Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

So I'm about to buy a T2i and a lenses...

profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
and I just want to know for sure that they're compatible.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Digital-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-DC07999099407N?r=FE

This is the lens I'm getting if they're compatible.

Thanks,
PJS
Aug 20 2011 1:42PM
0 0
profile picture
50in07
Posts: 3070 - Karma: 1,471
It will work, but it's not a good lens. Spend a little more money and get something that's nicer.
Aug 20 2011 1:47PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
what would you recommend? I'm kinda tight on money.
Aug 20 2011 1:50PM
0 0
profile picture
50in07
Posts: 3070 - Karma: 1,471
How much do you have to spend and what do you want out of the lens? Tamron 17-50 is a great lens to start out with and I would highly recommend it. If you don't want to spend that much I would suggest getting some older primes with adapters.
Aug 20 2011 1:57PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
I'm looking for a camera to shoot maybe 55% video 45% photo, and of that video maybe 90% skiing. for photo, mostly sports and action.

I'm not looking to spend more than $300 (I don't know if that is unreasonable) and it would be nice if it was refurbished, or used so it would be cheaper.
Aug 20 2011 2:02PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
To be honest that's kind of unreasonable. When buying a DSLR, you have to realize that lenses are gonna set you back quite a bit.

I think the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is $460 on B&H, and it is well worth the extra money. It's a great walkaround lens. I have the canon 17-55 f/2.8 and it's my go-to lens. Just don't buy that lens you're looking at, it's not a good one. worth dropping the extra cash to get a better one
Aug 20 2011 2:33PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1750_vc_b005.asp

this one?

thanks for the help, +k, I'm now thinking you're right and maybe I'll drop a little more on a lense, specifically that one.^
Aug 20 2011 3:36PM
0 0
profile picture
WillStart
Posts: 3955 - Karma: 3,192
get the non-VC one, it's supposed to be sharper.


but yeah even though that lens you were looking at has a larger zoom range, the 17-50 is way wider, is better in low light and will give you a shallower depth of field, and the aperture won't change as you zoom in.
Aug 20 2011 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,903
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html

there ya go :)
Aug 20 2011 3:58PM
0 0
profile picture
S.C
Posts: 3068 - Karma: 2,285
I got mine for $300
Aug 20 2011 4:15PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
where at?
Aug 20 2011 4:18PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61588 - Karma: 122,900
ebay, the tamron has been out for awhile so they go for cheaper on ebay, i got mine for like 360, 100 less than b&h
Aug 20 2011 4:33PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
ok. What should i do to make sure an ebay seller is legit if i buy on ebay?
Aug 20 2011 4:43PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61588 - Karma: 122,900
most sellers of the cheap ones will have like hundreds of positive ratings, also, try to buy from the US not china or japan.
Aug 20 2011 5:51PM
0 0
profile picture
S.C
Posts: 3068 - Karma: 2,285
fellow NS'er. check ebay, they go for like $330 there. great lens. buying used is awesome too.
Aug 20 2011 5:58PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
ok thanks chai and heath
Aug 21 2011 2:17PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
so, i really am hesitant to spend alot on a lenses, as my camera fund is already stretched to breaking point. i was looking around adorama, and found this lenses. I can get it for $325 on craigslist. is it another crappy one that i found because of my woeful inexperience with lenses?

http://www.adorama.com/TM2875EOS.html
Aug 23 2011 6:57PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
.
Aug 23 2011 7:30PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61588 - Karma: 122,900
Its probably a decent lens, just a weird range to me. the 17-50 is nice because it goes so wide, 28 on a t2i will not be wide. You could get the 28-75 and then say get a tokina 12-24 and have a nice spread, but that'll prob break the bank for you.
Aug 23 2011 7:37PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
what do you mean when you say wide?
Aug 23 2011 7:40PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
wide angle
Aug 23 2011 7:45PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
ok, but is there really that much of a difference between 17 and 28 mm?
Aug 23 2011 7:59PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
i guess the obvious answer is yes, but will it affect my ability to shoot the things i want to shoot?
Aug 23 2011 8:01PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61588 - Karma: 122,900
yeah man check out this thing...

canon full frame
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html

nikon fx (full frame) and dx (1.5 crop)
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/

The dx will be closest to the t2i but even the canon full frame on you can see the significant difference. 28 isnt that bad but trust me, 17 is better. You wont be able to follow with anything above 17 or so, 10-17 is ideal.
Aug 23 2011 8:04PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
Yes. If you're shooting on a T2i, your image gets cropped by 1.6 of the focal length. So 17x1.6=28. 28x1.6=44. 11mm is a very noticeable difference
Aug 23 2011 8:04PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
Ok.
Aug 23 2011 8:06PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/363593-REG/Tamron_AF014C700_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_XR_Di_II.html

this one i can get for 200, its 18-200, 3.5-22 aperture. i hate to ask about all of these lens but i really wanna find the best lens for my money.
Aug 23 2011 8:25PM
0 0
profile picture
blatt
Posts: 5584 - Karma: 3,097
best bang for your buck=tamron 17-50 non vc
Aug 23 2011 8:26PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61588 - Karma: 122,900
There is a reason you can get it for 200...
Aug 23 2011 8:50PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
alright. committed to a 17-50 non vc now. thanks everyone.
Aug 23 2011 8:51PM
0 0
profile picture
ChucklesNorman.
Posts: 1197 - Karma: 719
Good choice! it's on my 60D 85% of the time. I really like it.
Aug 23 2011 10:19PM
0 0
profile picture
alexat955
Posts: 2732 - Karma: 112
video to help you make the decision about the 17-50. i just ordered a t2i and im gonna get this lens when i move out probably

http://vimeo.com/7284726
Aug 24 2011 1:05AM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
bump for a somewhat related question. Since I depleted the camera fund buying the t2i it will be a bit before I can buy the 17-50. maybe even after ski season starts, as I don't have a job right now. So my question is, should i buy a fixed focal length lens now, and then either sell it off or keep it when I have the money for the tamron, or just sit tight.

bear with me if i said something noobish/utterly idiotic.
Sep 10 2011 9:59PM
0 0
profile picture
alexat955
Posts: 2732 - Karma: 112
That's not a bad question haha. How much do you have to spend now? Your camera is useless without a lens but you will possibly be losing money buying a lens and reselling (but depends on which one you buy) so definitely factor that into your decision
Sep 10 2011 11:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
Go find a pentax k mount 50mm f2 and an adapter ring. Shouldnt cost you more than 75 bucks. Its not ideal and you wont be able to follow cam on a lens that long, but its something to use until you get the 17-50. And its something youll probably still use once you get the tamron.

Theres also a wider olympus mount lens that paul braunstien loves that you can snag for super cheap on ebay. Ill post its name in the morning, its escaping me now and i wanna go to bed.

Or if you really want AF for photos, the canon 50 1.8 is a hundred bucks anywhere. Relatively sharp decent lens.
Sep 11 2011 4:45AM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
Found it. Olympus OM Zuiko 28mm 3.5. Nice because with the crop factor it comes out to almost 50mm which was the standard lens on 35mm cameras. Its a good focal length for starting out. Just again, gonna be rough to do follow cams with. And youll need an OM to EOS adapter ring off ebay as well, should be 15 bucks or so.
Sep 11 2011 4:47AM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
i have a vivitar 28mm 2.8 nikon mount, a nikon 1.8 with a speck in it, and a tamron i believe, 70-210, with an adapter so you can use all of them. want any?
Sep 11 2011 3:55PM
0 0
profile picture
alexat955
Posts: 2732 - Karma: 112
how much for the set?
Sep 11 2011 5:42PM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
100 for all? i paid 120 from plorr on ns, but due to the speck its dropped a bit. but you do get the free adapter, which was like 20. he charged 40 each so i guess its like same price plus free 50 with speck.
Sep 11 2011 5:44PM
0 0
profile picture
alexat955
Posts: 2732 - Karma: 112
hm, if he doesn't take you up on that I might, but I already have a canon 50
Sep 11 2011 5:46PM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
i can leave that out if you'd like. if he doesn't want it
Sep 11 2011 5:49PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
Hows that working for you?
Sep 11 2011 6:01PM
0 0
profile picture
alexat955
Posts: 2732 - Karma: 112
It's good for the price, but you can get better lenses in the same price range. Also if you only have $100, definitely buy this set rather than just a 50. The nikon 50 is about as good as the canon 50 I believe and you get a better range because of the other 2 lenses. All you lose is AF which doesn't matter that much
Sep 11 2011 6:06PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
im a noob with lenses so what does this mean. couldn't be mm...right?
Sep 11 2011 6:11PM
0 0
profile picture
alexat955
Posts: 2732 - Karma: 112
he meant 50 1.8
Sep 11 2011 6:12PM
0 0
profile picture
CliffyByro
Posts: 5678 - Karma: 3,903
maximum aperture value
Sep 11 2011 6:12PM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
lol that would be the most ridiculously wide lens... not even possible probably. but let me know, 100 shipped. just remember the speck. easy to remove in ps, probably more annoying in videos, but i wouldn't know, i don't really do videos. and theres a dent in the filter threads for the 28, im going to go try and bend that out, il let you know how it goes in a few minutes. (was there when i got it) and its an af confirm chip. but in the exif data it thinks its f/1.4 and 3000-something mm lol, still works fine.
Sep 11 2011 6:15PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
ok. could you post a pic with the spec in it?

also lol ok, i knew that. well i didnt, but whatever.
Sep 11 2011 6:18PM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
Click for larger image sorry so big i couldnt see it any smaller. its middle-left.
Sep 11 2011 6:32PM
0 0
profile picture
the.cheat
Posts: 2859 - Karma: 171
dub post but nvm that didn't come out big.
Sep 11 2011 6:34PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)