Hey Guys how u doin
Printable View
Hey Guys how u doin
Welcome to the forum Amro......a first quick question that I think will help a lot of people answer your question. What would you like to use this lens for?
The 55-250 is more of a telephoto lens. Is that what you are looking for?
What he said. What type of pictures do you take most often? I use my 17-55mm f/2.8 for general photography.
Amro,
You may find Bryan
Quote:
Originally Posted by amro.amrawy
As stated, if you need a telephoto zoom lens and have a limited budget, it's a good choice. If you do decide the lens is for you, don't wait for the MkII - the only differences are cosmetic (they altered it to save a little bit on production costs, which with the large numbers of that popular lens that Canon sells means significant profit). Optically, the original and MkII are identical.
If you just want to upgrade your currently lens, the general consensus is either the 17-55mm f/2.8 or the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6
It seems the former just just just edges on image quality, and is a decent bit quicker, but the latter is a bit cheaper, a bit smaller and with more focal length range.
I
i suggest a "fast 50." the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM makes wonderful photos from f/2 and up; i haven
I like to photograph everything ... starting from landscapes & architecture to the sports , nature , portraits and products .... simply EVERYTHING ... so i needed a lens that focuses quickly, can help me in taking stunning portraits with a gr8 DOP, a lens that helps me to focus well on moving subjects for sports and wildlife , i need a lens that i can use everyday in everything ... so what do u recommend for me ??
i
Quote:
Originally Posted by amro.amrawy
Landscapes and especially architecture generally require a wide angle of view; portraits a medium telephoto; and nature a long telephoto. So the bad news is that even with an unlimited budget, the only lenses that could even approach your criteria are the mega zooms like the Tamron 18-270 ($650 on Amazon) or Canon's 28-300 ($2600 and very heavy). Even Canon's mediocre 18-200mm lens is almost $600. The general rule is that the larger the zoom range, the more you compromise in image quality.
So I think you have 3 options:
- spend some $ and buy one of the "compromise" one size fits all lenses (compromise doesn't mean poor, BTW; there are people who mount the Tamron 18-270 and never look back)
- spend some $ and buy a higher image quality lens with a more limited range such as the EF 70-200 f/4 (non-IS version at $700) or the EF 70-300 IS ($500)
- limit your budget to $120-$300 and get either the EF 50 f/1.8 or the 55-250 that you mentioned. The 50 f/1.8 will produce better image quality and will open up the whole world of low light photography without a flash, but of course it doesn't zoom; the 55-250 will get you a nice zoom range and decent image quality.
Good luck!
RE: "i
Yes i
i think you have a big chance to regret if you buy the 50-250mm zoom due to not too good IQ snd lower resell value of this lens.l would say get the 50mm1.8 too since you already have the kit lens. use it and you will find why prople like fast lens and how the shallow depth of field maked s difference.a lens for everything basically is not exist.
Amro, one thing, if you
Ham, yea really u r right and that
After shooting on film for awhile I started out with a T1i and 28-135 IS (since most of my photography was outdoors and required normal to telephoto) and eventually got a 50 1.4 for my indoor stuff (I