• Post your camera gear/gear discussion thread
    2,407 replies, posted
[QUOTE=jadenrosh;28507253]So I got a Canon 550D with the 18-55mm kit lens and I'm thinking of upgrading to a better lens and was wondering if the 55-250mm EF-S lens is a good choice?[/QUOTE] 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4 if you can afford it). You'll love it.
[QUOTE=worm;28507269]i feel like i just pulled a knife at a gun fight :saddowns: [img_thumb]http://www.cyberindian.net/wp-content/uploads/sony-cybershot-dsc-h10.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] We can be Point-n-Shoot buddies [img]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-100/g11.jpg[/img] Although I do have my eye on a DSLR when I get the money. Also, this camera belongs to a friend, but he basically lets me borrow it constantly. I usually have it.
[QUOTE=jadenrosh;28507253]So I got a Canon 550D with the 18-55mm kit lens and I'm thinking of upgrading to a better lens and was wondering if the 55-250mm EF-S lens is a good choice?[/QUOTE] It's an entirely different purpose lens. In terms of quality, both won't get you the best. They are really starters lenses so don't expect much. The 55-250 is very tight on the crop-sensor so even the 18-55 would be a better starters lens. If you really want the best quality then don't get any of those because they are slow and shit. Get a 50mm 1.8 or 28mm 2.8 [editline]9th March 2011[/editline] Oh and my camera gear: [b]Nikon[/b] -Nikon D60 -Nikon 18-55mm f3.5-f5.6 [b]Canon[/b] -Canon 7D -Canon 50mm f1.8 II -Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC [b]Pentax[/b] -Pentax ME Super -SMC Pentax-M 50mm f1.7 -Tokina 28-85mm f3.5-f4.5 [b]Previously owned[/b] -Nikon D200 -Sigma 70-300mm -Nikon 50mm f1.8
[QUOTE=FalseLogic;28508140]We can be Point-n-Shoot buddies [img_thumb]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-100/g11.jpg[/img_thumb] Although I do have my eye on a DSLR when I get the money. Also, this camera belongs to a friend, but he basically lets me borrow it constantly. I usually have it.[/QUOTE] [img]http://avatars.fpcontent.net/image.php?u=380263&dateline=1294611508[/img]:respek:[img]http://avatars.fpcontent.net/image.php?u=130363&dateline=1295661875[/img]
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;28508335]It's an entirely different purpose lens. In terms of quality, both won't get you the best. They are really starters lenses so don't expect much. The 55-250 is very tight on the crop-sensor so even the 18-55 would be a better starters lens. If you really want the best quality then don't get any of those because they are slow and shit. Get a 50mm 1.8 or 28mm 2.8[/QUOTE] Both are great when stopped down to f/7.1, which is fine in good light(Daylight is just fine, and the 550D handles noise pretty well so up to 1600 iso is usable). You won't get a better pair of lenses for the price, and a 50mm 1.8 is hardly a replacement for a telephoto, much less the 28mm 2.8.
Cheers for the advice, I'll go with a 50mm f/1.8 and stick to my 18-55mm for zooming
[QUOTE=jadenrosh;28519402]Cheers for the advice, I'll go with a 50mm f/1.8 and stick to my 18-55mm for zooming[/QUOTE] :)
[QUOTE=jadenrosh;28519402]Cheers for the advice, I'll go with a 50mm f/1.8 and stick to my 18-55mm for zooming[/QUOTE] Great. All 70-300. 50-250 and those kind of lenses just suck ass. They aren't sharp, they aren't fast, the have ugly bokeh, probably slow auto-focus, color fringing and other shit. Wether they are cheap or not doesn't matter. You want quality pictures and if you have to sacrifice that much quality just to buy a lens that falls in your budget then you are better off just not buying a shit lens. And a lens like the 55-250 is just to narrow for a crop sensor so you won't use it a lot anyway. All just wasted money. The 50mm 1.8 en 18-55mm are a good combo though!
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;28525685]Great. All 70-300. 50-250 and those kind of lenses just suck ass. They aren't sharp, they aren't fast, the have ugly bokeh, probably slow auto-focus, color fringing and other shit. Wether they are cheap or not doesn't matter. You want quality pictures and if you have to sacrifice that much quality just to buy a lens that falls in your budget then you are better off just not buying a shit lens. And a lens like the 55-250 is just to narrow for a crop sensor so you won't use it a lot anyway. All just wasted money. The 50mm 1.8 en 18-55mm are a good combo though![/QUOTE] Uh.. the 55-250 is sharp, it may not be fast and it may have slow auto focus, but for the price the image quality is great. "Too narrow on a crop sensor"? That depends on what you're shooting. If you're buying a telephoto chances are you want.. a telephoto. If you want to take pictures of birds and other wildlife the 18-55 and 50mm 1.8 are practically useless. You won't find a better telephoto for £154.
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;28525685]Great. All 70-300. 50-250 and those kind of lenses just suck ass. They aren't sharp, they aren't fast, the have ugly bokeh, probably slow auto-focus, color fringing and other shit. Wether they are cheap or not doesn't matter. You want quality pictures and if you have to sacrifice that much quality just to buy a lens that falls in your budget then you are better off just not buying a shit lens. And a lens like the 55-250 is just to narrow for a crop sensor so you won't use it a lot anyway. All just wasted money. The 50mm 1.8 en 18-55mm are a good combo though![/QUOTE] disagree. the 55-250 is a great bit of glass for the price. the af is not amazing, but it kicks shit out the 70-300. sharp, good enough speed outdoors.
[QUOTE=Xera;28525825]You won't find a better telephoto for £154.[/QUOTE] That's because you won't find another telephoto under £154.
[QUOTE=bopie;28528327]That's because you won't find another telephoto under £154.[/QUOTE] Uh.. exactly? The next step up is twice the price.
[QUOTE=Xera;28530178]Uh.. exactly? The next step up is twice the price.[/QUOTE] Just because it's the only lens you'll find for that price doesn't make it better.
[QUOTE=Killerelf12;28532849]Just because it's the only lens you'll find for that price doesn't make it better.[/QUOTE] What? That makes no sense. If it's the only lens you can find for the price then it can't be better because there is nothing to compare it to. It's a good, cheap telephoto lens and if you don't want to spend out £400 it's your best option(The Tamron 70-300 is £50 cheaper, but it's utter garbage)
[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5100/5518148892_5818e548af_o.jpg[/img] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFLow5StvvU[/media]
I don't have much gear at the moment -Olympus OM-10 with Zuiko 50mm 1.8. -Canon EOS 1000d with 18-55mm (non-IS) and Helios 44m 58mm f2.0. [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/2011-03-11_22-51-27_46_United_Kingdom.jpg[/img] [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/2011-03-11_22-52-55_430_United_Kingdom.jpg[/img] [editline]11th March 2011[/editline] Wait I just remembered I posted on page one, oh well this includes images.
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;28497844]Well between these lenses, the biggest factor will probably be in the price. I think out of the three, the Tokina 11-16 is the sharpest but the others are great options two. I don't think you can go wrong with them but you can always look into them some more with google.[/QUOTE] Going back on this; what exactly does the 11-16 look like in terms of field of view? I may actually be considering the 17-40 now just for the better focal length, despite the fact the Tokina looks sharp as a tack. Aperture is nice with the Tokina but doesn't really matter as F4 is good enough for outdoor shots. I still will probably rent one of them to try out.
Try this, it'll show you what the FOV looks like at what focal length, crop and fullframe. [url]http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/simulator/[/url]
[QUOTE=ijyt;28552779]Try this, it'll show you what the FOV looks like at what focal length, crop and fullframe. [url]http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/simulator/[/url][/QUOTE] Thanks, that definitely helps a lot. If I get the 17-40mm L it's still really sharp, and the focal range would probably give me a lot of options for regular out-and-about shooting such as in the city and stuff. However, the Tokina is even sharper, faster, and wider. The thing is though, if I get the Tokina, I'll still be using my kit lens for mid-range stuff, unless I stick with the 50/11-16 combo for now. That's also $200 cheaper than using the 17-40/50 combo. To fund this anyhow I'm probably going to have to sell my 55-250.
[QUOTE=squish;28553084]Thanks, that definitely helps a lot. If I get the 17-40mm L it's still really sharp, and the focal range would probably give me a lot of options for regular out-and-about shooting such as in the city and stuff. However, the Tokina is even sharper, faster, and wider. The thing is though, if I get the Tokina, I'll still be using my kit lens for mid-range stuff, unless I stick with the 50/11-16 combo for now. That's also $200 cheaper than using the 17-40/50 combo. To fund this anyhow I'm probably going to have to sell my 55-250.[/QUOTE] Though choice. You could even consider the Tamron 17-50 which is a lot cheaper but still pretty good. And it is an f2.8 lens. You should find out first if the 6mm difference is too much to give up or not. Then you could look into lenses like the Canon 17-40 or Tamron 17-50 to compare them with each other. The reason I bring up the Tamron lens is because it has 10mm more than the Canon, is cheaper, is faster(f2.8 vs f4) and it still is a pretty sharp lens.
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;28564553]Though choice. You could even consider the Tamron 17-50 which is a lot cheaper but still pretty good. And it is an f2.8 lens. You should find out first if the 6mm difference is too much to give up or not. Then you could look into lenses like the Canon 17-40 or Tamron 17-50 to compare them with each other. The reason I bring up the Tamron lens is because it has 10mm more than the Canon, is cheaper, is faster(f2.8 vs f4) and it still is a pretty sharp lens.[/QUOTE] Thanks. I'll just need some time to think about the comparison. I think it's up to those two now, the Canon vs the Tamron. Edit: Don't tell anyone, but (shhh) I'm probably going to settle with the Tamron. I'll have the money much faster and the only reason it seems besides build quality and USM to get the Canon is for the sake of getting the Canon (dat red ring).
FFFFFFFFFFFFF- Some dumbass just broke my camera + my 35 1.8.
How did that happen? did you incinerate them with your rage?
take them to court. even if it's a Sony it's still your property.
[QUOTE=MisterM;28581905]How did that happen? did you incinerate them with your rage?[/QUOTE] I sure did. Spent almost an hour yelling at the fucktard. [editline]13th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=codenamecueball;28582053]take them to court. even if it's a Sony it's still your property.[/QUOTE] Don't worry, he gotta pay.
What did he do to break them?
He sat on it, then dropped it on the floor.
Court won't be enough, this guy has to be taken down.
I'll strangle him in his sleep.
I hate it when other people break or almost break expensive stuff. On the day after I got my new phone my friend knocked it out of my hand and it missed the concrete by less than an inch, would have cost £400 to replace. My little brother also smashed my £140 monitor a few months ago deliberately in a fit of rage after one of my friends insulted him, he didn't even pay for a new one.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.