Lens for Canon 60D?

[OneLuckyMom]

Hi,
I'm still somewhat new to photography and have learnt so much from this site and forum! A little background might help, I currently have a PowerShot SX20, which I use almost exclusively in manual mode, so I have at least a beginners understanding of ISO, aperture, etc. I have decided to purchase a DSLR and have narrowed my choice to the Canon 60D or possibly T3I. I mainly take photos of my children and family, often indoors and in low light. I am considering purchasing used in order to save money.

I have a question regarding lenses. A review of the 60D suggested that the camera really requires a fast lens. Budget is an issue and it will likely be a (very) long time before I can upgrade a lens above the kit 18-200mm and hopefully a 50mm 1.8 prime. Am I likely to end up disappointed with the 60D without the fast (expensive) lenses? Is this a reason to choose the less costly T3i?

If anyone can offer any suggestions, advice or personal experience to aid my research it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!

[veritasimagery]

Both the 60D and T3i use the same sensor, so they will face the same issues with lens speed. The 60D has a better AF system though.

[inkista]

AFAIK, the T3i and 60D mostly have the same sensor and processor in them, so the image quality will be the same.

Generally, you need to go with higher-end glass if you're shooting on full-frame (5D), but all things are mostly going to be equal between crop bodies.

For me, if this is your first dSLR, I generally advocate going for a used or lower-end camera to save money for better lenses, simply because your lenses will stay with your longer than a camera body is likely to, and it also depreciates slower. So money you spend on glass is more "permanent" than money you spend on a digital body.

I'd only recommend getting a 60D over a T3i as a first dSLR if a) you already have Canon lenses, or b) you need the additional fast-action features of the 60D for the majority of your shooting, or c) you're studying/working in photography half to full time. If this is hobbyist/weekend shooting we're talking about, chances are good you aren't going to advance to the point where you need a higher-end body before the next refresh of the model happens.

You need a faster lens (a lens with a larger max. aperture) if you plan on shooting in lower light situations without a flash, or you want to shoot with thinner DoF. And you don't have to spend a ton to get a faster lens, if you go with prime lenses.

[OneLuckyMom]

Thanks for the advice! I'm going to take another look at the T3i.
Because I would like to experiment with DoF, would it make sense to purchase a Tamaron 17-50 instead of the kit 18-55 because of the aperture? And if so, should I then hold off on the Canon 50mm 1.8? ie. Do I need both? I am open to primes as already tend to move to compose my shots and don't really take advantage of the zoom range I have now. Is there a particular focal length of a prime lense that would be preferred for a general walk around lens? (keeping in mind I mostly photograph my family).
Thanks again for the help!!

[ceremus]

Both the kit lens and the 50mm f/1.8 are roughly $100 a piece, in terms of money spent on lenses that's chump change. Given the overall versatility of kit lens and the optical quality of the 1.8, my inclination would be to get both, even if you plan on getting the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

When I started out I got the T3i with the 18-55 kit and the 50mm f/1.4. The kit lens was good for wide angle shots, good with IS, and good for closeup shots, while the 50 was good for low light portraiture and shallow DoF.

Even before I had bought any of that I had planned on purchasing the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, which is of course a standard zoom lens more advanced (and far more expensive) than the kit lens, but I don't regret getting the kit lens in addition. Before I purchased a dedicated macro lens, it was the only thing in my kit capable of doing close-focusing. If I ever decide to sell the body, being able to attach the kit lens to it improves the resale value. Plus, it never hurts to have a backup lens.

[taschrief]

Just because you have a new camera does NOT mean you have to get new lenses. There is a huge market in older lenses out there. I got an EF 70-210, an excellent lens, for $99. If you are willing to use a $12 adapter you can get any C/Y mount lens for your T3i, or any other Canon DSLR. What you give up is auto aperture and auto focus. It takes some getting used to but it does work. I got a 135mm f/2.8 for around $50. A 28mm f/2.8 for $30. I got an excellent Vivitar Series 1 (by Tokina) 70-210mm f/3.5 for $59. It is every bit as good as the Canon 70-200 f/4, for 10% of the price. And it is faster! Granted, I couldn't use that lens to much effect at a fast paced sporting event. But it is nice glass, inexpensively. And if you want to try them out on film, you can pick up a good Yashica FX-2 or FX-3 Super 2000 for less than $50. Photography is not necessarily expensive. Shop around, read reviews, buy used stuff. There are bunches of old, perfectly good, used Canon lenses out there.

[shocellist]

Hi! I have friends who have the 60D, and I know others with the T3i. It seems that they are both great cameras, with one notable difference being the price.

I have learned from experience that the cost of a lens does not necessarily make it better, easier to use, or an upgrade. I shoot with a 5D Mark II, and my primary lens is now the 50mm f/1.8. Prior to buying the 50mm, I used my 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS for pretty much everything. Now I only use the 28-300mm for situations where I know I will need to go from wide-angle to zoom quickly (basically traveling and sports). The 50mm f/1.8 certainly isn't the BEST lens out there for Canon DSLRs, but at barely $100 it has great value.

Good luck!

[ik631]

Be careful!!! I bought the 50/1.8 for exactly the same reason you did for T1i. I have kids and needed it for low light. It sucks for this! The AF doesn't work at all in low light and the manual focus ring is horrible. I agree the optics are awsome for $100 but unless it is well lit the AF will hunt. If you want low light candid shots of moving kids (birthday parties, indoor sports) you are going to need a lens with a better AF. ONLY get it if you are planning on using it for posed portraits were the subject is not moving. I tend to like the candids more than the forced portraits of my kids. They tend to be more natural and the 50mm isn't so great for this. Just be careful since so many people praise this lens as the greatest ever made. If you are planning on using for shots of kids and not posed portraits you will be disappointed. I'm still glad I bought it because it's so cheap but it was not what I thought it was.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by taschrief

... If you are willing to use a $12 adapter you can get any C/Y mount lens for your T3i, or any other Canon DSLR. What you give up is auto aperture and auto focus. It takes some getting used to but it does work...

Just a word of warning, a $12 adapter is likely to be loose, and not to be machined to specific tolerances, so focus to infinity may need adjusting with shims and whatnot. Just my experience, but you'll probably be happier with an adapter in the $40-$100 price range. And you also need to keep in mind that "no auto aperture" also means "no wide open metering." Stopping down a manual lens will also mean dimming the viewfinder, as the aperture is closed down and less light comes into the camera.

And. C/Y lenses are typically Zeiss. You can't really find a cheap one these days, thanks to the student filmmaking crowd. Five years ago there were super bargains to be had here, and a few are still reasonable, but you won't see significant savings over Canon EOS lenses, and you'll have a lot less function. For cheap manual glass, look to M42 and Olympus OM mounts, pre-AI Nikon F lenses, and some of the older Pentax K mount lenses. Leica R and Contax/Yashica are nearly always going to be the most expensive, because they're the most desirable and sought after by most manual lens nuts. And wide and fast will always cost you, no matter what the mount.

Originally Posted by ik631

Be careful!!! I bought the 50/1.8 for exactly the same reason you did for T1i. I have kids and needed it for low light. It sucks for this! The AF doesn't work at all in low light and the manual focus ring is horrible. ...

Agreed. If you need to shoot low light fast action, go for a gold-ringed USM lens. Preferably one that's got ring-type USM. My general recommendation here would be the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, but it's about $400, and you need to know the focal length will work for you. If you can only afford the 50mm f/1.8 II, however, learning how to use only the center AF point, and to aim for targets of high contrast (ideally where black meets white at a sharp edge, like say, lettering), can help out the AF in low light.

... Just be careful since so many people praise this lens as the greatest ever made. If you are planning on using for shots of kids and not posed portraits you will be disappointed. I'm still glad I bought it because it's so cheap but it was not what I thought it was.

Actually, most people praise the 50/1.8 II as the greatest CHEAP lens for Canon dSLRs. It's a matter of bang for the buck. Of course, more expensive lenses are going to be better performers. But for some folks, taking pics of the kids does mean posed portraits. You get what you pay for: the 50/1.8 II has a plastic mount, no focus scale, no USM, a lousy manual focus ring, and is wonky in low light for AF. But it does f/1.8 for $100, and it's sharper than the kit lens. It is what it is, and it's actually pretty easy to find out what it is before you buy it.

[ik631]

Originally Posted by inkista

Actually, most people praise the 50/1.8 II as the greatest CHEAP lens for Canon dSLRs. It's a matter of bang for the buck. Of course, more expensive lenses are going to be better performers. But for some folks, taking pics of the kids does mean posed portraits. You get what you pay for: the 50/1.8 II has a plastic mount, no focus scale, no USM, a lousy manual focus ring, and is wonky in low light for AF. But it does f/1.8 for $100, and it's sharper than the kit lens. It is what it is, and it's actually pretty easy to find out what it is before you buy it.

I completely agree. Most folks just aren't as thorough with their explanations as you are, myself included. I have seen many people praising the 50mm to noobs without cautioning that it is still a $100 lens and mentioning its drawbacks. I also know many people don't tend to be specific enough on what type of photography they will be doing with it. It happened to me. Had I known how to better say what I would be shooting and others were not so quick to simply say it was great and rarely comes off their camera would of saved for a better lens like my new 85mm 1.8 (that I love!!) early on.