course you can buy the L series pro lenses for FF(full frame) sensor but you have to take account for 1.5/6 magnification factor..lens becomes tele.It only sucks for wide angle.Do more research of "better" lenses canon or 3rd. party.;)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-s-17-55mm-f2.8-is-usm/review/

Lastly your shooting style for street and portraits.They are actually the opposite.Street= stealth
unless you disregard peoples' privacy and anger/suspicion.Meaning you can't normally get close enough and lighting conditions are not ideal..low light or indoors require fast lenses but big apertures have shallow depth of field so a wide angle like mobile phone is advantageous but you want better image quality, not to mention size and weight..hmm. Stick with your kit lens?

For portraits people's obsession with sharpness..sharp but lifeless photos? There are many technical
knowledge about about different portrait genres..person,group and lighting methods.Needless to say
hardware like focal length of lenses for different effects and perspectives, again too technical to describe unless what you want is just a snapshot.Be patient and learn more before deciding on lenses.;) The kit lens is already portrait ready.
 

Last edited:

Ah Keong

Senior Member
Dec 3, 2014
612
8
18
North
#3
Hi all,

I just started photography as a hobby recently. Bought a EOS 80D with the new 18-135mm USM kit lens (micro motor).

I had fun with it and now I am thinking of getting a better lens.

I am having fun with taking street photography, buildings, events and my company products at the moment. Still exploring what I am most interested in and I am leaning towards street photography and potraits.

My questions are as follow: Is the efs 17-55mm f2.8 lens sharper in comparison to the kit lens I have?

Or any kind souls can advise me any sharp lens that I can start with for APS-C camera? I would need lens stabilization as I have shaky hands.

Thank you in advance!

If you don't mind 3rd party lens, I would recommend Sigma 18-35mm for street and Sigma 50-100mm for portraits. Both do not have optical stabilization.

Another way is to get primes lens say Canon 35mm f/2 IS and the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC. Do note that the 85mm is a bit tight for indoor portraits and you need to have space.

For street, I prefer to use my Olympus m4/3 and 17mm. :D
 

Last edited:

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,613
42
48
Pasir Ris
#4
I just started photography as a hobby recently. Bought a EOS 80D with the new 18-135mm USM kit lens (micro motor).
USM is not micro motor. I think you got the STM version, stepping motor.

I had fun with it and now I am thinking of getting a better lens.
Can you share with us what the kit lens cannot do for you in these early stages? What is lacking, missing? What do you expect the other lenses to do better?
Have you checked any of the many review sites to get a neutral side-by-side comparison of those lenses you are looking at?

What is your budget?
 

Dec 12, 2016
10
0
0
Singapore
#5
Thank you all for the advises.

I actually shoot and process in RAWs using adobe lightroom or adobe camera raw.

I am currently still experimenting. I did read a lot on the internet and youtube. Fiddled with a friend's 50D for a few weeks and read quite a bit before deciding to take the plunge.

For street photography, I don't mind being not stealthy. At least I have not met with any objections as yet. Haha.

I saw one youtube video saying it is not advisable to put lens designed for full-frame on aps-c and they showed the sharpness calculation. There was actually a tremendous drop in sharpness index(?), making me kinda regret getting a aps-c cam. And I was actually considering ef24-70 f4L or ef24-105mm f4L. That video seriously changed my mind and I am confused as of now. Lol

Which is why I am asking for recommendations for sharp lens.

My friend did give me a Tamron 18-270mm as a gift. But it is not as good in sharpness compare to the kit lens that came with my 80D (18-135mm).

There is a lack of comparison between my kit lens and the efs 17-55mm f2.8 lens, though the reviews for both my kit lens and the 17-55 was pretty good. So I am asking if anyone has tested both lens and compare the sharpness, vignetting etc. My kit lens is pretty soft on the edges.

For now, I guess I want a good travel lens that is better than my kit lens.

Probably gonna add on a prime lens for bokeh fun and most likely a canon 100-400L lens to try out birding.

Budget for a good travel lens, I guess anything below $3,000?

I do not mind 3rd party lens, but Tamron did gave me a bad experience, being worse than my kit lens.

Sigma, I read a lot and I think their problem is with the soft edges(?) but definitely sharper than Tamron lens (similar focal lengths).

So, please kindly advise. Thank you all!
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,613
42
48
Pasir Ris
#6
I saw one youtube video saying it is not advisable to put lens designed for full-frame on aps-c and they showed the sharpness calculation. There was actually a tremendous drop in sharpness index(?), making me kinda regret getting a aps-c cam. And I was actually considering ef24-70 f4L or ef24-105mm f4L. That video seriously changed my mind and I am confused as of now. Lol
Please share the link, we also want to have a good laugh. Seriously, either you misunderstood something or there is a fundamental flaw in this 'comparison'.
I many reviews, lenses for FF actually give slightly better results on APS-C sensors because the cameras use the smaller, central areas of the image where all lenses fare better than on the extreme borders. This also applies to vignetting which is an effect at the image borders.

My friend did give me a Tamron 18-270mm as a gift. But it is not as good in sharpness compare to the kit lens that came with my 80D (18-135mm).
Super zoom lenses like the Tamron have to make compromises to achieve the zoom range. You have found one of them.

There is a lack of comparison between my kit lens and the efs 17-55mm f2.8 lens, though the reviews for both my kit lens and the 17-55 was pretty good.
Have a look here
The camera model (here 60D selected) doesn't matter much, but you can chose 7D2 as well.
To me, the differences are small and in some aspects the 18-135 looks better than the (much older) 17-55. You can also check other lenses. But bear in mind: this is a lab test. Not everything that you spot here is relevant in real life. On top, LR has plenty of tools to correct lens errors, like distortion, vignetting and CA.
Do compare multiple reviews. Keep in mind, every review has a different bias or agenda. Some are into pixel peeping, others look also at practical aspects.
 

Dec 12, 2016
10
0
0
Singapore
#7
Please share the link, we also want to have a good laugh. Seriously, either you misunderstood something or there is a fundamental flaw in this 'comparison'.
I many reviews, lenses for FF actually give slightly better results on APS-C sensors because the cameras use the smaller, central areas of the image where all lenses fare better than on the extreme borders. This also applies to vignetting which is an effect at the image borders.


Super zoom lenses like the Tamron have to make compromises to achieve the zoom range. You have found one of them.


Have a look

The camera model (here 60D selected) doesn't matter much, but you can chose 7D2 as well.
To me, the differences are small and in some aspects the 18-135 looks better than the (much older) 17-55. You can also check other lenses. But bear in mind: this is a lab test. Not everything that you spot here is relevant in real life. On top, LR has plenty of tools to correct lens errors, like distortion, vignetting and CA.
Do compare multiple reviews. Keep in mind, every review has a different bias or agenda. Some are into pixel peeping, others look also at practical aspects.
Should be this: YDbUIfB5YUc

Sorry I can't post link. So only putting the last part of the youtube video.

Summary from what I get: EF lens on aps-c for wild-life/birding and efs lens for aps-c lens for normal situations.

Probably you can advise me where did I misunderstood.

I also get that super-zoom lens drop in quality. But whenever I watch the comparison videos between Tamron, Sigma and Canon lens, Tamron always lose. Lol.

Thank you again for the many links, help and advise. I truly appreciate it as a newbie. :)
 

Ah Keong

Senior Member
Dec 3, 2014
612
8
18
North
#8
Thank you all for the advises.

I actually shoot and process in RAWs using adobe lightroom or adobe camera raw.

I am currently still experimenting. I did read a lot on the internet and youtube. Fiddled with a friend's 50D for a few weeks and read quite a bit before deciding to take the plunge.

For street photography, I don't mind being not stealthy. At least I have not met with any objections as yet. Haha.

I saw one youtube video saying it is not advisable to put lens designed for full-frame on aps-c and they showed the sharpness calculation. There was actually a tremendous drop in sharpness index(?), making me kinda regret getting a aps-c cam. And I was actually considering ef24-70 f4L or ef24-105mm f4L. That video seriously changed my mind and I am confused as of now. Lol

Which is why I am asking for recommendations for sharp lens.

My friend did give me a Tamron 18-270mm as a gift. But it is not as good in sharpness compare to the kit lens that came with my 80D (18-135mm).

There is a lack of comparison between my kit lens and the efs 17-55mm f2.8 lens, though the reviews for both my kit lens and the 17-55 was pretty good. So I am asking if anyone has tested both lens and compare the sharpness, vignetting etc. My kit lens is pretty soft on the edges.

For now, I guess I want a good travel lens that is better than my kit lens.

Probably gonna add on a prime lens for bokeh fun and most likely a canon 100-400L lens to try out birding.

Budget for a good travel lens, I guess anything below $3,000?

I do not mind 3rd party lens, but Tamron did gave me a bad experience, being worse than my kit lens.

Sigma, I read a lot and I think their problem is with the soft edges(?) but definitely sharper than Tamron lens (similar focal lengths).

So, please kindly advise. Thank you all!
I would say to a certain extent you are correct. It would be beneficial that you match aps-c lens for aps-c body unless there is no choice like wildlife.

You can see the Sigma reviews of the 18-35mm / 50-100mm duet here.

[video=youtube;YDbUIfB5YUc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc[/video]

Ask the Photographer EP 2 | Full Frames Lenses on Crop - Worth It?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0vkOi9HweU

Sigma 18-35 f1.8 review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojXW9F1CnfA

Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 ART Full Review + Image Quality Examination
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jHsQPpMrIk
 

Last edited:

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,613
42
48
Pasir Ris
#9
Inserting the link to the video for others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc
I took the time to watch thee video, my throughts:
1) It's a technical, pixel-peeping analysis. DxO mark is abut pixel-peeping only.
2) It uses an artificial benchmark of 'perceived megapixels', similar to their sensor mark. Such units of measurements always need references. Most standard reviews use established units of measurement for resolution with clear references.
3) The recommendation to use long FF lenses on APS-C for wildlife somehow hints that there can't be a loss of something, right?
Use the previously given link, select your FF lens and compare it on two different bodies: FF and APS-C. You will notice the crop factor impact immediately. But are you able to point out a distinctive difference in the image quality? Because that's what the video suggest: FF lenses lose out dramatically when put on any APS-C body.
If you still can't believe it, there is a last and most recommended option: rent the lenses you have in mind. Use them at the same focal length and do your own side by side comparison. See for yourself if you can spot how FF lenses lose out against their APS-C counterparts, or whatever the result will be.
As a last advice: most people will be more impressed by other factors (or disappointed by the lack thereof), rather than by the lens or body you used to capture the image. Some seniors here put it like: 70% is composition, the moment, the story, the emotions .. and 30% is the equipment that you had at hand. Now, why spending so much on something that only contributes up to 30%? Or, as some other famous photographer put it: There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a blur concept. I hope you get the drift :)
 

one eye jack

Senior Member
Jun 11, 2011
844
18
18
#10
Should be this: YDbUIfB5YUc

Sorry I can't post link. So only putting the last part of the youtube video.

Summary from what I get: EF lens on aps-c for wild-life/birding and efs lens for aps-c lens for normal situations.

Probably you can advise me where did I misunderstood.

I also get that super-zoom lens drop in quality. But whenever I watch the comparison videos between Tamron, Sigma and Canon lens, Tamron always lose. Lol.

Thank you again for the many links, help and advise. I truly appreciate it as a newbie. :)

Apsc camera get longer reach if use FF lens because 1.5 crop factor.Whether image sharp or not depends on few factors.

There is this thread in : why-is-ff-sharper-than-crop-body-for-the-same-framing-of-the-same-object
16 pages long since 2013..angmoh like to stimulate their minds..haha.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12448.0

TS I feel for you for your confusion.Not to worry you will understand in time.:)

Now look at zoom lenses vis-a-vis zoom ratio:

Tamron 18-270 = 1:15
canon 18-135 = 1:7.5
canon 100-400L = 1:4
tamron/sigma 150-600 = 1:4

Notice the zoom ratio get smaller as image quality improves? Of course sigma is winning the game for
150-600mm.That's life because they use flourite for some lens elements like canon.;)Nothing is perfect in real life.

PS flourite is not glass but an element..it can dissolve in water.How they use it I don't know.
 

Last edited:
Dec 12, 2016
10
0
0
Singapore
#11
I would say to a certain extent you are correct. It would be beneficial that you match aps-c lens for aps-c body unless there is no choice like wildlife.

You can see the Sigma reviews of the 18-35mm / 50-100mm duet here.


Ask the Photographer EP 2 | Full Frames Lenses on Crop - Worth It?

Sigma 18-35 f1.8 review

Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 ART Full Review + Image Quality Examination
Yah. I already saw the reviews on Sigma 18-35mm and 50-100mm. And I am leaning towards getting the Sigma 18-35mm but is worried as there's no stabilization.

Thx for the links!

Inserting the link to the video for others:
I took the time to watch thee video, my throughts:
1) It's a technical, pixel-peeping analysis. DxO mark is abut pixel-peeping only.
2) It uses an artificial benchmark of 'perceived megapixels', similar to their sensor mark. Such units of measurements always need references. Most standard reviews use established units of measurement for resolution with clear references.
3) The recommendation to use long FF lenses on APS-C for wildlife somehow hints that there can't be a loss of something, right?
Use the previously given link, select your FF lens and compare it on two different bodies: FF and APS-C. You will notice the crop factor impact immediately. But are you able to point out a distinctive difference in the image quality? Because that's what the video suggest: FF lenses lose out dramatically when put on any APS-C body.
If you still can't believe it, there is a last and most recommended option: rent the lenses you have in mind. Use them at the same focal length and do your own side by side comparison. See for yourself if you can spot how FF lenses lose out against their APS-C counterparts, or whatever the result will be.
As a last advice: most people will be more impressed by other factors (or disappointed by the lack thereof), rather than by the lens or body you used to capture the image. Some seniors here put it like: 70% is composition, the moment, the story, the emotions .. and 30% is the equipment that you had at hand. Now, why spending so much on something that only contributes up to 30%? Or, as some other famous photographer put it: There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a blur concept. I hope you get the drift :)
So I guess I will stay on the idea of putting FF lens on APS-C camera is fine as my eyes can't really differentiate the minute difference?

Apsc camera get longer reach if use FF lens because 1.5 crop factor.Whether image sharp or not depends on few factors.

There is this thread in : why-is-ff-sharper-than-crop-body-for-the-same-framing-of-the-same-object
16 pages long since 2013..angmoh like to stimulate their minds..haha.

TS I feel for you for your confusion.Not to worry you will understand in time.:)

Now look at zoom lenses vis-a-vis zoom ratio:

Tamron 18-270 = 1:15
canon 18-135 = 1:7.5
canon 100-400L = 1:4
tamron/sigma 150-600 = 1:4

Notice the zoom ratio get smaller as image quality improves? Of course sigma is winning the game for
150-600mm.That's life because they use flourite for some lens elements like canon.;)Nothing is perfect in real life.

PS flourite is not glass but an element..it can dissolve in water.How they use it I don't know.
Haha. No worries. I don't have the intention to study into minute details of how flourite is applied on etc etc. I just wanna learn more on improving my photography skills and trying out different lens and determining which area I am most passionate about. Though now I do love street photography as I capture moments of natural expressions and body languages. Portrait-wise, I am loving the bokeh and the expression of the person. But it's either my skills are badly lacking or the kit lens I'm using, the f-stops are too high (f3.5-f5.6).

And in just 2 months plus, I have tested and taken over 20k photos. Hahaha. Many still unprocessed. -.-"""

Thank you all and I will need time to digest the articles/video links you guys have posted. :)
 

Apr 14, 2010
439
2
18
SG
www.flickr.com
#12
I am using the 80D Kit II (18-135), so I'm on common ground with you. My suggestion, from a practical and not technical point of view, would be:

1. If you're new to photography, you already have a good camera & lens. Experiment taking at Av mode 24mm, f/4 to f/8, ISO in Auto and you will be surprised how sharp a kit lens can be if used properly in moderate and good lighting.

2. Spending a lot on buying more lenses when you're new to photography without first learning fully with your 80D kit might not necessarily yield good photos.

3. If you can spare $400-500 after familiarising enough with your kit, consider getting the EF-S 55-250 STM. It is an excellently sharp lens for travelling to complement the 18-135. It is light and slim, excellent for travelling.

4. When your basic skills are sound and grounded, you can consider the very sharp and relatively inexpensive L lens (the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM) for about $1300-1400. Nowadays when I travel, that's the only lens I use. I bring my 55-250 STM for an occasional long reach.

5. When you're ready for wildlife photography (minus bird photography), say in a zoo or park environment, experiment with the 55-250 STM. When you can achieve good and sharp photos, you can then consider the EF 100-400mm Mk II but it will cost you $3000 when fitted with a good filter to protect the front glass. BUT, make sure you're ready before you take this big step because you will also need to spend $500 or more on a steady tripod and ball or gimbal head.

6. When you're really, really ready for bird photography, the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary at about $1500 (or less) is an excellent lens to start with. You can add on a Sigma 1.4x extender and a USB dock for calibration. The 100-400 II will not give you the reach for birds. 600mm x 1.4 (extension) x 1.6 (with 80D) gives 1344mm. That, can reach birds quite well. In fact, I only use the 1.4x occasionally because auto-focusing is much faster without it. A really steady tripod and gimbal head would be necessary for birding.

7. All of the above, I've done (and more); I don't normally suggest things to anyone in Clubsnap that I've read from other sources but only from my own experience and equipment ownership because careless suggestions from more experienced members & careless buying by newer members waste hard-earned money. (Don't believe anyone who says selling cameras and gears are easy in Clubsnap or anywhere else; they are only so if you take a substantial loss, and also provided you can find the buyer. Browse and see how many unsold items there are in Clubsnap classified will make you cautious enough to only buy when you need and want to use for the long haul. It is, in my opinion, the most painful part of a photography hobby to have to sell equipment. Thankfully, I've not made that mistake so far but when I wanted to replace my equipment like selling the 550D and 70D when moving to newer camera model, each one with their own 18-135mm kit lens, they were tedious and time-wasting to sell to say the least.) Don't spend unnecessarily and don't try to do too many things, that's my sincere suggestion.

8. I did all of the above over 5-6 years. You're welcome to see the fruits of my slow but enjoyable photography journey as a hobby in my Flickr.com site.

9. My final suggestion for you is: Unless you've used your 80D Kit for 1-2 years, better to save the $ and learn to take better photos and find your own conclusion after 1-2 years which genre(s) you will like for the long haul and want to pursue - street photography, portraits, travel photography, wildlife (animals) or birds - then buy the right equipment for the one or two you've come to really like. You must not only have the money; more importantly, you must not under-estimate the time, or lack of it, that you're committing to this hobby. The day you decide you don't want photography as a hobby and want to earn from it, you need to consult the experienced professionals here in Clubsnap or in other forum; that's another world altogether.

Happy photographing.

:cool:

PS: I only use the Canon Digital Professional that comes with the 80D and the freeware Gimp to edit my photos. I don't use Lightroom or Photoshop although I know how to use these.

PS 2: Don't buy the 17-55 f/2.8. It is a very old lens with older technology. More often than not, your 18-135 kit lens on your 80D can perform better than that lens anytime. To think you really need an f/2.8 aperture is often unrealistic, especially for a beginner. For most occasions, f/3.5 or f/4 is more than enough, even in dim winter light below zero deg C.
 

Last edited:
Dec 12, 2016
10
0
0
Singapore
#13
I am using the 80D Kit II (18-135), so I'm on common ground with you. My suggestion, from a practical and not technical point of view, would be:

1. If you're new to photography, you already have a good camera & lens. Experiment taking at Av mode 24mm, f/4 to f/8, ISO in Auto and you will be surprised how sharp a kit lens can be if used properly in moderate and good lighting.

2. Spending a lot on buying more lenses when you're new to photography without first learning fully with your 80D kit might not necessarily yield good photos.

3. If you can spare $400-500 after familiarising enough with your kit, consider getting the EF-S 55-250 STM. It is an excellently sharp lens for travelling to complement the 18-135. It is light and slim, excellent for travelling.

4. When your basic skills are sound and grounded, you can consider the very sharp and relatively inexpensive L lens (the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM) for about $1300-1400. Nowadays when I travel, that's the only lens I use. I bring my 55-250 STM for an occasional long reach.

5. When you're ready for wildlife photography (minus bird photography), say in a zoo or park environment, experiment with the 55-250 STM. When you can achieve good and sharp photos, you can then consider the EF 100-400mm Mk II but it will cost you $3000 when fitted with a good filter to protect the front glass. BUT, make sure you're ready before you take this big step because you will also need to spend $500 or more on a steady tripod and ball or gimbal head.

6. When you're really, really ready for bird photography, the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary at about $1500 (or less) is an excellent lens to start with. You can add on a Sigma 1.4x extender and a USB dock for calibration. The 100-400 II will not give you the reach for birds. 600mm x 1.4 (extension) x 1.6 (with 80D) gives 1344mm. That, can reach birds quite well. In fact, I only use the 1.4x occasionally because auto-focusing is much faster without it. A really steady tripod and gimbal head would be necessary for birding.

7. All of the above, I've done (and more); I don't normally suggest things to anyone in Clubsnap that I've read from other sources but only from my own experience and equipment ownership because careless suggestions from more experienced members & careless buying by newer members waste hard-earned money. (Don't believe anyone who says selling cameras and gears are easy in Clubsnap or anywhere else; they are only so if you take a substantial loss, and also provided you can find the buyer. Browse and see how many unsold items there are in Clubsnap classified will make you cautious enough to only buy when you need and want to use for the long haul. It is, in my opinion, the most painful part of a photography hobby to have to sell equipment. Thankfully, I've not made that mistake so far but when I wanted to replace my equipment like selling the 550D and 70D when moving to newer camera model, each one with their own 18-135mm kit lens, they were tedious and time-wasting to sell to say the least.) Don't spend unnecessarily and don't try to do too many things, that's my sincere suggestion.

8. I did all of the above over 5-6 years. You're welcome to see the fruits of my slow but enjoyable hobby photography journey in my Flickr.com site.

9. My final suggestion for you is: Unless you've used your 80D Kit for 1-2 years, better to save the $ and learn to take better photos and find your own conclusion after 1-2 years which genre(s) you will like for the long haul and want to pursue - street photography, portraits, travel photography, wildlife (animals) or birds - then buy the right equipment for the one or two you've come to really like. You must not only have the money; more importantly, you must not under-estimate the time, or lack of it, that you're committing to this hobby. The day you decide you don't want photography as a hobby and want to earn from it, you need to consult the experienced professionals here in Clubsnap or in other forum; that's another world altogether.

Happy photographing.

:cool:

PS: I only use the Canon Digital Professional that comes with the 80D and the freeware Gimp to edit my photos. I don't use Lightroom or Photoshop although I know how to use these.

PS 2: Don't buy the 17-55 f/2.8. It is a very old lens with older technology. More often than not, your 18-135 kit lens can perform better than that lens. To think you really need an f/2.8 lens is often unrealistic, especially for a beginner. For most occasions, f/3.5 or f/4 is more than enough.
Thank you for the advice!

Yap. I stated in an earlier post that since my purchase in mid sept, I have taken more than 20k photos because I was learning and testing all the different modes, ISO, Aperture, f-stops, different settings (from morning till night and in enclosed areas to museum) and lighting.

I am always on AV mode whenever I am doing street photography and setting ISO anything between 400 to 1600 depending on lighting conditions and shutter speed. Actually I use AV mode most of the time. Haha.

I just realise that when it comes to fast apertures, the sides get pretty soft but if i use a higher aperture, the shutter speed is slower and it's harder to capture moving objects unless I cranked the ISO pretty high. So when I read the reviews on efs 17-55mm lens, it seems that it's still pretty sharp at low apertures. So I wanted more advice from experience photographers like you and others to see if the lens is worth is and is it sharper than my kit lens.

I do have the intention to purchase a FF camera but like you say, probably in a couple more years since I have too many things to learn. So I also don't mind spending on FF lens since I can use it on my future FF camera.

Oh yes. Is Sigma 150-600 better than Tamron 150-600mm? I watched a youtube saying the Tamron is softer on APS-C camera. When you mount the Sigma with 1.4x converter, wouldn't the photo quality be much softer? Yes. I wanna take the moon too. Hahahaha.

And nah.. I don't think I will step into the world of paid professional photography. Haha. I just enjoy capturing moments and enjoying the photography "art".
 

Apr 14, 2010
439
2
18
SG
www.flickr.com
#14
Unless you try to split hair, both the Tamron & Sigma 150-600 are just as good, judging from my birding friends' photos. Unlike using a FF camera, all of the edge or corner softness issues are quite irrelevant when an EF lens is on an APS-C body. I don't own a FF camera so I don't know how it will result when the 150-600 is used with it. If you don't already know, the FF 6D Mark II will be launched next Spring.

From my own experience, depending on lighting condition, some photos with the 1.4x are just as good as without it, sometimes even better depending on how I take them.

I can say that the 80D pairs very well with its native 18-135 kit lens; the EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM especially; the EF 100-400 L II; the Sigma 150-600C and the EF-S 55-250 STM.

I'll end here and let other experienced users guide you further. Have fun choosing your next lens.
 

Last edited:

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,613
42
48
Pasir Ris
#15
I just realise that when it comes to fast apertures, the sides get pretty soft but if i use a higher aperture, the shutter speed is slower and it's harder to capture moving objects unless I cranked the ISO pretty high. So when I read the reviews on efs 17-55mm lens, it seems that it's still pretty sharp at low apertures. So I wanted more advice from experience photographers like you and others to see if the lens is worth is and is it sharper than my kit lens.
1) Welcome to the exposure triangle. More can be found in the sticky introduction threads here on top.
2) All lenses have (more or less pronounced) soft corners and border areas.
3) Verify whether you really need this corner sharpness. Paying 4 digits for the sake of having it might be a bit far fetched. On the other hand: in low light you might work with the center AF anyway, so your subject will be there and corner sharpness is less important.
 

Ah Keong

Senior Member
Dec 3, 2014
612
8
18
North
#16
Yah. I already saw the reviews on Sigma 18-35mm and 50-100mm. And I am leaning towards getting the Sigma 18-35mm but is worried as there's no stabilization.

Thx for the links!
Welcome.

In my opinion, you can get advice, rent the equipment, learn from the experience from the others and at the end of the day decide on it.

Once decided, don't look back and focus on the other more important areas in the art like composition, lighting, etc etc.

If you have the budget, I would recommend lens from the OEM (Canon / Nikon / Sony / Olympus / Fujifilm / etc). It took me one month of research and testing before I bite the bullet and get the Sigma 18-35mm, next is to work on my technique to use and hold a non-stabilized glass.

The equipment is like tools for the artist (you) to create your masterpiece. Every tool has pros and cons so enjoy the headache and enjoy your tools! It would be a frustration to use tools which you do not like.

Enjoy shooting! :D
 

Nikonzen

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2014
2,570
13
0
48
Oklahoma, USA
#17
TS you mention interest in Sigma 18-35 but are apprehensive about camera shake. When using wide lenses one is able to use slower shutter speeds and because dof is greater it is less of a problem. Image stabilization is not that big of a deal on wider lenses. You'll see image stabilization more so in telephoto lenses. Image stabilization can help to achieve a stop or more of lattitude but that is not as important with a wide lens as it is with the telephoto. Moral - don't be afraid of 18-35 Siggy or any wider lenses due to lack of stabilization! :)
 

Last edited:

Edwin Francis

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2006
883
3
18
www.sgwriter.com
#18
This far into a gear discussion and no one has used the word "investment"! *haha*

Personally, I think you're suffering from the new-gear itch all of us go through. New, more expensive gear doesn't make as much of a difference as many people think and hope (certainly not as much as the manufacturers want you to believe). If you have money to burn, buy the latest and the greatest. If you don't, may I suggest renting (if you can't borrow). Camwerkz, for example, lists lenses like the 17-55/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 for $30+.

Take it out for a spin. There's much more to a lens than just sharpness.
 

Last edited:

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#19
This far into a gear discussion and no one has used the word "investment"! *haha*

Personally, I think you're suffering from the new-gear itch all of us go through. New, more expensive gear doesn't make as much of a difference as many people think and hope (certainly not as much as the manufacturers want you to believe). If you have money to burn, buy the latest and the greatest. If you don't, may I suggest renting (if you can't borrow). Camwerkz, for example, lists lenses like the 17-55/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 for $30+.

Take it out for a spin. There's much more to a lens than just sharpness.


better gears = good photography
sharp photos = good photos
having more gears = advance photographer

that is what most people believe,
never mind, just hope that someday they may understand what is photography. :)
 

Bluesubm6

New Member
Feb 29, 2016
109
0
0
The Woodlands in the North
#20
And in just 2 months plus, I have tested and taken over 20k photos. Hahaha. Many still unprocessed. -.-"""

Thank you all and I will need time to digest the articles/video links you guys have posted. :)
How many is many still unprocessed? Why shoot 20k if you cant or dont processs the RAW files.
 

Top Bottom