Looking to getting new lenses. $1,000 budget. How much is too much?

[SergeTheBlerge]

Hey all, so I'm shooting with a Canon Rebel T6i, and for about a year I've been using the standard 18-55mm packaged lens as well as the 70-300mm that was part of package I purchased. Both have been working fine but I'm looking for a few new lenses to open up my options a bit. Have $1000 or so to spend and have found a few decent lenses out of the bunch. Basically I want to create better background blur, get more "fisheye" options, and absolutely want a wider angle, like with an ultra wide angle lens.
I have found 4 lenses and can get them all for about $1k after a few gift cards.

1 - Opteka 6.5mm f/3.5 HD Aspherical Fisheye Lens & Removable Hood: for my fisheye option

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ustomerReviews

2 - Canon Portrait and Travel Two Lens Kit with 50mm f/1.8 and 10-18mm Lenses: for a portrait lens as well as a wide angle one... figure I can't go wrong with a 2 lens kit.

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Portrai...ngle+kit&psc=1

3 - For the third I'm still trying to decide if for now I really NEED a 2nd wide angle lens but with a better range. There are various, although extremely expensive options, such as the Canon 16-35mm f2.8, the 70-200 f2.8, or the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 (it's far less expensive competitor), or the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens (which is also very affordable and can give that low aperture with a decent range).

Any experience with these lenses? Is it worth buying 4 lenses in one shot if I can afford it? I've definitely improved in my shooting technique but I feel my standard 18-55mm lens' sharpness is far too lacking, especially when I go and edit. Im also not a fan of a wide angle attachment, as corners tend to become far too soft. My 70-300mm tends to be very shaky (which i understand) if I don't happen to have a tripod on me and am looking for more quick shooting sessions.

Any advice is greatly appreciated. Am looking to buy at LEAST 3 of these within the next few days, unless there are any better value options or something very wearisome about the lenses I've mentioned. Thank you!!!!!

[DanK]

I'm a little confused. You wrote:

For the third I'm still trying to decide if for now I really NEED a 2nd wide angle lens but with a better range. There are various, although extremely expensive options, such as the Canon 16-35mm f2.8, the 70-200 f2.8, or the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 (it's far less expensive competitor), or the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens (which is also very affordable and can give that low aperture with a decent range).

This mixes two telephotos that start at a fairly long length on a crop-sensor camera with wide-angle lenses.

My suggestion is that you decide which thing is most important to you from the list you provided (more background blur, better sharpness, a fisheye look, and a wider-angle perspective), and go from there. Since you seem to be looking for higher quality than you currently have, I'm skeptical that you can meet all of these goals at a reasonably high level of quality.

With respect to background blur: that is really two things, not one. One is depth of field, which is simply a function of aperture. For that purpose, the best budget option is the "nifty fifty" f/1.8, which I don't own but have thought about getting. The other aspect is what is properly called background blur, which is entirely independent of depth of field. It's a function of angle of view. If you take a long lens and a short lens, set them to the same aperture to get similar DOF, and frame the subject to take the same fraction of the frame in each, the longer length will blur the background more because it is spreading a smaller angle of view across the frame. Unfortunately, a web page that shows this and explains it well has been taken down.

For wide angle but not fisheye, Canon offers two EF-S lenses: the 10-18, and the more expensive 10-22, which I used to own. You can compare their performance here, if you take some time to compare different focal lengths and apertures.

Keep in mind that any given focal length will be less wide angle on a crop camera compared with a FF because of the narrower angle of view with at given focal length. However, the difference between 10mm and the 18 you have now is very large. I don't have any links handy, but if you search, there are pages that illustrate the view at different short focal lengths. Just make sure that the photos are taken with a crop sensor camera. Otherwise, you have to correct.

[Manfred M]

Sergio - as I am not a Canon shooter, I cannot comment on the specific lenses you are considering, but what I can comment on are the usefulness of the various focal lengths for the stated purposes that you are looking at. When I look at what you have; 18-55mm and 70-300mm, the gaps in coverage are below 18mm, in the 55-70mm range and above 300mm.

As you have concentrated on specific lenses rather than the types of photography you are looking at, that makes giving advice far more difficult. Dan has covered off the aspects of throwing the background out of focus. Large apertures are generally a key consideration here and none of the lenses you are looking at are likely to meet those needs. Subject to camera distance is the other key driver to shallow depth of field and this is not generally something one does with a fish-eye or ultra-wide angle; normal shooting with those types of lenses will tend to give you the opposite; extremely wide DoF. "Fast glass" is generally used in shallow DoF shots, and these lenses are very expensive; definitely far more than your budget allows, even for one lens. Most of the lenses I have that fit that description were well over $1000 in cost and in fact, several were over $2000.

1. Fisheye lenses - I own one and find that I rarely use it, primarily because its use is so very limited. It is one of my least uses lenses because it is challenging to use, as are all ultra-wide angle lenses. Without a lot of care, the images one produces seem somewhat repetitive and trite. The Opeka you are looking at is a Samyang lens, which is marketed under a number of different brand names including those two names as well as Bower, Rokinon, ProOptic, Vivitar, etc.

These lenses are (were?) all manual focus, but given the extreme wide angle, pretty well everything will be in focus, regardless of the focus settings.

2. f/1.8 50mm - this is one lens that just about everyone has in their kit, regardless of whether one is shooting a crop frame camera or a full frame camera, probably because it is quite inexpensive. I own one of these and it is one of my least used lenses, as I have that focal length covered with my f/2.8 24-70mm lens.

It is considered to be the "normal" lens for a full frame camera. On your Canon camera, you are looking at the full-frame equivalent of an 80mm lens, which is a fairly popular focal length for some portraiture work. While on the subject of portraiture, the 70-200mm lens on a full-frame camera is the standard portraiture zoom; which on your 1.6x crop frame body, you would be looking at around a 45 - 125mm focal length. A lens of that focal range is not on your list.

3. Ultra-wide angle rectilinear lens - at the focal lengths you are looking at, every mm difference in focal length makes a difference, especially as you get down towards the smaller focal lengths. I'm a self-admitted ultra-wide angle lens fan, but the statements I made regarding how challenging they are to shoot with. Moving the camera a fraction of an inch can make the difference between a stunning shot and a mediocre one. Somewhat like the fish-eye, they do have a fairly limited use and counter to popular opinion, they are usually not that well suited to landscape work. If one is not careful, one gets a very boring shot that consists of very little other than foreground and sky and everything will tend to be in sharp focus.

[SergeTheBlerge]

In terms of what want photography I am looking toward as opposed to what specific lenses I want, I am only listing the lenses that I have seen as maybe the best value and options for how I want to improve my photography. That is, my current lenses are not giving me the level of sharpness I want (especially my standard 18-55mm) and my zoom 70-300mm is too difficult to handle hand-holsing and whose lowest focal length of 70mm is too much of an initial. I also want better background blur that I am not getting with my 18-55mm, which doesn't seem to create enough blur no matter where I stand to take the shot.
I'd also like a wide angle lens because I simply want to capture more in a shot becsuse I tend to mostly shoot landscapes and wide scenery.

I also posted about fisheye lenses because while I understand that the versatility is limited as you really only get "one type" of shot, I was looking for an actual fisheye as opposed to an attachment because attachments are too soft on the edges. The fisheye isn't something I want to spend too much but I see a few go for under $200.

[rpcrowe]

While a thousand dollar (USD) budget is fairly large, I don't think that it will cover all of your wants/needs with decent quality new glass. A possible compromise might be to purchase the lenses you want/need on the used market...

If I were looking for a good value in the wide to ultra wide area, I would seriously consider the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 ATX Mark-1. I have this lens and it provides excellent image quality on a crop camera. Some photographers say that the lens is susceptible to flare but, I have not had any problem along that line. I always use the lens hood and seldom shoot directly into the sun. The Mark-2 model of this lens ha different coatings designed to make it less susceptible to flare but, as I said, I have not been bothered with that problem.

At $150-250 used on eBay, I think that this is absolutely the best value out there for a wide angle lens. It can even be used on a full frame camera from 17-24mm with no vignetting and decent image quality
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...on&_sacat=3323

I'd look into a medium focal length zoom with a constant f/2.8 aperture such as the 17-50mm Tamron non-VC which would run you around $200-250. The non-VC model has slightly better image quality than the model with stabilization.

If you get a decent deal on the above 2 lenses, you will might have enough for a 70-200mm f/4L lens, preferably one with IS. Despite that lens having a max aperture of f/4, you can do some very nice selective focus work with it.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...4L&_sacat=3323

Here's a shot using the 70-200mm:


Here's a portrait with that lens...


As far as fish eye lenses go, there are a number of lenses on the market listed under many brand names. The Vivitar 8mm f/3.5 is just one of them. It is an all manual lens but provides very decent IQ at a decent price.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-8mm...AAAOSwZr9ZsXVL

Good luck...

[SergeTheBlerge]

While a thousand dollar (USD) budget is fairly large, I don't think that it will cover all of your wants/needs with decent quality new glass. A possible compromise might be to purchase the lenses you want/need on the used market...

If I were looking for a good value in the wide to ultra wide area, I would seriously consider the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 ATX Mark-1. I have this lens and it provides excellent image quality on a crop camera. Some photographers say that the lens is susceptible to flare but, I have not had any problem along that line. I always use the lens hood and seldom shoot directly into the sun. The Mark-2 model of this lens ha different coatings designed to make it less susceptible to flare but, as I said, I have not been bothered with that problem.

At $150-250 used on eBay, I think that this is absolutely the best value out there for a wide angle lens. It can even be used on a full frame camera from 17-24mm with no vignetting and decent image quality
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...on&_sacat=3323

I'd look into a medium focal length zoom with a constant f/2.8 aperture such as the 17-50mm Tamron non-VC which would run you around $200-250. The non-VC model has slightly better image quality than the model with stabilization.

If you get a decent deal on the above 2 lenses, you will might have enough for a 70-200mm f/4L lens, preferably one with IS. Despite that lens having a max aperture of f/4, you can do some very nice selective focus work with it.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fro...4L&_sacat=3323

Here's a shot using the 70-200mm:


Here's a portrait with that lens...


As far as fish eye lenses go, there are a number of lenses on the market listed under many brand names. The Vivitar 8mm f/3.5 is just one of them. It is an all manual lens but provides very decent IQ at a decent price.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-8mm...AAAOSwZr9ZsXVL

Good luck...

Thank you so much for these new options! I'll definitely research these and do some math on em to figure out my final price!

[inkista]

Hey all, so I'm shooting with a Canon Rebel T6i, and for about a year I've been using the standard 18-55mm packaged lens as well as the 70-300mm that was part of package I purchased. ... I want to create better background blur, get more "fisheye" options, and absolutely want a wider angle, like with an ultra wide angle lens.

I have found 4 lenses and can get them all for about $1k after a few gift cards.

1 - Opteka 6.5mm f/3.5 HD Aspherical Fisheye Lens & Removable Hood: for my fisheye option

This would be my recommendation for you, if you wanted a fisheye. It's actually made by Samyang and they call it an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye, but it does get rebranded as Rokinon, Pro-Optic, Bower, Phoenix, etc. It's also known as the Vivitar 7. It typically seems to have the lowest price as the Rokinon version. DO NOT confuse this with the 8mm f/2.8 mirrorless fisheye for Sony E-mount, EOS M, and Fuji X.

There are several drawbacks, though, to using a manual-only lens that does not electronically communicate with the camera body. You have to manually focus, and manually set the lens aperture on the lens with the aperture ring. You can only shoot in M or Av modes on the camera, since the body can't adjust the aperture setting of the lens. You have no lens EXIF information. And you'll be using stop-down metering, so the smaller your aperture setting is, the dimmer the scene in the viewfinder gets.

I would also say, get an ultrawide and use it before you get a fisheye. The fisheye is very extreme, and an ultrawide may be enough, unless you're a weirdo like me who shoots 360x180 panos or a frequent skateboarding shooter.

2 - Canon Portrait and Travel Two Lens Kit with 50mm f/1.8 and 10-18mm Lenses...

Those are the default recommendations for low-cost fast portrait lens and ultrawide for landscapes. They're good lenses. But the 50/1.8 can be a little long on a crop body, particularly if you plan on using it as a walkaround or street shooting lens. The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM pancake prime might be better for walkaround/street, because it's wider angle.

The 10-18 is great for landscapes, but it's got a slow max. aperture, so if you want to use the lens in lower light without a tripod or other stabilization, say, for environmental portraits, you may want to consider the Tokina 11-16/2.8.

For the third I'm still trying to decide if for now I really NEED a 2nd wide angle lens but with a better range. There are various, although extremely expensive options, such as the Canon 16-35mm f2.8,

This is only an ultrawide on a full frame body. On your dRebel, it's only a walkaround zoom. Ditto the 17-40L. You really want something that starts at at 12mm or less for an ultrawide zoom on APS-C.

If you really want something with an extended range over the 18-55 kit lens, the EF-S 15-85 IS USM (basically the crop analog to the 24-105L) or the EF-S 18-135 might be better choices to look at for a crop shooter.

... the 70-200 f2.8, or the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 (it's far less expensive competitor),

These lenses are faster than your 70-300, but quite a bit shorter. If you want more reach, the 100-400L is probably the one to look at, but it's more than your entire budget (like most Ls are).

or the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens (which is also very affordable and can give that low aperture with a decent range)

This is an odd duck, and quite a bit more expensive than some of the lenses you're looking at. Consider that the zoom range is actually smaller than the one you have with the 18-55. Is it worth it to get f/1.8 max. aperture? Also consider that DoF is naturally deeper with shorter lenses. f/1.8 may not be blurring background at 18mm like you think it will.

...Is it worth buying 4 lenses in one shot if I can afford it?

The danger here is that getting four lenses at once is a LOT. It's a lot to learn all at once, and a lot to buy. Most of us go one lens at a time, concentrating on a specific need the new lens will fulfill.

I've definitely improved in my shooting technique but I feel my standard 18-55mm lens' sharpness is far too lacking, especially when I go and edit.

One question. Do you ever use it at f/8? f/8 is the great equalizer among lenses. Landscape shooting at 18mm f/8 on a tripod may make you reconsider the 18-55's sharpness and your technique.

... My 70-300mm tends to be very shaky (which i understand) if I don't happen to have a tripod on me and am looking for more quick shooting sessions.

Increase your ISO settings, so you get to 1/focal_length (or 1/focal_length*crop) shutter speeds. Long lens technique is very different from short lens technique.

See also: photo.stackexchange.com Q&A: Why are my photos not crisp?

[William W]

Before you buy anything, I am very keen that you digest and understand these points made by Dan, Manfred and Richard:
> Background Blur
> 50/1.8 relevance, usefulness and versatility on an ASP-C Format Camera
> Value of buying second hand

***

I read the opening post whilst OS and Kathy wrote virtually everything I would have written - so her's is my total view, almost exactly, I would like to add two points:

On your point about attaining better "Background Blur" - if we ONLY consider Depth of Field and then we note that usually this is mostly an artistic consideration for Portraiture, then it is worthwhile noting the following

> for most Portrait shooting scenarios (for that matter any shooting scenario where you want a small DoF) - there is NOT very much difference between F/1.8 and F/2.8, hence it is worthwhile considering paying a bit more and buying a FAST ZOOM, which compasses a RANGE of Focal Lengths, instead of spending less on a Fast Prime and being caught up in the hype of "what a good buy because it is so inexpensive and everyone should have one"

In this regard, as well as having a look at a second hand Tamron 17 to 50/2.8, it would be worthwhile looking at their 28 to 75/2.8, this option appeals to me especially, if you buy an UWA zoom such as a xx to 22mm or xx to 24mm, as it would make a useful two lens zoom pair for use on an APS-C Camera.


> be aware that you can "de-fish" an image. I find "De-Fishing" quite useful to get a final image as a wide (WIDER) panorama without carrying a W/A or UWA zoom. De-fishing for a Panorama can be especially useful if the Subject is at a relatively short Shooting Distance.

There are several De-fish programs available for download; and probably Photoshop / Lightroom has presets in the Lens profiles.

Here is an example - the Fisheye lens used was the EF15/2.8 (on a 'full frame' camera), the first image is the original fisheye image cropped at the top and the bottom. Note the barrelling and the thin people at the sides.

The second image is the "de-fished" version, quite useful as a panorama, especially wh en the Subject is at a Close Shooting Distance.



*



WW

All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2018 WMW 1965~1996