A community to post about photography:
We allow a wide range of topics here including; your own images, technical questions, gear talk, photography blogs etc. Please be respectful and don't spam.
It's hard to get a perfect lens that goes from 18-200 with a macro function for your budget that I would recommend.
Instead I would buy the best lens you can for that price. This lens has been tearing it up with optical quality: https://www.sigmaphoto.com/18-50mm-f2-8-dc-dn-c
It hits the wider end of your request for architecture and street photos plus goes up to 50mm for portraits. If I had $600 to spend on one lens right now it would be this one.
/thread, although I would also throw a prime into the mix. I have no idea how good Canon's $200-$250 primes are, but they're compact and seem like a good toe in the water.
I don't have a Canon, but I have a similar use case for my Fujifilm which is also an aspc sensor and I've found 18-80mm zoom lens and 23 mm prime have been the most useful to me. Those would be equivalent to 27-120mm and 35mm Full frame lenses.
Canon RF and RF-S lenses which can go on the R50. (https://www.canon.com.au/cameras/eos-r50) . Going into a bit of detail, the RF lenses produce a larger image which isnt necessary for your camera as it has a smaller sensor*. It was common for cameras to work around a 'full frame' size based on 35mm film, RF-S lenses were desgined for the smaller sensor, but dont have as much variety in lenses
As your on a budget, I think your options are:-
Just get the 18-45 kit lens for now. https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/rf-s-18-45mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm
buy the kit lens above , but also get its larger companion lens which gives you more 'reach' to shoot birds and sports from afar 55-210mm. https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/rf-s-55-210mm-f5-7-1-is-stm
buy the RF-S 18-150mm lens as 'one lens to rule them all' this is effectively the does everything lens , its even got some macro capability with a focus distance of 12cm out wide and using manual focus (https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/rf-s-18-150mm-f3-5-6-3-is-stm)
There is an option for a RF-S 18 but id describe that as a super wide to wide angle lens which could work as zoomed in your about what a wide angle old school film point and shoot would be set to. https://www.canon.com.au/camera-lenses/rf-s-10-18mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm
I think it comes down to money, but if your ruling out moving animals, and sports, it sounds like you wont need to zoom in lots, so you probably wont need the second lens or extra reach of the 18-150mm.
Id say its narrowed down to Option 1, standard lens or option 4 wide angle. Id browse the lens pages to see sample shots and then search for more photos taken with those lens.
Why wouldn't the third option work best?
Pretty much Just money. If your limited by funds now, the smaller kit lens might be the only option.
If I had to choose between the 18-150 or two lenses, then I'd probably just get the 18-150 for the convenience not to change over lenses (assuming extra weight and size aren't an issue). And then the 10-18 can be added later for the super wide shots.
I've also been recommended a relatively cheap Sigma lens that is of high image quality but it doesn't have Image Stabilization. Would that be a concern with R50 without IBIS?
And is the 18-150mm lens much better than the basic kit 45 one?
It's getting a little outside my area of expertise on the image quality part. Canon have professional lenses which have the red ring around them (or they did for the ef lenses) and I have seen others judge image sharpness etc between lenses and say stuff like it's slightly sharper at f/8.0 but I don't think I could tell the difference between the lenses without looking at the EXIF data.
The page I looked at said the 18-150 had macro capability and the extra reach of the zoom would be the two main things I'd see as differences.
No image stabilisation shouldn't be an issue by itself. If your zoomed out wide, you might need to use a faster shutter speed such as 1/200th of a second or a tripod to keep the camera steady where stabilisation might let you hand hold and take the shot.
I'm using sample figures here, but stabikisation might let you take a shot at a lower ISO and keep a higher image quality at 1/20th second or 1/60th second and might help take a nicer picture in lower light conditions which would otherwise be blurry if it was taken hand held.
But adjusting the ISO from say 100 to 1600 and taking the same photo at 1/500th a second shouldn't see much image quality change.
Thanks for helping thoroughly!
It also depends a lot on lighting. The third option will be good for outdoors photography on sunny and slightly overcast days and fine on a tripod for static scenes with low light. Taking photos of people and/or moving things in low light will be rough.
Lens selection is all about choosing the tradeoffs that work for you.
If you have a local photography store you might be able to borrow or rent a lens for a few days to get a feel for how you like it.
I've also been recommended a relatively cheap Sigma lens that is of high image quality but it doesn't have Image Stabilization. Would that be a concern with R50 without IBIS?
And is the 18-150mm lens much better than the basic kit 45 one?
As a rule of thumb, you don't need to worry about stabilization until your shutter speed is less than 1/full frame focal length. So for example on a 50mm lens, as long as your shutter speed is faster than 1/75 of a second you'll be fine. Stabilization doesn't fix people and/or things moving around (eg trees swaying in the wind), so IMO it's only so useful. To me, stabilization is most useful to me at longer focal lengths, say 200mm+, because it helps keep your framing and focus points consistent. If you're doing longer exposure of static things, and don't want to carry a tripod, stabilization on a wide lens makes sense.
I don't know this specific 18-150, but these types of lenses tend to sacrifice some IQ for a very wide zoom range. Generally speaking, any lens pushing more than 3x zoom is going to be more challenging to design. An 18-150 (8.3x zoom) is positioned as "one lens to walk around with all day in good to decent lightning". You'll need to look at reviews of the two lenses in question though. See my other reply with a list of bullets that impact image quality for things to watch for.
Highest quality would be a few cheap EF mount primes (or a single RF-S prime), most versatile would be a wide zoom. You might even have enough budget for a wide zoom and longer prime if you buy second hand.
thoughts on a single Sigma: https://www.sigmaphoto.com/18-50mm-f2-8-dc-dn-c ?
Not familiar with that particular lens but the full frame version is very well regarded. Definitely a setp up from amy kit lens. I would still advise looking at second hand and bear in mind EF mount lenses will work very well with an adapter. You will get more bang for buck if you avoid RF lenses for a while.
Thanks!
What EF lens that is cheaper do you think would compare in quality to Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary?
Sadly versatile zoom + high quality is easily $2k USD I've looked even used is like $1.5k unless they are buddies who will give you a bigger discount. If you go primes then you can do quality and fits your price range as new or used.
So is the RF-S 18–150mm f/3.5–6.3 IS STM 'bad quality'? Is it worse than the kit lens? How much worse is it than the $2k lenses?
The "RF-S" lenses are the budget lenses of Canon RF lenses.
This scheme started with the EF mount and EF-S lenses.
This is not to say that RF-S lenses or even EF-S lenses are terrible, but they are built down to a price.
An RF-S lens will be perfectly servicable for the vast majority of usecases.
Look for reviews on the lens you are interested in and look at the sample shots (ignore any review that does not supply full resolution sample shots).
When I started doing photography, I had a Canon EOS 400D with the kit EF-S 18-55mm lens, it was fine, I sometimes go back and look at some photos taken with that camera, and they still hold up, granted I don't pixel peep, but they are fine.
With regards to your question about what type of lens you should get, since I don't know the market where you are I will simply not comment directly on price.
The lens with the largest reach I have ever had is my 14-140mm zoom lens for my GX80 m43 camera, it is a brilliant lens, the range makes it work with just about anything.
The RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM seems like a fine budget lens.
I skimmed several reviews, and saw several 4/5 grades, with one mentioning "mediocre image quallity", which I personally wouldn't put a lot of stock into, it is difficult to judge a budget lens fairly is you are used to the top of the line.
Look at the sample shots and decide for your self, there is no perfect lens or camera, and at the start you will usually start at the lower levels.
It's not so much as bad, it's more a culmination of things that may or may not matter to you. First and foremost, what are you doing photography for? Is it to capture scenes or moments or is it about achieving technical perfection? There are plenty of great photos out there that were captured on "crap" gear.
Here's a quick rundown
Etc etc. generally speaking, but not always obvious, more expensive glass tends to exhibit less of the above.
Primes are generally easier to pull off, so they can be better at a lower price point, but they obviously are fixed focal length.
Thanks, great insights. Could you recommend one or a few prime lenses for 600usd or so? For R50. And is it worth upgrading to a full frame camera or would R50 be great for a long time in photography in general?
Thanks, great insights.
No problem!
Could you recommend one or a few prime lenses for 600usd or so? For R50.
I did so in another post, there are a few decent options. If I had to choose one for you, it would be the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary, although that might not be wide enough for your needs. Go check out the other reply.
And is it worth upgrading to a full frame camera or would R50 be great for a long time in photography in general?
I used crop-sensor DSLRs for 10 years before moving to full frame when I went to a mirrorless setup. Why did I move? Low light performance, a touch more subject isolation, and not having such a limited budget. That and most lenses these days being made for full frame sensors. You can use these lenses on a crop-body, but you're not getting any size/weight savings out of it beyond the extra focal length thanks to the crop factor (eg I would probably have a 70-300 lens instead of the bigger and heavier 150-500 I have now). The standout exception here is Fujifilm, since all they make are crop bodies, but their autofocus just wasn't as good as Sony/Canon. If it was more reliable than i would very likely be talking to you as a Fuji owner.
Full frame also comes with some downsides: more expensive bodies, more expensive lenses, shallower depth of field can work against you if you want more light, etc.
I would personally stick with the R50 while you learn. You're very unlikely to hit a wall on it any time soon and the "need" of full frame just isn't there for 80-90% of scenarios.
I've come to a conclusion that I'm either getting the stock lens (the RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM) or this sigma one (the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary).
But as a beginner, I'd still love to ask you: It's five times the price of the stock lens, but does the quality improve proportionally? Would the pictures generally also be about 5x better, in some way at least?
5x better? My initial reaction would be no. The only exception would be if you're going to be doing a lot of low light photography. On the wide side, the Sigma gathers 1.5x more light. On the narrow side, the Sigma gathers 3x more light. That could be the difference between getting or not getting a shot.
The Sigma will give you better subject isolation, better image quality/rendering, and better feel in hand. I suggest googling both lenses and looking at sample image galleries.
Wether or not this is worth the extra cost is your call.
It might be worth posting to a single community and then cross-posting the thread in the future. It also might be worth spacing out the cross posting by a day or so if you don't get much traction initially. Putting the same post in multiple places does get you more eyeballs, but it fragments the conversation some.
I went to B&H, filtered by RF mount with auto focus and sorted by price.. I'm excluding things that don't seem like great recommendations.
I split this into two groups: primes and zooms. Things that seem like great suggestions are bold.
Canon offers a number of fairly fast/cheap/compact (ie inconspicuous) primes. They're not going to be the optical nirvana of $1-3k lenses, but they will generally exceed the optical quality of cheap zooms. You can always "zoom" with your feet but this has a limit. There are a few macro options, as well as a solid option from Sigma. Choices in this category:
Zooms. Budget zooms generally aren't fixed aperture, so as you zoom in you'll gather less light. There is one fixed aperture zoom in your price range and it also happens to be optically great.
Thank you. Great recommendations! What one or a few important things do you think I'd not have access to with the stock 18-45 lens?
Kit zooms these days really aren't bad starter lenses and I wouldn't immediately jump to replace it if the lens is meeting your needs. I would consider this from two angles.
First, is the lens preventing you from achieving the photos you want? IMO there are only two things here:
If the answer to either is "yes" you know the answer to your question - you want more/less focal distance and/or more light gathering ability. If the answer to both 1 and 2 is no, then you don't need a new lens and this brings us to the second area.
Second, does the lens give you the aesthetic you're after? Kit lenses are generally decent, but the opportunities from improvement come from three big things: subject isolation, "pleasing" image quality (bokey, rendering, etc), and sharpness. A "faster" lens will offer much more isolation than your kit lens. The others are really up to your eye.
Not much else to say but thank you! You've basically given me a quick tour of the photography world and I hope others can get as many insights as I have 🙂
No worries, happy shooting! Make another post or three if you hav questions! 🍻