• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Canon Full Frame Lens help

Which of these lenses should I get? (650$ max budget)

  • Modified Macro 35-80mm f/4-5.6 (~50$)

  • Nifty Fifty/Plastic Fantastic (50mm F/1.8 II) (~100$)

  • 135mm w/ softfocus (~125$)

  • Telephoto (list) ($?)

  • Wide angle (list) ($?)

  • Spend most of you money on a solid 50mm.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Sp12

Sp12

Senior member
So, I'm getting (as a gift) an old full frame Canon Mark camera sometime around late November, and am looking to get a few (or maybe one just one) lens for it.

I have a 500$ soft budget for the lenses, but am willing to go up to ~650 if there's good reason for it. I'm willing to shop Ebay/craigslist.

I do just about every type of photography, but especially like travel photography (would like a decent walk-around lens with some zoom, but I have a P&S megazoom if that's hard to get). I do some macro/portraits as well as some architecture/landscape. I've been recommended to get a solid 50mm prime lens with most of my budget, but I'm interested in hearing some other opinions.

So, here's a listing of the lenses I'm considering.

Modded Canon 35-80mm f/4-5.6 (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2051391) ~50$

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (Nifty fifty) ~100$ (I'm not really sure on this one, but for the price it seems OK)

EF 135 w/ Softfocus ~125 used (Portrait as well as general use)

And then I'm wanting a wider-angle lens for landscapes/architecture or a telephoto of some sort for travel/nature. However, I'm finding that most of the lenses in my price range are EF-S, and therefore unsuitable for a full-frame camera.

I'm really open to any suggestions, I've researched but I've not really been able to really come to a lot of solid conclusions.
 
Last edited:
996GT2's got a good list started there. The Sigma 24-60 is another choice along the same lines and budget. 24mm is appreciably wider than 28mm, but you'd be missing on the long end. Supplement with a 75-300mm (and hold your nose while doing so) and you'd have a pretty good zoom range covered.

You could probably find a Canon 17-40 f/4L for under $650. Unless you have an overwhelming interest in wide-angle, though, I'd go for a combo of other, cheaper lenses.

Keep in mind the modded 35-80 becomes a dedicated macro lens. The older film lenses along those lines are super cheap, though, and can help you cover a zoom range. For $300 total you could probably pick up a used 28-90mm, a used 75-300mm, and a 50mm/1.8. This would give you a wide zoom range in the zooms, and good image quality in the 50. Or spend $300 on the (significantly nicer) 50/1.4 and you could still pick up the other two and be within your $500 budget.

A used 28-135 is a good deal as it (inexplicably, IMO) comes bundled with many crop-body Canon DSLR's, leaving a good number of them on the market. The image stabilization is handy and the focal length range is fantastic. The 28-135 + 50/1.4 option might be what I would go for, all things considered.

I would also like to know where you can find the 135mm Soft Focus for $125. Those normally run $400+.
 
I have an "old" full frame EOS 5D. My most frequently used lens is the 24-105mm. Next is my 50mm prime. The closest you cite is the 28-135mm.
 
Of those three choices, I would pick the Sigma 50mm. The Canon 17-40 is a wide angle zoom - all wide angle on a full frame. 50mm and zoom with your feet.
 
So, at this point I'm pretty confident that I'm getting:

A 35-80 to mod (~25$ on ebay).
A 135 softfocus (~125$)

And then up in the air:

And then a 50mm/1.4 prime (~300$)
Or a 50mm/1.8 prime (~100$) plus a wide-angle.

I've been thinking and I think I'd prefer a wide-angle to a telephoto, but it seems like a good lens is out of my price range and would make a better purchase later. What other, cheaper wide-angles are there (if any?).
 
Sp12 said:
So, at this point I'm pretty confident that I'm getting:

A 35-80 to mod (~25$ on ebay).
A 135 softfocus (~125$)

And then up in the air:

And then a 50mm/1.4 prime (~300$)
Or a 50mm/1.8 prime (~100$) plus a wide-angle.

I've been thinking and I think I'd prefer a wide-angle to a telephoto, but it seems like a good lens is out of my price range and would make a better purchase later. What other, cheaper wide-angles are there (if any?).
Click to expand...

There aren't many great choices here, as the low-end of the DSLR market is solely in the crop body lenses, and full-frame UWAs are pretty much "blah" for crop bodies, so the demand is pretty low; so you will have to find older film-oriented lenses. Fortunately there are a couple of reasonable choices, and the lack of demand has made them fairly reasonably priced on the used market:

Tokina 19-35mm (<$200 when you can find one)
Canon 20-35mm f/3.5-5.6 (several on ebay for <$300)
Canon 22-55mm f/4-5.6 (under $100 -- believe it or not, this is a full-frame-compatible lens, although it was designed as a kit lens for the EOS IX film camera which used APS film)

More expensive models are the Canon 17-40mm f/4L, 16-35mm f/2.8L, 16-35mm II f/2.8L, 17-35mm f/2.8L, and 20-35mm f/2.8L (all probably $650 or higher, used).

One way that a lot of people edge into the UWA range on full-frame is to buy a 24-xx lens. 28mm was the bottom of the wide end for standard zoom lenses for many years, but 24mm opens it up quite a bit compared with 28mm. 24mm is considered the place where "ultra-wide angle" begins for a full-frame sensor, as it is equivalent to the short side of the sensor (24mm x 36mm), and it is certainly wider than the average person is used to seeing. So something like the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 lens would cover a "wider than usual" range (although its long end is obviously not terribly long).

I would still like to know where I could get a 135mm soft-focus lens for $125?
 
Tamron's 17-35 f/2.8-4 is not a bad lens for the price. I paid $270 for mine. The corners are a bit soft wide open, but it's really not bad.
 
angry hampster said:
Tamron's 17-35 f/2.8-4 is not a bad lens for the price. I paid $270 for mine. The corners are a bit soft wide open, but it's really not bad.
Click to expand...

Actually, the one I had was softer in the corners compared to my Canon 20-35mm USM that only cost $180. Ended up selling the Tamron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top