teepee_uk
The Anti-Trilogy
I am, by my nature, a bargain hunter. And that extends to lenses. Expensive glass is great, but if you're shooting outside, don't you just need the focal length? Stopped down a little, all lenses are sharp, right?
Here is a trio I've recently dubbed The Anti-Trilogy. A wide zoom, a medium zoom and a long zoom for a Canon 35mm or full frame digital SLR. If you are canny, you can pick up all of these lenses for under £100 for the three.
Searches on the net will decry two of these lenses as terrible. The 22-55mm is according to legend, unbelievably soft and susceptible to both distortion at both ends and flare. The 38-76mm is not wide enough in terms of focal length, and is noisy. The 55-200 actually gets a pretty good write up everywhere, but suffers from purple fringing wide open.
To defend these unloved Canon brothers, let's set some things straight. A wide lens for under £50 is unlikely to be as good as one costing £300. The 22-55 does feel light and cheap, and the massive curve on the front element suggests that lens correction software is going to be your friend at the near and far ends of the zoom range. This is true, especially at the near end, where barrel distortion is so extreme that you have to correct at +7 in Lightroom. The crop needed to get the frame usable again narrows the width of the picture, which is kind of going against the idea of the wide lens.
But... in good light, stopped down to F/8 to f/11 the lens is a performer at the wide end, only soft in the extreme corners of the frame. These are apertures you'll be using for landscapes or interiors on a tripod. IQ actually picks up at 5.6/6.3 at 35mm, and distortion is of the negligible complex variety. At the 55mm far end (ha!), you can shoot at 5.6 well, with only minor pincushion distortion. Flare is an issue on this lens, but you have to accept that on a lens that is almost entirely made of plastic. Without a hood, expect flare. You can partially correct that with a hood, so if you've got time to set up, why not?
The 38-76mm is surprisingly sharp throughout the range, wide open. Given that "wide open" is F/4.5, that's hardly a surprise. It isn't very wide, but you know what, unless you've got your back to a kerb or a cliff's edge, take a big step backwards. Hey presto, 32mm! At the far end, this lens slows to F/5.6, but the bokeh, while being busy, isn't distracting. It's a relatively useful lens with decent IQ. Copies vary in quality, so I have to say this one is a good one. As they're all going to be second hand by this point, buy carefully, inspect closely and test whenever possible. £20 for a full frame lens is not bad at all. Oh, and descriptions of this lens as noisy are well off the mark. My copy borders on silent, even without USM.
The 55-200 and its younger brother the 55-200 II are probably the pick of the bunch here for one reason; in camera, full frame lens correction works for both of them. So the image quality jumps WAY up straight away in camera. Of the three lenses, this one is probably the most useful as a walk around zoom, and from 55 to 100mm gives very decent images indeed, especially when stopped down to F5.6/F6.3. At the far end, These tend to go for between £30-50 and are common. The lack of IS is a factor at the far end, as is the relatively slow aperture. Fringing is an issue too, and the lens can struggle in high contrast situations. But it does a good job in most situations stopped down to F/6.3, distortion is negligible, and it is very light. If you can pick one up at the lower end of the price scale, it is definitely worth getting.
So, yes, you are limited by cheaper lenses. Constant aperture zooms are going to have more glass, better build quality, and most importantly will give you more options for your photography. But for all but the dedicated enthusiast or budding professional, they are out of reach. For about a hundred pounds, you could have a new lens to play with every fortnight. If you want optimum image quality on a slightly bigger budget, look at the primes in Canon's range. The outgoing 50mm 1.8 II is good (and under £70 new!), and the 40mm 2.8 STM is also worth considering (under £100 on eBay). But if you need to cover your bases on the cheap, or just like taking out new-to-you lenses for kicks, these three are well worth a look.
The Anti-Trilogy
I am, by my nature, a bargain hunter. And that extends to lenses. Expensive glass is great, but if you're shooting outside, don't you just need the focal length? Stopped down a little, all lenses are sharp, right?
Here is a trio I've recently dubbed The Anti-Trilogy. A wide zoom, a medium zoom and a long zoom for a Canon 35mm or full frame digital SLR. If you are canny, you can pick up all of these lenses for under £100 for the three.
Searches on the net will decry two of these lenses as terrible. The 22-55mm is according to legend, unbelievably soft and susceptible to both distortion at both ends and flare. The 38-76mm is not wide enough in terms of focal length, and is noisy. The 55-200 actually gets a pretty good write up everywhere, but suffers from purple fringing wide open.
To defend these unloved Canon brothers, let's set some things straight. A wide lens for under £50 is unlikely to be as good as one costing £300. The 22-55 does feel light and cheap, and the massive curve on the front element suggests that lens correction software is going to be your friend at the near and far ends of the zoom range. This is true, especially at the near end, where barrel distortion is so extreme that you have to correct at +7 in Lightroom. The crop needed to get the frame usable again narrows the width of the picture, which is kind of going against the idea of the wide lens.
But... in good light, stopped down to F/8 to f/11 the lens is a performer at the wide end, only soft in the extreme corners of the frame. These are apertures you'll be using for landscapes or interiors on a tripod. IQ actually picks up at 5.6/6.3 at 35mm, and distortion is of the negligible complex variety. At the 55mm far end (ha!), you can shoot at 5.6 well, with only minor pincushion distortion. Flare is an issue on this lens, but you have to accept that on a lens that is almost entirely made of plastic. Without a hood, expect flare. You can partially correct that with a hood, so if you've got time to set up, why not?
The 38-76mm is surprisingly sharp throughout the range, wide open. Given that "wide open" is F/4.5, that's hardly a surprise. It isn't very wide, but you know what, unless you've got your back to a kerb or a cliff's edge, take a big step backwards. Hey presto, 32mm! At the far end, this lens slows to F/5.6, but the bokeh, while being busy, isn't distracting. It's a relatively useful lens with decent IQ. Copies vary in quality, so I have to say this one is a good one. As they're all going to be second hand by this point, buy carefully, inspect closely and test whenever possible. £20 for a full frame lens is not bad at all. Oh, and descriptions of this lens as noisy are well off the mark. My copy borders on silent, even without USM.
The 55-200 and its younger brother the 55-200 II are probably the pick of the bunch here for one reason; in camera, full frame lens correction works for both of them. So the image quality jumps WAY up straight away in camera. Of the three lenses, this one is probably the most useful as a walk around zoom, and from 55 to 100mm gives very decent images indeed, especially when stopped down to F5.6/F6.3. At the far end, These tend to go for between £30-50 and are common. The lack of IS is a factor at the far end, as is the relatively slow aperture. Fringing is an issue too, and the lens can struggle in high contrast situations. But it does a good job in most situations stopped down to F/6.3, distortion is negligible, and it is very light. If you can pick one up at the lower end of the price scale, it is definitely worth getting.
So, yes, you are limited by cheaper lenses. Constant aperture zooms are going to have more glass, better build quality, and most importantly will give you more options for your photography. But for all but the dedicated enthusiast or budding professional, they are out of reach. For about a hundred pounds, you could have a new lens to play with every fortnight. If you want optimum image quality on a slightly bigger budget, look at the primes in Canon's range. The outgoing 50mm 1.8 II is good (and under £70 new!), and the 40mm 2.8 STM is also worth considering (under £100 on eBay). But if you need to cover your bases on the cheap, or just like taking out new-to-you lenses for kicks, these three are well worth a look.