Home Forums Gear Photography Upgrading from kit lenses on a Canon T2I?

Hello,

This will be my first post in this forum.

I would like to ask all ya'll if you might care to give advice or suggestions on upgrading from kit lenses to something a smidge better.

I have two camereas that I use. A Canon sx 260 point and shoot (which was used to take the pix below) and a T2I that I purchased a couple years ago in a kit from a big box store.



As you can see I have two lenses,

an EFS 18-55, 1:3.5-5.6 IS
an EFS 55-250, 1:4-5.6

The pix I take are basically for my own enjoyment and cover a wide spectrum.











[img]http://i38.photobucket.com/alb...y%20views/DSCN1617_zps800c8d77.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e129/glenn1221/Rifles/IMG_1011_zps1f783420.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e129/glenn1221/Rifles/IMG_0603_zpsdc57c990.jpg[/img]


To date these kit lenses have covered most of my needs. Sometimes I would not mind more magnification, but I'm particularly interested in better definition at the low end. However, it could be my ignorance when it comes to the use of light in conjunction with shutter speed and apertures.

I realize that one can spend a ton of money on first class glass. However I was thinking of capping my expense at $1.5K per lens, and less if possible.

Also, I buy many pre-enjoyed rifles, but that is an area that I have some expertise in and am comfortable. What is your opinion on pre-enjoyed lenses from a reputable source.


So, with the foregoing in mind any suggestions in regards to upgrading would be appreciated.

Best,

GWB

With your budget, in the Canon system with APS size sensor cameras, I'd buy a 17-40 f/4L and the 70-200 f/4L. Add in the inexpensive but ridiculously sharp 50 f/1.8 (makes a great 75mm-ish portrait lens on the 1.5x crop sensor) and you'd be set for anything.

Although I have no experience with the 50mm lens mentioned, it would be a great small and light lens when you want to minimize your kit.

I do have experience regarding the other 2 lenses, so I think you should do what Oregron45 suggests -- good choice of focal length ranges, IMNSHO.

Those Canon L series lenses are really sharp, even wide open. They really retain their resale value too, so it is hard to lose much money on them.

A friend has a whole bunch of these Canon L series lenses (right up to the 800mm f5.6 L which costs about $US 13,000) and I manage his digital pictures for him. The sharpness of his images have spoiled me for lesser lenses!

I see that Amazon has the 17-40 f4 L for $US 739 after a rebate, and $1349 for the 70-200 f4L (with used ones for under $1000)

I would hesitate to buy a used camera body, but I would jump on a used lens if it has at least a few months warranty -- if they work, they usually continue to work!

John

Used glass can be like anything else out there, sometimes there can be surprises good or bad even from a great source. It is hard to tell with some of the newer lenses. With the price of some newer Tamron lenses and a 6 year warranty, I would look to new. On the wide end a great lens is the Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5. It currently has a $50 rebate and a 6 year warranty. I often travel with just the 10-24mm and the Tamron 18-270mm Di-II VC PZD lens, that combination will get most everything for me. There is currently a $70 rebate on the 18-270mm as well. You may want to call Joel at Camera Land for the "Campfire price". The Canon T2i is a little older technology, you might even ask Joel about some of the deals on bundling those lenses with a new body as well. I think you could still get out well under your budget. The newer bodies will have much better low light capabilities and resolution as well. Just a thought.

OK now, post some details about this interesting single shot!

Which Martini action is it? Gauge and chamber length? I do like the vent rib on what is normally a rifle action...

John

JPB,


I love used guns. Especially if they have character. Every now and then I'll spy one I just can't live without.

Such was the case with this old Greener Trap Gun.









12 gauge, 2-3/4" chamber, 32" barrel full choke.


Best

GWB

Thanks,

I'm in "sandbox" when it comes to the differnt specs on cameras and lenses.

I plan to do a little more research and reading before I make a call in regard to the camera lenses. I had already planned on talking with them about a Vortex scope.......
http://www.vortexoptics.com/product/vortex-viper-hs-t-4-16x44-riflescope-with-vmr-1-moa-reticle

Best,

GWB

GWB,
It cost nothing to make the toll free call. Always a good start. You guys getting hammered today with the snow and/or ice? I'm not sure how far north you are but it looks like it is hitting pretty hard. They expect us to get it over here in about 24 hours in Georgia. Down in the flat lands it will be rain with a little ice but I am above 3000ft and we will get snow/ice.

Neat! I was aware of the Greener "Prison Guard" shotguns, but your trap gun is WAY more cool!

John

In case I've not done so, I do appreciate the info and responses ya'll provided. It gave me much to think about.



Well, I kinda got distracted/financially embarrassed over the holidays. However I did acquire the EF 17-40mm F/4L lens today.




The lens came with a bag/case and a lens hood, but no filters or lens protector.


I take pix for my own enjoyment/entertainment.

A combo of outdoor and indoor stuff.........















[img]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e129/glenn1221/Blades/IMG_6082_zpse879cf7d.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e129/glenn1221/latestgunstuff/IMG_0192_zps708ba074.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e129/glenn1221/latestgunstuff/IMG_2105.jpg[/img]

in other words, just about anything that catches my attention at the moment.

Asking for advice once again.....

What lens protecters and/or filters would you suggest to accesorize this lens?

Thanks in advance.

GWB

I'd just run the lens bare unless you're going to be in a dusty environment, or around water/salt spray, in which case a good UV filter is in order, I like B+W filters but there are other good brands. Any filter, even a very good filter, will degrade image quality by introducing additional glass elements into the complex, balanced, design of your zoom lens. Unless you really need to protect the front lens element, I'd go without a filter.

A good lens hood, on the other hand, is worth it's weight in gold. Get the Canon factory lens hood for that lens and it will cut down on additional glare as well as protecting the front lens.

I agree on the filters. I picked up some filters for Cookie and something just seemed to go out of her images. Finally, some shots with and without provided clear evidence that they were the issue. Sadly we were past the return date, and we round filed about $200 worth. Just use some hoods and be careful.

Thanks guys.



Heading to my deer lease this weekend. Hope to give it a decent trial run.

Best,

GWB

I used to not be a big fan of UV filters until I did some testing and found that in areas where UV light is abundant, they do make a difference. From a protective standpoint, if you feel you need to protect the front of a lens from something, a clear protective filter is good, a lens hood as well. A lens hood will protect it from somethings but from impact to the glass not so much. You should do whatever gives you comfort in protecting your investment! I will say this though, don't buy the cheapest filter. When I order a lens from Joel, he knows to automatically include one of the ProMaster Digital HGX filters, usually the UV one. I used to mention to him to please put one in, but now he says it before I get a chance to ask! They do help and a good quality one, like I mentioned, will not adversely affect the image quality especially if you combine it with a lens hood. Now that being said, if you are photographing into the light source, then I would remove the filter while I did the shot.

It seems that wildlife makes up a good percentage of your shots. You might look into the new Tamron 150-600 for about $1069
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout

Tamron's 90mm macro gets very good reviews. It would open a fun, close-up world, and of course give very sharp images when not used as a macro.

My most-used filter is a circular polarizer. Most of mine are the Promaster HGX from Joel, but the Marumi Super DHG gets a good nod for quality and price.
http://www.lenstip.com/115.1-article-Polarizing_filters_test.html
I'd be interested in trying the new Marumi Exus CPL
http://www.2filter.com/marumi/Marumi_Exus.html

Happy to help out anytime. Of course mention the "fire" and get the best price we can offer. Great lens to get, the 17-40.
Very sharp and a great range as a multi purpose every day lens

I'm in sandbox so to speak, but had fun playing with the lens last weekend at my deer lease, and back at the house...........












Probably do the 70-200 F/4L IS next, once I save up enough scratch.

Best,

GWB

The Canon "L" lenses are truly worth it when you want the best image possible . . . and you'll notice that the images will really "pop."

Filters? When one puts a cheap filter glass onto a top flight "L" lens the filter will typically degrade the image and it won't "pop" like it did without the filter.

What to do? Well . . . I didn't invest my hard-earned money on "L" lenses just to put a cheap filter over the end of it. If I want that effect I just put my "kit" lens on the camera for casual shots.

Ironically, the only lens I have that has a filter on it . . . is my kit lens! That's the one that might get fingerprints on the glass from the 2 year old grandkids! Still . . . when I'm serious about shooting the "grands" I'll be using an "L" lens when possible.

The Canon "L" lenses are truly worth it when you want the best image possible . . . and you'll notice that the images will really "pop."

Filters? When one puts a cheap filter glass onto a top flight "L" lens the filter will typically degrade the image and it won't "pop" like it did without the filter.

What to do? Well . . . I didn't invest my hard-earned money on "L" lenses just to put a cheap filter over the end of it. If I want that effect I just put my "kit" lens on the camera for casual shots.

Ironically, the only lens I have that has a filter on it . . . is my kit lens! That's the one that might get fingerprints on the glass from the 2 year old grandkids! Still . . . when I'm serious about shooting the "grands" I'll be using an "L" lens when possible.

I think it is unanimous, cheap filters are not the way to go. That being said though filters can be necessary to use in photography. There are times (often in most nature photographer's cases) that a circular polarizer is needed, and times when UV Haze filter makes a huge difference. When the time is needed to use a filter I put one on my lens. The most expensive filters are not always the best. The names on the filters may raise the price but it doesn't mean better filters. If you do some research, you will find many of the less expensive filters perform as well if not better than the most expensive ones. I do this for a living and have all the confidence in the Pro Digital Series filters and they won't break the bank.
Filters are like seat belts, you think they make the ride more comfortable not to wear one, but when something happens and you needed it, you sure wish you would have used it. Taking a bunch of river photos without a CP would be obvious the first time you set your photo side by side with one that did use a CP. Same with a UV filter in a hazy area.
If someone feels they need a filter for protection of the lens, by all means use it. At least until you have the confidence that you don't need it. You made the investment, protect the lens with what you choose to protect it with.