Which lens for Beginner with 60D body

[karyn_blandon]

<p>Hi,<br />I'm really new to all this, I am about to purchase my first DSLR and have decided on the 60D, my question is what lens do I purchase? Do I get a kit lens or do I purchase a separate lens? <br />My budget is pretty tight at the moment until I get a bit better and save up some more $$.<br />I have a young family, so therefore, will be looking at taking lots of nice "people" shots but we also travel a bit so I want a good set up for taking some nice shots whilst traveling (people, as well as architecture, landscapes etc)<br />I can afford to get two cheaper lenses or one more expensive one.. But don't REALLY want to spend more than $600 on lenses if I can help it!<br />What do you think would be the best to get me going? I am planning on doing a course in a bout 6 or so months when I've finished my studies.<br />Thanks in advance!<br />Karyn</p>

[jdebever]

<p>Karyn,<br>

i'd go for the kit lens and get yourself a flash (430 ex ii).<br>

And if you have $100 left, add the 50 1.8<br>

j.</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>If the budget is really tight, live with the EF-S 18-55 IS (cheapest kit lens). It's not bad but is really cheap feeling compared to the camera and lacks a distance scale (something I use a lot!). If you can swing it, the EF-S 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM offers a step up in image quality, faster AF, more zoom range and much better IS and build. The 60D popup flash is good enough for fill and snapshots so I'd hold off on buying a larger external flash until you get some skill and direction under your belt.</p>

<p>My 15-85 review:</p>

<p>http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs15-85.htm</p>

[hmbischops]

<p>Hi Karyn,<br>

a few years ago I've been in precisely your situation when I went for my 40D that times. In the end I decided to avoid the 'cheap' lenses like the 18-55 and got me the EF-S 17-85/4,0-5,6 IS USM which was available bundled with the body like it is today with the 60D.<br>

In addition I bought the EF 70-300/4,0-5,6 IS USM which is about 480,- EUR today at my local trader.<br>

If that fits to your budget - nice. If not so - my recommendation anyway is: Avoid those 'cheap' stuff. Pick a decent part that fits to your budget and wait for the next part as long as it takes to refresh the budget. IMHO the 'cheap' stuff in the end is the most expensive because if in a few month you will be able to spend the money for e.g. the EF-S 17-85 and you allready have the EF-S 18-55 it will be anger or a waste.</p>

<p>All the best<br>

Michael</p>

 

[michaeljlawson]

<p>Karyn,<br>

You are going to get a ton of suggestions from Canon primes , specifically 50mm 1.8 to Canon zooms including the 55-250 and 70-300, probably even the 70-200's and everything inbetween. Then you will see the other manufactures like Tamron (which I use mostly), Sigma, etc. If you don't know what you want yet or don't know what features of the different lenses are, keep your money in your pocket. I would agree with Jan and get the Kit lens and a flash. Figure out what you are missing....need more reach, look at the 70-300s, need wider for landscapes, look at the EFS 10-22. Decide you want to do indoor portraits, look at lighting accessories. There is no need to spend 500.00+ extra dollars today if you aren't sure what's going to make you happy yet.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Another thing to remember is that if you buy used lenses, you can almost always sell them for exactly the same price....</p>

<p>In your shoes, for what you are describing, the kit lens won't be enough by itself - I'd suggest a superzoom (18-135, 18-200, 18-270, etc. ) plus a fast prime (50/1.8) --doable for your budget, and it gives you enough flexibility to learn, plus the 50/1.8 gives you something fast enough for portraits and kids. </p>

<p>Remember, in untrained hands, the best DSLR is no better than a decent P&S, it's your skills that allow it to shine, teach yourself how to shoot, and you'll never regret it.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Karyn, the best general purpose zoom for APS-C bodies is likely the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. It does a great job with people, and should be pretty good for architecture and landscapes as well. An alternative is the EF-S 15-85/3.5-5.6; it's slower, and therefore won't be as good in low light or with fast moving subjects, but it has more range.</p>

<p>Both the 17-55 and 15-85 have Image Stabilization (IS), which reduces the effects of camera movement and therefore delivers sharper images than comparable lenses without it. You'll likely be able to find a used copy of either of these zooms for close to your budget, or have a new one bundled with your 60D when you purchase it.</p>

<p>As a second, later purchase, I'd highly recommend the EF 70-200/4 L IS. It's the lens I use by far the most to photograph my kids outdoors, and works exceptionally well on both my full frame and APS-C bodies.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Get the fine little EFS 18-55mm IS kit lens. It is a fine performer. It is inexpensive. The image stabilization (IS) feature is likely to be useful. It covers the core focal length range from wide to "portrait" telephoto.</p>

<p>Do not concern yourself with making a lot of sophisticated lens choices as first. These choices are best made later on relative to your individual circumstances and photographic goals and type of shooting - and those things cannot be known until you have made quite a few photographs. This is one of the places where the kit lens excels - by using it for some thousands of initial photographs you can pick up that necessary base line of experience that will help you make good choices about other lenses later on.</p>

<p>Bottom line: Buy one lens and shoot a lot with it at first. Make it the EFS 18-55mm IS kit zoom. Hold off making any other purchases until you have gained some experience with this lens - you can buy others later and you'll make better choices if you wait.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Noch einmal, in spades.<br>

The kit lens will do just fine for a long time, and is a handy light travel lens even if you later upgrade to a more expensive one.<br>

In fact, the other kit lens -- the EF-S 55-250mm IS is a fine companion, and like its shorter sibling will remain useful even if you later go to the heavy, more expensive lenses.</p>

<p>Between the two of them, there is little you can't do - except maybe shoot hand-held in really dark places - for that consider the inexpensive EF 50mm f/1.8 lens for low light shooting and nice portrait work (it's a short tele on your camera).</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Karyn, I agree with the others-the 18-55 kit lens will work well for you as you learn your new camera. It may feel light and inadequate, but it is capable of taking some rather nice images.</p>

<p>Even though the 60D has program and full auto modes, it is still a fairly complex piece of equipment that can do a lot once you are comfortable with it. Save your money, learn about your camera, and about yourself wrt where you want to take your photography.</p>

<p>Lens choices are best made once you've decided on a general direction for your photography. Always ask yourself what it is that your current lens can't do that you would like to be able to accomplish. Once this becomes apparent, look into lens choices that best suit the application(s) you wish to pursue. Feel free to ask on the forums at any time, many of us here have been down the very same road numerous times. </p>

[markonestudios]

<p>I too would stick with the 18-55 IS kit lens and learn the ins and outs of SLR photography. My only addition would perhaps be a 50mm f/1.8 which retails for around 120 USD, but even that I would hold off on, until I understood what I was doing and what limitations the current kit presented. That may take you a while; it's a good camera and a pretty good lens.</p>

<p>If you can shell out a bit more (e.g for a constant max aperture optic), then Sigma's latest 17-50mm f/2.8 lens with Optical Stabiliser is definitely worth considering. By many accounts it is the equal of Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 at a much lower price tag!</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>I agree with the others, the 18-55IS is sharp, inexpensive and good for landscape, people, etc.<br>

see lens reviews at http://www.photozone.de</p>

<p> </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>I have the 18-55mm IS Kit lens on my Canon Xsi. I have made several 13" x 19" prints from it. I have been very happy with the results. It is a very cost effective lens.</p>

<p>Having a lens like this will help you decide what lens you next need. Do you need a wider lens or a telephoto? Do you need something faster to blur the background?</p>

<p>For your photo course they may want you to use a single focal length lens. If they do the nifty fifty, 50mm f/1.8, is a good choice. But I would wait and ask the instructor.</p>

[doug_nelson3]

<p>I read and re-read your question and never saw the word "zoom". Your body has a bipedal zoom feature; they're called legs. I recommend the EF 24mm f 2.8, which will crop with your APS-C sensor to about a 38mm. Add the 50mm f 1.8 (or EF f 2.5 50mm macro, also cheap) for a narrower view. Learn to use these. A decent prime or two will show you the capabilities of your camera choice. You will be pleasantly surprised. I like zooms on the telephoto end. Use the kit zoom or a couple of primes for about a year, then save up for one of the 70-200 f4 L variants.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Knock it off with the "zoom with your feet business." That is among the silliest bits of pseudo "conventional wisdom" still hanging around. It is doubly annoying when offered with the vaguely insulting insinuation that those who shoot with zooms simply do so so that they don't have to move their feet.</p>

<p>There is so much to say about this silliness, but I'm going to try to restrain myself. A bit.</p>

<ol>

<li>There are indeed many times when zooming with your feet is simply impossible. I did a recent series of photographs of juniper trees on a granite dome in which getting the composition I wanted would have required me to be, oh, about 100 feet off the ground in order to shoot the scene with a prime. In another photograph I think of when this silly "advice" comes up, I would have had to somehow propel myself perhaps 4 or 5 miles before the light changed.</li>

<li>The notion that the only reason that one uses a zoom is to avoid moving is naive. The zoom lens provides compositional options that are unavailable with a single prime and even with a few of them. (Yes, with an infinite number of primes you would have these options, but I doubt that this is what you are recommending.) Being able to vary the focal length allows the photographer to alter the relationships between the primary subject and the background and foreground elements of the scene in ways that are literally impossible with a single prime on the camera.</li>

<li>This old-school "prime only" advice is actually a perversion of advice to start out with a single <em>lens</em>, and to then shoot a lot with it before buying more lenses. Because this advice originated <em>in an era when reasonably inexpensive and high quality zooms did not exist</em>, by necessity the lens recommended at that time as a first lens was a prime. But today there are many decent and inexpensive first lenses that are not primes. The advice to start with a single lens and shoot it before buying more still stands; the advice to make it a prime does not.</li>

<li>Most beginning photographers are not well-served by advice that is more or less "restrict yourself to the discipline of shooting at only one focal length." Think about how almost all of us started. We started out by being attracted to the simple joy of making photographs. For many, that will be the end point - photographs of friends and family and vacations. For this use, a zoom is a much more flexible and powerful and, dare I say it, <em>fun</em> tool. </li>

</ol>

<p>Finally, lest you chalk my points up to some anti-prime bias... that isn't the case. My kit is composed of half primes and half zooms. There are situations in which either could be the best choice, and that is why I use both. But for a beginner? In virtually all cases a zoom is going to trump a prime. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[doug_nelson3]

<p>I didn't mean to insinuate anything denigrating people who use zooms. If I have to be subjected to a command to "knock off" my suggestion offered in sincerity, then I think I need to be hanging out somewhere else. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Doug, sorry, but there is a long-standing "tradition" of offering the get-a-prime-and-zoom-with-your-feet advice to people who will not be well-served by it. </p>

<p>I'm glad that you do not hold the notions of ethical superiority of prime shooters than some have, and with that in mind I would edit some of the tone but not the substance of my post if I could.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[karyn_blandon]

<p>Thanks for the responses and advice! It is all very much appreciated. Looks like I have a lot to consider.. <br />I will be back with more questions as soon as I've made my purchase, I am sure!<br>

Thanks again,<br />Karyn</p>