What lens should I get?

Echo · 09 Jun 2015, 3:04 pm

So I've finally decided to get my first DSLR, now I know we all have different opinions on what is best so I'm going to skip talking about what body I'm getting because at the end of the day whether I get the Canon 600D or the Nikon D3200 they're both fairly similar.

What I would really like to know is what lens should I get. I dont know what the different mm actually mean. I was told to get a wide angle but from what I can tell that is just a cheap attachment you add in front of your lens. The budget isn't exactly infinite, someone told me to get a 35mm which from what I could find is about $250 which seems a lot to spend on a lens to me. I dont know...
Would it really be so terrible if I used an 18-55mm lens which seems to be the standard lense that you can buy in a package with either of the bodies I'm looking at.
???

Having said all that I heard that you can have a cheap body and an expensive lens and take amazing shots and vice versa an expensive body with a cheap lens will take substandard shots.

Thanks, Echo.

Crispex · 09 Jun 2015, 3:09 pm

>I was told to get a wide angle but from what I can tell that is just a cheap attachment you add in front of your lens.
These 'adapters' are appalling quality and you should stick to actual wide angle lenses.

I like to browse http://www.flickriver.com/lenses/ to see what sort of image you can expect out of each lens.
You just need to make sure you get a lens that works well with the body.
Not sure what the go with the 600D is but the D3200 does not have an auto focus motor built into the body, so to use that function the lenses must have an internal motor (IF).

>Would it really be so terrible if I used an 18-55mm lens
Standard kit lens, its what 90% of my pics are taken with until I can sink more money into a lens I want to work with. You can decide if you like the wider angle 18mm shots or the ability to be close up.

f1ex · 09 Jun 2015, 5:04 pm

Rantallion · 09 Jun 2015, 5:31 pm

Tbh I'd probably just stick with the 18-55mm lens for a while, as you learn and get the hang of it.
$250 is on the cheaper side for a lens too.

phytrix · 09 Jun 2015, 5:59 pm

For my input on the body, I'd say go Nikon D3200. That's what I use and it's quite easy to use effectively.

Wide angle lenses have low mms, high mms are telephoto lenses and are used for photography of things relatively far away (usually), like for animals and sports.

So yes, you do want a wide-angle lens for the kind of places you'll be shooting in (drains and architecture, often in confined space).

The attachments to the end of lenses that you're talking about are called macro/micro lenses, both of which you'll likely never want nor need. You want an actual wide-angle lens, not an attachment.

While some may advise you to wait a while before investing in a lens, I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. Of course, in photography you are constantly learning and improving, but if you invest in a wide-angle, you can learn how to shoot with that and get some shots that you otherwise just wouldn't be able to get (i.e. drain shots). Plus, if you lose interest in photography, you can always sell your lens for minimal (or no) loss.

It wouldn't be horrible to stick with the kit lens, but you will eventually require a wide-angle, so if you have the money sitting around and are hoping to get serious about photography, I'd make the leap.

So anyhow, onto what kind of lens you want. If you think you'll only use the wide angle, then I'd suggest the Sigma 10-20mm. I recently got this and it's everything I need for the kind of photography I do. You can pick up decent condition 2nd hands for $300, but make sure you get the right mount. The Tamron 10-24mm is another lens of similar quality/price/performance. If you want something a little more versatile, I've heard good things about the Tamron 16-300mm. I don't think you'll need something with such capabilities, but you never know.

A tip I didn't get for a couple of months is to turn off the long exposure noise reduction setting, it'll save you a lot of time.

Make sure you also buy: a sturdy compact tripod (can't go wrong with Manfrotto), a camera bag, at least one SD card, a spare battery (handy, trust me!) and a lens cleaning cloth (or just go to a local glasses shop and grab one there, does the same thing).

Midget · 09 Jun 2015, 6:20 pm

Echo wrote:What I would really like to know is what lens should I get. I dont know what the different mm actually mean. I was told to get a wide angle but from what I can tell that is just a cheap attachment you add in front of your lens. The budget isn't exactly infinite, someone told me to get a 35mm which from what I could find is about $250 which seems a lot to spend on a lens to me. I dont know...

If you're mostly taking urban exploration photos, a wide angle really takes the shots one step further. Don't even consider a wide-angle attachment though, it's the biggest waste of money. Save up for a Sigma 10-20mm which you can find under $400. If you can't afford that much, the kit lens really isn't that bad. I only had a kit lens for about a year and managed some excellent shots with it. If I head out tonight, I might bring out my kit lens and see what I can do with it.

35mm as a first lens and first prime would be a little risky. It's a great focal length, but a wide angle would be more appropriate. Of course you can't go wrong with the nifty fifty. A fast lens for under $100.

But yeah, don't worry too much about lens options as long as you have one. Otherwise you'll end up like most photographers with GAS, like me... I have thousands of dollars invested in camera gear and my skill is not worth a couple thousand dollars. :/

Echo · 09 Jun 2015, 7:16 pm

Thanks for the advice guys, will update you in a couple of weeks with what I get.

Midget · 10 Jun 2015, 9:58 pm

So I didn't end up going exploring last night, but here's something I took a couple minutes ago with the kit lens. I was bored so I whipped out my 18-55mm and took photos of my other camera gear.

Here's an old one that I took with the same lens. A bit s*** because of my skill two years ago.

Echo · 10 Jun 2015, 11:09 pm

Midget wrote:...

That isn't half bad. To be fair no matter what lenses I use the pictures will be better than what I currently take. I think I'm just going to start with the kit 18-55mm and see how it goes and maybe if I find myself really enjoying photography and when I have some spare money I'll upgrade to something like the 10-20mm sigma.

Unclehaggz · 11 Jun 2015, 8:05 pm

I have only used a kit 18-55 lens @ f3.5-f5.6 , this lens died not long after I bought a 17-50 Sigma f2.8, I use this lens all the time and am pleased with the results. However I am saving hard for the 10-20 Sigma! I love the 17-50 purely for the low fstop which enables faster shutter speeds when doing abando's etc, fast in-out times!!

UH

Midget · 11 Jun 2015, 8:20 pm

Unclehaggz wrote:...

If you like fast glass, don't go for the Sigma 10-20mm. The faster version is f/3.5 yet for the same money or less, you can buy the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. *Tokina wide-angle fanboy*

The Tokina also has more resolution compared to the Sigma at all apertures.

Dross · 11 Jun 2015, 9:28 pm

I sell these for a living and generally suggest if you're not really sure about what kind of lens you want just sticking with the kit 18-55, as they will generally cost a very small amount more compared to body only vs kit price. That and they are quite a handy lens to have until you have a better lens that covers the same focal range.
After using that for a little while you will probably find you want something wider for abandos and drains or any other confined space. Here you have a few options, which most of have already been mentioned. While the tokina 11-16 is a great lens my main issue with it, unlike the sigma 10-20 f/3.5, it isn't really future proof (if there is such a thing in this day and age). The sigma will work on full frame cameras while the tokina is for crop sensors only. Having said all that most people probably wont find themselves upgrading to full frame slrs in the near future anyways.

So for the short of it. if you want a lens that will let in more light, go the tokina. If you want one that will work on future camera bodys you may get, sigma 10-20 3.5. If you're after something cheaper, tamron 10-24 or sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6.

Hope this helps

Midget · 12 Jun 2015, 12:54 am

Dross wrote:...

If you sell these for a living, you should know a couple things. I agree with everything you've said about the kit lens, but on the wide angle topic; 1) If you want to talk about future proofing, both the Tokina 11-16mm and the Sigma 10-20mm will mount on full frame cameras. Granted the Tokina really only works 14-16mm on FF and the Sigma has a larger image circle, filling the frame at 13mm onwards. However, is that difference of 1mm really more important than better resolution and larger aperture?
2)A smaller point, but still on future proofing, Sigma lenses are known to have greater incompatibilities with newer bodies. Tokina is simply better at reverse-engineering codes.

Dross · 12 Jun 2015, 1:48 am

Midget wrote: If you sell these for a living, you should know a couple things. I agree with everything you've said about the kit lens, but on the wide angle topic; 1) If you want to talk about future proofing, both the Tokina 11-16mm and the Sigma 10-20mm will mount on full frame cameras. Granted the Tokina really only works 14-16mm on FF and the Sigma has a larger image circle, filling the frame at 13mm onwards. However, is that difference of 1mm really more important than better resolution and larger aperture?
2)A smaller point, but still on future proofing, Sigma lenses are known to have greater incompatibilities with newer bodies. Tokina is simply better at reverse-engineering codes.

You're absolutely right. However, with the sigma being a couple hundred cheaper and its slight edge on image coverage for full frame I still feel its that little bit better suited for full frame bodies and better value for money. Particularly with these being primarily landscape lenses, which typically would be stopped down most of the time anyway (irrelevant for urbex i know).
As for electronic functions and build quality i can tell you from first hand experiences that sigmas (excluding art series) are inferior to a lot of lenses on the market. But for the bodies i use (canon mostly) this has never really been a big issue for me. If uncompromising compatibility is a worry, generally best to stick with nikkor/canon. Each to their own though.

Midget · 12 Jun 2015, 9:57 pm

Alright, finally went out with my kit lens. The latest entry in my journal is shot with the Canon EF-S 18-55mm at 18mm, f/8.

maizniek · 15 Jun 2015, 12:32 am

Depends where you're most likely to be taking photos. I'd suggest purchasing something wide if you're shooting in confined spaces, if not then maybe stick with a kit lens if you only have a small budget

Light Knight · 15 Jun 2015, 8:07 pm

I own the Tamron 10-24mm. It is very soft at the edges and wider than f/8, and whilst adequate for tripod based URBEX photos, is not great for detailed landscape photos or low light handheld photos.

I would consider looking at the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, or even the excellent Nikon 10-24mm (if you have the extra cash). If you want to go even wider, you could consider the Sigma 8-16mm.

Midget · 20 Jun 2015, 3:25 pm

Alternatively... Voigtlander 12mm full frame.

Crispex · 22 Jun 2015, 3:41 pm

Light Knight wrote:Sigma 8-16mm.

How much should one expect to pay for such a species?

Hmm...

Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-F5.6 $770
Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 $605
Sigma 10-20mm F4.0-F5.6 $448

Maybe I'll start at the bottom and work my way up...

No+Pro · 22 Jun 2015, 4:47 pm

Crispex wrote:
Light Knight wrote:Sigma 8-16mm.
How much should one expect to pay for such a species?

Hmm...

Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-F5.6 $770
Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 $605
Sigma 10-20mm F4.0-F5.6 $448

Maybe I'll start at the bottom and work my way up...

I've got the bottom one, couldnt justify another $150+ for a few stops i'd never use (only use it in the range of 7-11 or so) but i imagine its a nicer lens all round
the money saved went towards another faster lens anyway in the end

Crispex · 22 Jun 2015, 4:50 pm

No+Pro wrote:
Crispex wrote:
Light Knight wrote:Sigma 8-16mm.
How much should one expect to pay for such a species?

Hmm...

Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-F5.6 $770
Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 $605
Sigma 10-20mm F4.0-F5.6 $448

Maybe I'll start at the bottom and work my way up...
I've got the bottom one, couldnt justify another $150+ for a few stops i'd never use (only use it in the range of 7-11 or so) but i imagine its a nicer lens all round
the money saved went towards another faster lens anyway in the end

Do you think $448 is a fair price for the 10-20 F4-5.6? Will probs go get it tonight.

No+Pro · 22 Jun 2015, 4:52 pm

salright if you're buying it tonight. i paid $410 at CR Kennedy (aust supplier) in brisbane, theres one here:
300 Lorimer Street, Port Melbourne
Telephone:
(03) 9823 1533
but i got an email from a camera shop today saying sigma prices are going up today/tomorrow - get crackin!
added - i bought it a year or so ago though

phytrix · 22 Jun 2015, 4:57 pm

Crispex wrote: Do you think $448 is a fair price for the 10-20 F4-5.6? Will probs go get it tonight.

I too use the f4-5.6. I paid $300 second hand, in perfect condition. If you do the same you can save $150 or so, and honestly, they're usually in pretty admirable condition. Came with a warranty and all, only issue is I dropped my lens cap down a sewer, so I use cling wrap instead of a lens cap :p

No+Pro · 22 Jun 2015, 4:59 pm

No+Pro wrote:
Crispex wrote:
Light Knight wrote:Sigma 8-16mm.
How much should one expect to pay for such a species?

Hmm...

Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-F5.6 $770
Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 $605
Sigma 10-20mm F4.0-F5.6 $448

Maybe I'll start at the bottom and work my way up...
I've got the bottom one, couldnt justify another $150+ for a few stops i'd never use (only use it in the range of 7-11 or so) but i imagine its a nicer lens all round
the money saved went towards another faster lens anyway in the end

If you're in brisbane and about to take my advice re the 3.5.. dont! 3.5 for less than the 4-4.5
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod6143.htm

Crispex · 22 Jun 2015, 5:15 pm

$477 delivered still sounds like a good deal.

-
Noticed they have a Melbourne store - I'll just go there on my break tomorrow.