Zoom recommendations for a 60D

[james_derose3]

<p>About to buy my first DSLR, a Canon 60D and need some recommendations on a mid-grade zoom lens. I shot film for 20+ years with Minolta, so I'm starting from scratch here - and with a low budget. My plan is to get a 50mm 1.8 for most of my indoor stuff, but I want to find an affordable halfway decent zoom to use in the meantime. <br>

90% of my shooting will be baby/family stuff. We're expecting our first child at the end of the month (which is why i'm allowed to finally get the camera!), so keep that in mind. I think the 50mm will do nicely for the indoor stuff, especially for the first month when we're keeping him at home. After that, i'll need a zoom for vacations, when the wife is using the camera, etc. I'd love to, at some point, get the 17-35mm 2.8, but it's far out of my price range at this point. Was looking at the 18-55 and 28-135mm - both f3.5 at the widest and both with IS. Coming from film, the 28mm would be plenty wide, but with the cropped sensor on the 60D, I'd probably want something at least 18mm. I'm also new to IS, so not sure how necessary it is.</p>

<p>So what's everyone's favorite medium zoom on their cropped frame canons? I'm open to used as long as I can get it in good shape for a couple hundred bucks. So talk to me - what do you like?<br>

-J</p>

[ljwest]

<p>For your first zoom, the best value is almost certainly going to be one of the Canon lenses that come in a kit with the 60D. That's probably the 18-55, 18-135 or 18-200. The 28-135 is another option, but you might want to rethink the 28mm as "plenty wide". With the crop factor of the 60D's sensor, the field of view of a 28mm lens is the same as a 45mm lens on a 35mm film (or full frame digital) camera. Basically, not wide at all. The 18mm on a 60D gives you the field of view of a 29mm lens on 35mm film.</p>

<p>I went through a similar thought process three years ago. I bought a 7D with the 18-135. I soon bought a Tamron 70-300SP, as I like to shoot wildlife, particularly birds. I also had the 50mm f/1.8 that I had purchased previously. I later moved up to a 100-400 L and a 17-55 f/2.8.</p>

<p>Honestly, I'd wait on the 50mm purchase. It's a fine lens, if a bit, um, "inexpensively" constructed. But on a crop-sensor camera, it has the field of view of an 80mm on 35mm film. This means you have to be rather farther back to fill the frame with the scene you want. For kids at home, you're basically in the next room. But, if you find yourself using that focal length often with your kit zoom, </p>

<p>With a 60D, you can boost the ISO to overcome the smaller aperture on the zooms, at least until you can afford a more expensive lens.</p>

<p>Oh, and don't forget, Canon has a factory refurbished outlet (in the US, at least). Shop online and get 20% off on refurbished products.</p>

<p><a href="http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/ProductListingViewAll_10051_10051_-1_244768">Refurbished Lenses</a><br>

<a href="http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/cameras/refurbished-eos-digital-slr-cameras">Refurbished Cameras</a></p>

 

[james_derose3]

<p>Thanks for the reply! Maybe I wasn't clear about the 28-135. What I was saying was that it's plenty wide on film (full frame) but i don't think so on the cropped frame 60D. </p>

<p>Saw the 18-135 for an extra $200 bundled with the 60D. 135mm (would probably be more like 200mm on film/full frame) would be more than what i'd ever need. I figured the 18-55 would be easier to lug around (especially for the wife), but I don't see it bundled with the camera anywhere. I'd have to buy it separate.</p>

<p>-J</p>

[Doug Obert]

<p>Another vote for the 18-55 kit lens as your first, given what you want to photograph. After you've used it a while, "you" will know what "if" any additional lens you might need. </p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>I think your choice lies between the 18~55STM and the 18~135STM. Tests suggest that the former is the better optically of the two. Avoid the non-STM versions, and avoid the 18~200. The 50/1.8 has the same angle of view on a 1.6-factor body as an 80mm lens on a FF body. Bear that in mind if you are thinking of getting one. Avoid the 28~135 which is a hangover from film days and a pretty unsuitable lens for 1.6-factor use anyhow.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>About to buy my first DSLR, a Canon 60D and need some recommendations on a mid-grade zoom lens . . . <strong>and with a low budget.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the lowest budget get the kit zoom lens as a package with the 60D, i.e. the EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 in whatever variant it comes with the 60D for the best price from a reputable dealer. <br /> But for a few dollars more and IMO better value for money, get the STM version of the 18 to 55, as Robin Sibson has suggested.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . I shot film for 20+ years with Minolta, so I'm starting from scratch here . . . My plan is to get a 50mm 1.8 for most of my indoor stuff but I want to find an affordable halfway decent zoom to use in the meantime. 90% of my shooting will be baby/family stuff. We're expecting our first child at the end of the month (which is why i'm allowed to finally get the camera!), so keep that in mind. I think the 50mm will do nicely for the indoor stuff, especially for the first month when we're keeping him at home.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Think about a fast 35 or fast 28 Prime instead of the 50/1.8 for those duties.<br /> The 50/1.8 acts as a medium telephoto on an APS-C Camera.<br /> I would direct you to the EF35/2 if you want an inexpensive and fast Prime Lens for indoor use on a 60D. (Yes I know that the 35/2 is more than twice the price of the 50/1.8).<br /> HOWEVER, for indoor duties with the high ISO capacity of the 60D and or the addition of an inexpensive Flash, you might not need a Prime Lens at all - if you just get one of the 18 to 55 kit lenses.</p>

<p><strong>Bottom line for your situation</strong> - I would recommend you do NOT put any money into a Prime Lens; but rather spend it on a E-TTL Canon Dedicated Tilt and Swivel Flash, like the 430 MkII, for example; and buy the 18 to 55 kit lens only at this stage.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>For a tight budget, I agree with the others, just buy the 60D with 18-55 kit. The zoom barely adds a benjamin to the total price. However, if you can swing more bread, I'd find the EF-s 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS USM a lot for useful zoom for travel and kicking' around. The extra 3mm on the wide makes a major difference and the IQ is excellent, even wide open.</p>

[biomed]

<p>If you buy the 60D with the kit 18-135mm lens make sure the lens is the STM variety as that is a better lens than the non STM one. Most of the 60D's I've seen come with the non-STM 18-135mm lens. So be sure to check.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Another vote for the IS version of the EF-S 18-55mm. If you do video with the camera, then the STM version. People often get these as part of a kit, but don't need the lens and sell it on eBay, so check for 'sold' prices there to see the relative costs.</p>

<p>Your 50mm f/1.8 will do fine for portrait work and low light.<br>

Another pair of excellent cheap(er) Canon primes for an APS-C camera like the 60D are the EF 28mm f/2.8 and the EF 35mm f/2. The latter is my favorite, but is a little more expensive. Either of these will be a rough equivalent of a 50mm lens on your old film camera.</p>

<p>If you need a longer lens, I'd personally think the EF-S 55-250 IS is an excellent choice and also is available "lightly used".</p>

[james_derose3]

<p>Buying from amazon (great cyber monday deals), I didn't have much choice as far as the kit lens goes. I went body only and will probably score an 18-55mm IS STM on ebay for $130 new (white box, taken out of a t5i kit). The only single lens kit they had on their sale was the 18-135mm non STM. I'll look into those other primes as well. Thanks again!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Haven't read the thread, so apologies in advance for any duplication.</p>

<p>First, your 60D is a cropped sensor body, which means that the size of the sensor is considerably smaller than the size of a 35mm film frame. If you liked a 50mm prime on your film camera... you do <em>not </em>want a 50mm prime on your 60D. The effect will be quite different! A 50mm lens on the 1.6x cropped sensor 60D will give you than angle of view that you would have gotten from a 80mm lens on your film SLR. Would you have wanted to use a 80mm prime as you main lens on the film SLR?</p>

<p>If you are trying to replicate the angle of view of your old 50mm prime, you want a lens with a focal length of about 30-35mm. </p>

<p>But, better yet, don't start out with a prime. Back when you purchased that Minolta (I had one, too) almost everyone started with a 50mm prime. Why a prime back then? Because zooms were far too expensive and often not as good a primes "back in the old days." But today, there are fine and inexpensive zoom lenses that provide excellent image quality and which do not cost an arm and a leg. A good place to start is with the nice little EFS 18-55mm image-stabilized kit lens. It is a fine performer and very inexpensive... and it is a great test bed for figuring out a) whether you want a zoom or primes and b) what focal lengths might interest you most.</p>

<p>For a bit more there is a fine 15-85mm zoom, too. As you note, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is an outstanding performer... but pricey. Of course, with that lens you might well be even less likely to want the 50mm prime, since f/2.8 with IS and good high ISO performance will let you shoot in much lower light than you could with your Minolta SLR.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[david_ammer]

<p>+1 for 18-55 to get you started....find one cheap and you can easily unload it later with minimal net expense. The IS will be great until Baby starts wiggling more, at which point a Speedlite (e.g. 430EXii) and/or fast prime lens will be way more helpful. My 60D starts looking pretty noisy above 2000 ISO.</p>

<p>+1 for 50/1.8 being (perhaps) a bit on the long side for crop, especially if you like to capture baby's surroundings without having to shoot from the next room over. Maybe 40/2.8, or 35/2(IS?), or 28/1.8? Or Sigma's 30/1.4?</p>

<p>I really like Dan's 15-85 zoom idea for the long term. The extra range will serve you well when you're chasing a toddler in 15 months or so. You'll still want that Speedlite or fast prime sometimes, though.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[james_derose3]

<p>All great suggestions, thanks! My thinking with the 50mm was to replace the duties of a 100mm prime - albeit a little shorter. So I might still get that. My long term goals beyond this first zoom would be all regular EF lenses so if I decide to move up to full frame in the future, it's all compatible. Got my eye on the 17-55mm 2.8 for my standard zoom in the future.</p>

<p>Thanks again!<br>

-J</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'd be another vote for the just plain <em>handiness</em> of the EF-S 15-85mm IS, but it's quite a lot more $ and is not available in STM yet.</p>

[james_derose3]

<p>how necessary is STM if you're not shooting video? aside from the fact that they're newer issued lenses, and they've had the chance to correct other flaws, does the fact that the lens has STM mean anything other than a quieter focus?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you're not going to shoot video, then STM is unnecessary, and some reports have it that the older 18-55mm IS may even be a little better optically than the newer, STM one.</p>

<p>Now I am perfectly sure that I will not be shooting much video, but can you be <strong><em>sure</em></strong> that you won't want to once you have the capability? That's the key.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"My long term goals beyond this first zoom <em><strong>would be all regular EF lenses</strong></em> so if I decide<em><strong> to move up to full frame</strong> </em>in the future"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would rethink both of those thoughts, if I were you.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[james_derose3]

<blockquote>

<p>"I would rethink both of those thoughts, if I were you."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Care to elaborate? What's the downside to moving up to full-frame when I can afford it and being able to use wide lenses at their actual focal point?<br>

<br>

-J</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Certainly.<br /> In my first comment, I was not commenting on the value (or not) of "moving up" to full frame - I was commenting that the words that you used indicated that you have already <em><strong>decided</strong></em> that moving to full frame is "a move up" or "an improvement".<br /> What I was getting at was for you to think through ("rethink") whether or not this is in fact true for the photography <strong>that you want to do.</strong></p>

<p>The second point I was making, is that your premise that full frame is "a move up" was then the basis for you excluding ALL EF-S Lens from your consideration. When in point of fact some many or most EF-S lenses <em><strong>might, on an APS-C Camera </strong></em>be quite valuable and useful <em><strong>and maybe more useful than the otherwise EF Lenses that you buy.</strong></em> And I wanted you to re-think that, too.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>As well as asking for elaboration on my first comments, you have also asked another (different) question to the two points I was making:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What's the downside to moving up to full-frame when I can afford it and being able to use wide lenses at their actual focal point?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We've already established that I don't necessarily consider moving to Full Frame is a "move up"; so therefore if there is no added value to YOUR Photography to move to full frame, then the first downside is that it probably would be a waste of money for you.</p>

<p>In regard to your comment / argument about using wide lenses at their actual focal point - AND - the whole notion of excluding all the EF-S lenses from your thoughts : what I think you are getting at is this (I will use an example):</p>

<p>You be might consider buying an EF 24 to 70/2.8L MkII USM for your 60D. According to your present thinking you will automatically exclude any consideration of the EF-S 17 to 55F /2.8 IS USM, simply because it is an EF-S lens and will not fit on a FF camera that you might buy in the future.</p>

<p>That's actually a fairly typical example of what some people do: and as a result they spend many years using a 24 to 70 on an APS-C camera, based upon the premise that they will "move up to full frame" sometime in the future, (also these people are often are under the misapprehension that because the 24 to 70 has a red band on it is somehow better for their uses).</p>

<p>It is often the case that these choices are made by people not thinking through what is useful for THEIR photography and taking internet chatter as the basis for making ill informed choices and I wanted simply want alert you to these matters, in consideration that you stated: <em>"I'm starting from scratch here [with digital] - and with a low budget".</em><br /> <br /> <em><br /></em>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[james_derose3]

<p>detailed! thanks! ;)</p>

[William Michael]

<p>You're most welcome.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There are many of us (more on the Canon side perhaps than the Nikon, but definitely on both platforms) that consider a complete kit to be a decent, recent model APS-C body (for telephotos and such) and a 35mm-sensor (aka, "full frame", or "FX" in Nikon-speak).</p>

<p>I personally don't need all the latest whiz-bangs and do no video, so my own kit, at the moment, is happily stuck at a Canon EOS 50D with my EF 100-400mm lens practically glued on it, and my also beloved EOS 5Dii with my faithful old 24-105mm and some extras like a TS-E 17mm et al.</p>

<p>With a wide range of adaptable old Nikon lenses and others, I'm set for just about anything.</p>

<p>When you add a 35mm sensor, you will want to keep the "kit lens" as an wonderful, extremely light and small lens to use for a quick outing on the street, and places like that. With the ISOs now available, and a little tolerance for "noise" you can usually get by even indoors.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Agree with what everyone else said - get the 18-55mm IS at this stage. it's cheap and surprisingly good - you can then think what else you might need after using it for a while. Don't think you will want to "move up" to full frame - you may well not want to. Smaller formats have a number of advantages - not least their smaller size and lighter weight. The current Canon 18MP sensor will be a revelation to you, I guarantee it.</p>