Help on Modest Upgrade

B

butterbescotch

Currently, I'm shooting in 600D with 50mm 1.8 in video. However, composition wise, the 80mm equivalent will limit you on practically everything, except maybe in a reaction shots. Sure, I can use the kit-lens, but that lens has an average or below average quality. The 50mm is much sharper, but then again it limits the composition.

So I'm down to either
28mm 1.8 USM
28mm 2.8
35mm 2.0
17-50mm 2.8 Tamron

I'm betting my money on the Tamron, since the zoom characteristic will give me a lot of flexibility in shooting. However, is the quality of this lens is closer than the prime? I see reviews, and they say its sharp, but I guess they're measuring it up as a zoom. Is it atleast /almost comparable with the prime lens?

Also, is it much better than the 18-55mm kit-lens?

On 28mm 1.8 USM, no doubt this is better since its prime, but somehow costs more, and since this will be a 50mm, this would really be less trouble, especially with wide aperture. but I'm wondering if the USM feature is justified with its price, should I just go with 28mm 2.8?
On 35mm 2.0, I am under the impression that a lens will be sharper if its expensive, so I'm a bit dubious about this one since it is priced less.

I can only buy one lens, so I'm having trouble which one to choose. Mainly I'm concerned about sharpness, which is dominated by the prime, and flexibility, which is dominated by the zoom.

I'd really be thankful for your insights :]
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Your 50mm is an 80mm with the 1.6x crop of the APS-C camera you're using. This is a good closeup lens.

The 18mm would be a 28.8mm (good wide angle lens without having all the fisheye distortion you start to get as you go wider than this).

After that, A nice telephoto around 80mm would be 136mm (a good medium telephoto lens)...

Then grab a 250mm for grabbing those super long 1970s full shots that flatten the entire composition into one flat image (it'll come in at 400mm equiv) with trees from the background so close your actors can lick them from a mile away!

foto6.jpg

- used without permission -
original context: http://itpworld.wordpress.com/category/argentinian-cinema/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
^I don't seem to get your point. The thing about 50mm, (or 80mm equivalent in my 600D) is that it limits my composition, that is I have to move far back to get a decent two head shot, and most likely this isn't really permissible especially in indoors. That's why I'm contemplating on having a new lens.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
USM stands for Ultra Sonic Motor on Canon lenses. They can be identified by the gold colored strobe stripe around the upper lens body. They provide quicker and quieter focusing. This is not to say that they are particularly quick or quiet, mostly just compared to the non-USM lenses. On a 1.6X APS-C camera, the 35mm lens equates to the 50mm range, which is considered a normal lens. Normal in this case refers to the lens having field of view and visual characteristics of the average human eye. Anything less than that is a wide angle lens and anything higher is telephoto. The zoom lens would give you the greatest flexibility, but may or may not be the best choice for your particular style. The 28mm 1.8 will have the best low light sensitivity and be slightly wide. I have the Canon 35mm 1.4L lens (which is a whole other animal) and it is the lens that I use the most on my full frame Canons. For video applications, I would choose the fastest lens (lowest f value) that I could afford. There is an expression in the photography world that goes, "You buy bodies but invest in glass". Also remember that some other lens mounts can be adapted to the Canon EF bodies (EF-S bodies can also use the EF mount lenses) and used lenses with older/less popular mounts can be had fairly inexpensively.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top