Best budget camera lens for travel
April 21, 2013 11:29 AM Subscribe
What is the best lens for a trip to Europe, for a Canon Rebel XS, that is budget-friendly?
I'm looking for a lens that will give me a good range of wide shots (buildings, landscapes, etc) as well as the nice details in closer shots. I would ideally like to carry only one lens with me, since I'm traveling light and don't really want to change out lenses all the time.
I have the default 18-55mm lens that came with the camera body, but I have trouble with getting crisp shots with it. I've been recommended to look at the 50mm f/ 1.8 lens, but is that going to be too restrictive as a fixed focal length?
I was also recommended to look at the 24-105mm f/4 but that baby is pricey!
I'm really limited budget-wise, so I am hoping for something under $300. I could possibly stretch to $500 if it was really the perfect lens, but I'd prefer not to.
I've seen several similar threads on here, but most of the answers I've seen have been for much higher-priced lens kits.
I have the default 18-55mm lens that came with the camera body, but I have trouble with getting crisp shots with it. I've been recommended to look at the 50mm f/ 1.8 lens, but is that going to be too restrictive as a fixed focal length?
I was also recommended to look at the 24-105mm f/4 but that baby is pricey!
I'm really limited budget-wise, so I am hoping for something under $300. I could possibly stretch to $500 if it was really the perfect lens, but I'd prefer not to.
I've seen several similar threads on here, but most of the answers I've seen have been for much higher-priced lens kits.
One vote for the Canon 'nifty fifty' = 1.8. Artful, sharp, cheap, lightweight.
When I had an XS, I bought (after much research) the Tamron 28-75 and was very happy.
A matter of personal taste, I _liked_ that the 50 was restrictive because it challenged my composition. I wound up with more artful shots and found I never took it off the camera.
posted by iiniisfree at 11:39 AM on April 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
When I had an XS, I bought (after much research) the Tamron 28-75 and was very happy.
A matter of personal taste, I _liked_ that the 50 was restrictive because it challenged my composition. I wound up with more artful shots and found I never took it off the camera.
posted by iiniisfree at 11:39 AM on April 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
I second iiniisfree's 50mm suggestion, for the same reason - - restrictiveness is freeing in it's own way.
Although I suggest bumping it up to the f1.4.
Even though it'll be near the top of your budget and 3x more expensive than the f1.8, it'll offer you the opportunity to explore all the exciting dimensions of depth of field that are invisible through the crappy stock zooms that are sold with SLR's nowadays.
posted by fairmettle at 11:50 AM on April 21, 2013
Although I suggest bumping it up to the f1.4.
Even though it'll be near the top of your budget and 3x more expensive than the f1.8, it'll offer you the opportunity to explore all the exciting dimensions of depth of field that are invisible through the crappy stock zooms that are sold with SLR's nowadays.
posted by fairmettle at 11:50 AM on April 21, 2013
What iiniisfree said. A fixed 50mm is only negatively restrictive if you make it so, and I'd guess that the places on your itinerary aren't lacking in photographs taken at either end of a zoom's focal range.
posted by holgate at 11:56 AM on April 21, 2013
posted by holgate at 11:56 AM on April 21, 2013
I have used a different rental website, but yeah, this is a good example of where I'd look at renting a lens. With the rental cost, shipping fee, and damage waiver you should still be way below a $300 budget. Renting allows you to select something that will be appropriate for a vacation although you may not use it frequently when you're at home, and it allows you to splurge on higher quality than you could otherwise afford. (Which might be worthwhile for a trip to Europe!)
The folks at LensRentals are very responsive—even on weekends, in my experience—and I'm sure they could give you a better recommendation on a specific lens than I could. I'm less knowledgeable about zoom lenses than primes, and it seems like a non-telephoto zoom probably does make sense for you. I will say that if you do decide to look at a 50mm, check out the Sigma. I've used it and I would buy it over any of the Canon options.
posted by cribcage at 12:00 PM on April 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
The folks at LensRentals are very responsive—even on weekends, in my experience—and I'm sure they could give you a better recommendation on a specific lens than I could. I'm less knowledgeable about zoom lenses than primes, and it seems like a non-telephoto zoom probably does make sense for you. I will say that if you do decide to look at a 50mm, check out the Sigma. I've used it and I would buy it over any of the Canon options.
posted by cribcage at 12:00 PM on April 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Seconding desjardins. Rent! Renting allows you to try out a lens before buying. I am partial to borrowlenses.com but as you can see there are lots of options for you to compare prices (if you can find a local option to save on the shipping, that's also good.)
While I totally understand the impulse to keep things simple, keep in mind that the Nifty Fifty you are talking about weighs so little as to be negligible, so don't necessarily rule it out as a second lens.
I own both the 50 1.8 and the 24-105. And like you, I have crop factor to deal with, which makes a big difference when you want to take wide shots. The 24-105 is on my camera most of the time, but it has its drawbacks, and landscapes is a big drawback.
What I would do, in your shoes, is rent a 10-22 if you really want to be able to do wide shots. This is in fact what I have done on multiple trips, and I have to say the 10-22 gets a lot of use when I am traveling.
posted by ambrosia at 12:07 PM on April 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
While I totally understand the impulse to keep things simple, keep in mind that the Nifty Fifty you are talking about weighs so little as to be negligible, so don't necessarily rule it out as a second lens.
I own both the 50 1.8 and the 24-105. And like you, I have crop factor to deal with, which makes a big difference when you want to take wide shots. The 24-105 is on my camera most of the time, but it has its drawbacks, and landscapes is a big drawback.
What I would do, in your shoes, is rent a 10-22 if you really want to be able to do wide shots. This is in fact what I have done on multiple trips, and I have to say the 10-22 gets a lot of use when I am traveling.
posted by ambrosia at 12:07 PM on April 21, 2013 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Your Canon has a crop factor that makes a 50mm equivalent to an 80mm portrait lens on a full frame sensor or film. You will have trouble getting wide interior shots. If you go for a fixed lens I would consider a 35mm or 28mm. Sadly they will be more expensive with smaller apertures.
Yes, you will miss shots that you could get with an 18-55 zoom, but you will open up new possibilities for low light shooting.
posted by scose at 12:15 PM on April 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yes, you will miss shots that you could get with an 18-55 zoom, but you will open up new possibilities for low light shooting.
posted by scose at 12:15 PM on April 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
If you want a "nifty fifty" normal lens, what you really want is a 35mm on a cropped-sensor camera like a Canon Rebel. (Your camera's sensor is not the same size as a 35mm film frame is.)
I have the default 18-55mm lens that came with the camera body, but I have trouble with getting crisp shots with it.
Unpack this a little...what's the trouble you're having? If your shots with a kit lens aren't crisp enough, shooting at f/1.8 is going to be even worse.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 12:16 PM on April 21, 2013
I have the default 18-55mm lens that came with the camera body, but I have trouble with getting crisp shots with it.
Unpack this a little...what's the trouble you're having? If your shots with a kit lens aren't crisp enough, shooting at f/1.8 is going to be even worse.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 12:16 PM on April 21, 2013
I recommend the 18-135mm which you can get on Craigslist for under $200.
I love my nifty-fifty and used it exclusively for years, but unless you intend to spend your whole trip zooming with your feet, you'll find the 50mm too restrictive; you will not get any wide shots with it.
To get an idea of what to expect with the 50mm lens, set your 18-55mm to 55mm and look around your home area while keeping in mind the kind of sites you expect to see -- galleries? landscapes? monuments? buildings? close up portraits? See how easy or hard it is to get the kind of shots you want.
posted by ellenaim at 12:51 PM on April 21, 2013
I love my nifty-fifty and used it exclusively for years, but unless you intend to spend your whole trip zooming with your feet, you'll find the 50mm too restrictive; you will not get any wide shots with it.
To get an idea of what to expect with the 50mm lens, set your 18-55mm to 55mm and look around your home area while keeping in mind the kind of sites you expect to see -- galleries? landscapes? monuments? buildings? close up portraits? See how easy or hard it is to get the kind of shots you want.
posted by ellenaim at 12:51 PM on April 21, 2013
If you don't wish to change lenses, or buy expensive lenses, I don't understand why you would want an SLR. Take that $500 and get a great point and shoot.
For example, Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX7K for $400
If that's too steep of a price, the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS for $225
posted by fief at 12:55 PM on April 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
For example, Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX7K for $400
If that's too steep of a price, the Canon PowerShot SX260 HS for $225
posted by fief at 12:55 PM on April 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Hey Hollywood, thanks! I realize I should clarify. The 18-55 sometimes gives me this weird haze effect over images, and as far as I can tell the lens is clean and there's nothing in the camera itself that would cause that. It makes the images look unfocused or flat, and have really low contrast. I know this deviates from the original question, but is this something you've heard of?
posted by lockstitch at 1:24 PM on April 21, 2013
posted by lockstitch at 1:24 PM on April 21, 2013
I bought a 17-50mm 2.8 tokina on Craigslist for that much, and a friend later got one for a bit less(!)
Best lens I ever owned, and was perfect for travel/hiking/urbanex photography. It replaced every other lens I had or had used.
Don't get a 50mm 1.8. You'll hate how "cropped in" it is via it working like an 80mm, which is a portrait lens. If you want a prime, get the sigma 30mm 1.4. It's cheap and great.
My friend has the sigma and tokina, and hasn't ever wanted any other lenses. I used to have the tokina and a canon 50mm and never wanted to bother with the 50.
Oh and it's worth noting the 24-105 doesn't go all that wide on a crop body. You really want something that gets down in the 17-18 range to actually get wide angle like you'll probably want. A 17-35 type lens would be infinitely more enjoyable than a 24-105, because I really doubt you'd ever even zoom in beyond 50.
On preview, your issues with the 18-55 are because it's a piece of crap. Sell it on Craigslist for $60 and use that cash to fund buying a better lens like the 17-50.
posted by emptythought at 1:27 PM on April 21, 2013
Best lens I ever owned, and was perfect for travel/hiking/urbanex photography. It replaced every other lens I had or had used.
Don't get a 50mm 1.8. You'll hate how "cropped in" it is via it working like an 80mm, which is a portrait lens. If you want a prime, get the sigma 30mm 1.4. It's cheap and great.
My friend has the sigma and tokina, and hasn't ever wanted any other lenses. I used to have the tokina and a canon 50mm and never wanted to bother with the 50.
Oh and it's worth noting the 24-105 doesn't go all that wide on a crop body. You really want something that gets down in the 17-18 range to actually get wide angle like you'll probably want. A 17-35 type lens would be infinitely more enjoyable than a 24-105, because I really doubt you'd ever even zoom in beyond 50.
On preview, your issues with the 18-55 are because it's a piece of crap. Sell it on Craigslist for $60 and use that cash to fund buying a better lens like the 17-50.
posted by emptythought at 1:27 PM on April 21, 2013
Best answer: seconding 35mm lens with as large an aperture as you can afford. 50mm is best for 35mm film or digital with a full frame sensor...the reason for this is that with a full-frame sensor, a picture you take, printed at 8X10" and held at a comfortable viewing distance at the same location the picture was taken will exactly cover the scene...ie it has exactly the same zoom factor as the human eye. With a cropped sensor like yours (and most consumer digital), the 35mm lens is closest to this sweet spot...it will feel like you are taking pictures of EXACTLY what you see. Also, your zoom lens is balanced to take the best pix at the center of the zoom...set it to 35mm, leave it there, and take a bunch of test shots...you will probably be surprised by how good they look.
the weird haze? hmm...what's the minimum f-stop on the lens? are you mostly getting it in low light? if so, you need a larger aperture (smaller f-number), a longer shutter speed, and a tripod. I shoot on nikon and find their little shutter remote ($15) very handy...i'm sure canon has one too (this is really handy for not shaking the camera (blurry) when you push the button)
posted by sexyrobot at 1:30 PM on April 21, 2013
the weird haze? hmm...what's the minimum f-stop on the lens? are you mostly getting it in low light? if so, you need a larger aperture (smaller f-number), a longer shutter speed, and a tripod. I shoot on nikon and find their little shutter remote ($15) very handy...i'm sure canon has one too (this is really handy for not shaking the camera (blurry) when you push the button)
posted by sexyrobot at 1:30 PM on April 21, 2013
I wouldn't recommend 50 mm for Canon Rebel--since it's not full frame, it will look more like a 75mm. I bought the 1.4 people are suggesting a few years ago for my Rebel, and it is a nice lens for the price--but again, it won't look like 50 mm. Get a 35! :)
posted by semaphore at 2:56 PM on April 21, 2013
posted by semaphore at 2:56 PM on April 21, 2013
Ah- apologies! I'd stated earlier I used the 50 & the 28-75 on my XSi, forgetting that right after I bought the 50 1.8 for my XSi I upgraded the body to a 40D (both prior to my current body)- so my recommendations likely won't hold for your XS. Recalling what the XSi was like, I wouldn't have considered investing in an L lens, until I had the cash for a heftier body to put it on.
Regarding the haze, you could always bring the body in to a shop, try out their kit lens with it and see if you can replicate the haze, I jettisoned my XSi due to an unreliable sensor.
posted by iiniisfree at 5:13 PM on April 21, 2013
Regarding the haze, you could always bring the body in to a shop, try out their kit lens with it and see if you can replicate the haze, I jettisoned my XSi due to an unreliable sensor.
posted by iiniisfree at 5:13 PM on April 21, 2013
I used Canon's 28mm f/1.8 for the vast majority of the pictures I took on my most recent trip. I loved it. I have a crop sensor, and I liked the 28mm better than the 35mm and 50mm lenses that Canon makes (I tried all three prior to my trip). It's at the top of your price range, though.
I brought a Canon EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II for close ups of far away things (mostly birds and spiders), but I wouldn't recommend it as the only lens you bring.
Wall of relevant self-links:
Example of a close up with the 28mm. Example of a building shot with the 28mm. Example of a landscape shot with the 28mm.
Example of a landscape shot at 55mm on the 55-250mm. Example of a close up shot at 250mm on the 55-250mm.
posted by topoisomerase at 5:28 PM on April 21, 2013
I brought a Canon EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II for close ups of far away things (mostly birds and spiders), but I wouldn't recommend it as the only lens you bring.
Wall of relevant self-links:
Example of a close up with the 28mm. Example of a building shot with the 28mm. Example of a landscape shot with the 28mm.
Example of a landscape shot at 55mm on the 55-250mm. Example of a close up shot at 250mm on the 55-250mm.
posted by topoisomerase at 5:28 PM on April 21, 2013
Re the haze with the "kit" lens. It appears that camera is generally sold with an Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. A quick look at reviews suggest that it isn't a terrible lens and is reasonably sharp. It might help to see examples of your problematic images. Are any parts of the image reasonably sharp, if so, it might be an autofocus problem.
As for other lens options, look at the after market options. I considered Sigma and Tonika lenses to replace the kit lens on my Rebel XT and ended up going with a Tamron, but all the options were attractive, and ~1/2 the price of a similar canon lens. I've been quite happy with it.
posted by Good Brain at 6:01 PM on April 21, 2013
As for other lens options, look at the after market options. I considered Sigma and Tonika lenses to replace the kit lens on my Rebel XT and ended up going with a Tamron, but all the options were attractive, and ~1/2 the price of a similar canon lens. I've been quite happy with it.
posted by Good Brain at 6:01 PM on April 21, 2013
Best answer: I love the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM
posted by dmd at 6:02 PM on April 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by dmd at 6:02 PM on April 21, 2013 [2 favorites]
Rent. You'll get a considerably better lens, and you can always send it back if you hate it. There are several well known & reputable places that will rent lenses for a relative bargain. More so if you live in NYC, SF, LA, Chicago, etc.
posted by NYC-BB at 6:08 PM on April 21, 2013
posted by NYC-BB at 6:08 PM on April 21, 2013
The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a pretty well regarded replacement for your kit lens, the non image stabilized version reportedly has better optics and should just fit in your maximum budget.
That's pretty much just a better version of something you already have though, it doesn't give you any new capabilities. If you want something better for architecture, go wide. Look for something in the 10-12mm range on the wide end. I shoot on a full frame camera, and the difference between a 24mm (close to your 18mm kit) wide lens and a 15mm (a 10mm lens for you) is pretty astounding.
posted by borkencode at 9:00 PM on April 21, 2013
That's pretty much just a better version of something you already have though, it doesn't give you any new capabilities. If you want something better for architecture, go wide. Look for something in the 10-12mm range on the wide end. I shoot on a full frame camera, and the difference between a 24mm (close to your 18mm kit) wide lens and a 15mm (a 10mm lens for you) is pretty astounding.
posted by borkencode at 9:00 PM on April 21, 2013
Just a late clarification, the tamron lens mentioned above was the one i meant. Not tokina. Total flub up there on my part.
That is pretty much the lens to get though.
posted by emptythought at 10:13 PM on April 21, 2013
That is pretty much the lens to get though.
posted by emptythought at 10:13 PM on April 21, 2013
Nikon has a nice lens simulator that shows the differences in field of view for different lens lengths.
posted by borkencode at 8:01 AM on April 22, 2013
posted by borkencode at 8:01 AM on April 22, 2013
lockstitch, do you have a filter on your 18-55?
If you do, when you notice you're getting that haze effect, take it off. Take the photo again, and compare. Filters, especially inexpensive ones, can cause that.
If I were you, I'd rent a Canon 24-70. It's sharp as hell, as far as zooms go. It is not the most lightweight lens in the world, so that's something to keep in mind. You could also consider renting the Tamron 17-50. You can use this tool to compare lenses, to see how sharp they are.
I also agree with those above me, if you want to travel light and don't want to be changing lenses, a dSLR is probably not the best tool for the job.
posted by inertia at 9:14 AM on April 22, 2013
If you do, when you notice you're getting that haze effect, take it off. Take the photo again, and compare. Filters, especially inexpensive ones, can cause that.
If I were you, I'd rent a Canon 24-70. It's sharp as hell, as far as zooms go. It is not the most lightweight lens in the world, so that's something to keep in mind. You could also consider renting the Tamron 17-50. You can use this tool to compare lenses, to see how sharp they are.
I also agree with those above me, if you want to travel light and don't want to be changing lenses, a dSLR is probably not the best tool for the job.
posted by inertia at 9:14 AM on April 22, 2013
Best answer: You want the Canon 17-85mm IS, 18-135mm IS or a Sigma or Tamron equivalent. You want wide angle for architecture shots of the front of buildings, monuments, inside of churches, landscapes, etc. You want the IS lens because you can't take a tripod into many interior spaces in Europe.
If you lean against a wall or handhold on a rail, you can get acceptably sharp photos of even dark interiors. I have a nice photo of lit candles in Notre Dame that was only made possible by having a wide angle, IS lens.
Due to the crop factor on your camera's smaller sensor, a 50mm prime on your camera is the equivalent of an 80mm lens. You won't get good architectural overview photos this way. (You'll get good street photo and detail shots). A 28mm prime is the equivalent of 45 mm, which again, is often too long to get wide architectural photos.
Those lenses are above your budget new, so I would recommend either renting (I like Borrow Lenses) or buying used.
posted by cnc at 3:17 PM on April 22, 2013
If you lean against a wall or handhold on a rail, you can get acceptably sharp photos of even dark interiors. I have a nice photo of lit candles in Notre Dame that was only made possible by having a wide angle, IS lens.
Due to the crop factor on your camera's smaller sensor, a 50mm prime on your camera is the equivalent of an 80mm lens. You won't get good architectural overview photos this way. (You'll get good street photo and detail shots). A 28mm prime is the equivalent of 45 mm, which again, is often too long to get wide architectural photos.
Those lenses are above your budget new, so I would recommend either renting (I like Borrow Lenses) or buying used.
posted by cnc at 3:17 PM on April 22, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by desjardins at 11:35 AM on April 21, 2013