Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I used to have a Canon non-digital SLR. I used a Canon-compatible Tamron zoom lens, can't remember the exact spec, 35 - 200? That's probably showing my ignorance!


It was reasonably light and easy to carry, very versatile, and took excellent pictures of people, landscapes etc when I went travelling.


It was also very reasonably priced.


ETA: And I only needed to carry one lens so didn't need to keep changing over lenses.

I've got a Sigma 18-200mm lens for Canon - covers pretty much everything you could want for day to day photos. Quality is not quite as sharp as a Canon lens but more than adequate, and significantly cheaper at about ?250-300. At f3.5, you still need a reasonable amount of light although it's got optical stabilisation as well which helps a little bit.


Check out camerapricebuster for best prices - it's a specialist camera equipment price comparison site which keeps up to date with latest offers etc.

I'd suggest a 35mm-75mm lens (from experience). The problem with long zooms (up to 200mm) is that unless you pay a good whack for it you'll find loss of sharpness at the edges at some focal lengths and will always need a tripod. A 35-75 is more affordable and will give pretty good results at every zoom, whilst being versatile (and light) enough for landscapes through to snapshots and semi-close ups.

Prime lenses are the best bang for your buck and versatility comes with your feet rather than a zoom.


50mm 1.8 is probably the best value canon lens there is at under a ton. If you're feeling fruity the 1.4 has better build quality and slightly sharper, but comes in at about ?250

I agree that the 50mm f1.8 is a great bit of kit for the price, but for versatility something like the 18-200mm is unbeatable. I basically use it for about 90% of the time now, with the 50mm on for the other 10%. It's surprisingly good at all focal lengths, and it's light enough that I very rarely need a tripod.


I would say that for a relative novice on a budget it's probably unbeatable.

In all fairness I do actually use my 24-70 f2.8 more than I use my prime, it's such a beautiful lens, the image quality is astounding, but it also weighs half a ton.

My 50 f1.4 died on honeymoon, the autofocus stopped working and if you're not composing a still life or something, autofocus is absolutely vital on those wide apertures.

Then all of a sudden it came back to life a couple of months ago for no particular reason. Colour me very happy indeed!!

Another vote for a 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8 prime lens.

a) they're cheap

b) big max aperture, (so you can shoot indoors over the winter months without a flash) - blows the background out of focus so lovely for portraits

c) Check the reviews but you should find the 50mm 1.8 has pretty sharp optics

d) The fact you don't have a zoom will force you to think more closely about the composition of the shot, rather than just zooming away and snapping. (Nowt wrong with zooms, it's just nice to try something different sometimes)

e) Not too risky. If you buy the official Canon lenses you can use them for a few months and then flog them if you don't like them and you'll still get a decent resale price.

All good advice.


Oh, and if you're looking at pricier lenses you can hire them from places like Calumet which I highly recommend before a huge outlay.

You're more than welcome to test drive my 50 though. Fear'n'Boozing has it a the moment *another hint hint if he's lurking*

The OP did ask for something other than a basic kit though, which is what prime lens are...basic kit. If you don't want to carry three lens then a zoom is the only answer. The short zoom is always going to give better results than a long zoom (photographic science was part of my degree) and prime lens (depending on the quality of the optics of course) will give even better results. The shorter the focal length the sharper all round a lens tends to be (for reasons of pure maths and physics). A decent 35-75mm though will still give excellent results at all focal lengths. No 200m zoom will keep it's properties, esp at 200m and esp at the edges of the lens. That's why wildlife photographers use primes...not zooms.

The 'kit lens' the OP refers to is these days the general purpose lens that a DSLR ships with.


In the case of budget Canon DSLRs its the 18-55 f3.5-5.6

A good starter lens for learning composition and techniques, but the optics aren't good and image quality suffers significantly.


The 50 f1.8 is an excellent lens at a very cheap price. To get similar quality from a zoom would be minimum double, nay triple, the price, obviously as you say the trade-off is quality vs flexibility.


Also agree with avoiding the longer zooms, they cost ALOT for decent quality.

I think what JamesG was saying is that he's got a Canon with a 'starter' kit lens, and he would like to see if he can move on to more creative and engaging photographs with a new lens.


If he's got a 40D, the he could have either one of the 'kit' lenses: theCanon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM


If he's not an expert and if he's got either one of those then probably what he'd like is something that gives him a fundamentally different feel to the shot.


In that sense I'd be trying to recommend a lens that can deliver a shallow depth of field (a small f number) and still be sharp. Because he's low on budget it'll be difficult to get a good one with a zoom facility, so that effectively means he's going to be in 'prime' territory.


For that reason I'd plump firmly for the 50mm f1.4, and you can pick it up for around 250 quid.


I'm guessing Jimbo will derive an extremely pleasurable 6 months getting immersed in portrait and indoor flash free photography, and he'll have a lens that he can treasure for ever!

In my experience (as a one-time professional), most photographers usually develop an interest in a particular subject or style and then acquire a lens that will facilitate their creative vision.


Buying a new lens merely in the hope that it will inspire some previously latent creativity seems rather forlorn to me - just my two cents' worth.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...