[architect]

Originally Posted by teknophobia

the canon ef-s 55-250 would fit your requirements. I believe it costs around 11k

Is the EF-S 55-250 really worth it, in terms of image quality and aperture range?
I am looking at this one as a cheap option for occasional bird / animal / unsuspecting human photography, for the telephoto range.

I am asking because I find the 18-55 practically useless (too little light, too big a DOF) despite its range and use my 50 mm prime 95% of the time.

[pillainp]

The 55-250 IS II is an excellent lens for the money.

Sure, it may not be able to stand up to the L's in terms of pure image quality, but considering what you pay, it delivers.

I have a copy and the images are pretty sharp across the range.

What body, by the way?

[thewhiteknight]

Originally Posted by architect

Is the EF-S 55-250 really worth it, in terms of image quality and aperture range?
I am looking at this one as a cheap option for occasional bird / animal / unsuspecting human photography, for the telephoto range.

I am asking because I find the 18-55 practically useless (too little light, too big a DOF) despite its range and use my 50 mm prime 95% of the time.

I am assuming that you are talking about the 50mm 1.8, which would then make your equipment exactly the same as mine, with one minor addition. The 55-250 IS II.

For the specs you outlined ie. "cheap option for occasional bird / animal", it does its job brilliantly and more. I have used it more than a couple of times and the pictures are sharp. Ofcourse towards the 250 side of things, expecting significant quality (L) would be expecting too much but for the amount of money you put out for it, its worth every penny and I would recommend it without hesitation for a mostly casual shooter.

Having said that, if you can hold off on the purchase, given that lenses and other DSLR related equipment have become dearer with all the troubles Japan and others have been facing recently, i would suggest that in the meanwhile, look around to see if you can borrow one for testing or save up for the more expensive (better?) lenses, till prices come down.

[nitinbose]

The 55-250 IS lens is a good lens and I've had it before I bought an L series. The only drawback is the plastic lenses and construction making it slightly weak as compared to the more expensive counterparts. Indeed, from an experts point of view, there could be several negative points.

I would say this is pretty good for beginners and average photographers.

[wildsdi5530]

@gd1418: deep but empty pocket. That was why I asked for the lens that would be cheapest.
What I wanted to know was if the 50 mm is worth it or is the 35 mm better for my needs.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by wildsdi5530

@gd1418: deep but empty pocket. That was why I asked for the lens that would be cheapest.
What I wanted to know was if the 50 mm is worth it or is the 35 mm better for my needs.

For sheer value for money and bang for your buck there's nothing to beat the 50mm F/1.8-D, followed closely by the 50mm 1.8-G albeit at 2x the price.

Buy the 50mm instead of the 35mm (DX I presume) as it will be more useful if/when you upgrade to a full frame DSLR. Try and future proof your lens purchases as much as possible.

On a DX camera a 50mm 1.8 D or G lens = 75mm which is a medium telephoto lens. If you must have a close to 'normal' lens buy the 35mm DX.

Regards,

[architect]

Thanks for the responses, friends!

Originally Posted by thewhiteknight

I am assuming that you are talking about the 50mm 1.8, which would then make your equipment exactly the same as mine, with one minor addition. The 55-250 IS II.

Yes, it is indeed the el cheapo 50 prime 1.8, and I am looking at the 55-250 is a cheap option to getting me a usable 18-55 range. The only thing is that I am disappointed with the 18-55, and I hope the 55-250 doesn't become another expensive mistake.

Originally Posted by pillainp

Sure, it may not be able to stand up to the L's in terms of pure image quality, but considering what you pay, it delivers.
What body, by the way?

This is where I get caught. I was in the same dilemma when buying the 50 prime 1.8 but realised that at 1/4 the price, the 1.8 made more sense than the 1.2 because it was 80% as good.

Body is Rebel T1i or EOS 500D.

Originally Posted by thewhiteknight

For the specs you outlined ie. "cheap option for occasional bird / animal", it does its job brilliantly and more. I have used it more than a couple of times and the pictures are sharp. Ofcourse towards the 250 side of things, expecting significant quality (L) would be expecting too much but for the amount of money you put out for it, its worth every penny and I would recommend it without hesitation for a mostly casual shooter.

That is a good recommendation.

Originally Posted by nitinbose

I would say this is pretty good for beginners and average photographers.

I am indeed a casual / amateur shooter but I like to take good photographs. Beginner / Average or not I don't know: these are entirely relative terms, no?

[manim]

Originally Posted by wildsdi5530

Which 50 mm lens should I buy for my Nikon D3100? I currently have only the kit lens. The camera is used to take photoes of children and family. Also of social events that I attend like weddings, birthday parties, etc.
Or should I go for a 35 mm?
I am a newbie to DSLR and am looking to dent my wallet the least.

I have a similar requirement and am waiting to get my hands on the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens listed for Rs. 12,775 on flipkart.

As R2D2 pointed out the 50mm will become a telephoto on the DX and also will not auto-focus on the D3100.

I have the D3100 with the kit lens bought in Aug 2011, so want to wait for one more year at-least before I invest in this lens.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by manim

and also will not auto-focus on the D3100.

That's a very important point or caveat to consider when evaluating lenses. Thanks for pointing that out Manim. It is always good practice to check your camera's compatibility with any accessory. Always refer to the manual or check Nikon's/Mfrs website before taking the plunge.

D type require the body to have a built in focus motor to drive the focus elements via a worm drive in the lens. IIRC, the D3xxx and D5xxx series do not have a focus motor built in. Any AF-S lens should work.

Cheers!

[pillainp]

Originally Posted by architect

Thanks for the responses, friends!


Yes, it is indeed the el cheapo 50 prime 1.8, and I am looking at the 55-250 is a cheap option to getting me a usable 18-55 range. The only thing is that I am disappointed with the 18-55, and I hope the 55-250 doesn't become another expensive mistake.


This is where I get caught. I was in the same dilemma when buying the 50 prime 1.8 but realised that at 1/4 the price, the 1.8 made more sense than the 1.2 because it was 80% as good.

Body is Rebel T1i or EOS 500D.


That is a good recommendation.


I am indeed a casual / amateur shooter but I like to take good photographs. Beginner / Average or not I don't know: these are entirely relative terms, no?

May I also submit that the other perfect walk-around general purpose lens for you would be the EF-S 15-85 IS USM.

This is a very very sharp and adequately wide and long lens for the crop body, and will perfectly complement your 55-250 for range.

The 17-55, though as good as or better than the 15-85, is not nearly as wide (2mm here makes a big difference) and far shorter (30mm), and is quite a bit more expensive.

Additionally, you will get brand new off-kit 15-85's if you hunt around, which you can get for less than the cost of a brand new package. I got my 15-85 that way (off-kit from a 7D), and paid 20K less than the MSRP for that lens alone.

[SunnyBoi]

Originally Posted by pillainp

The 17-55, though as good as or better than the 15-85, is not nearly as wide (2mm here makes a big difference) and far shorter (30mm), and is quite a bit more expensive.

Additionally, you will get brand new off-kit 15-85's if you hunt around, which you can get for less than the cost of a brand new package. I got my 15-85 that way (off-kit from a 7D), and paid 20K less than the MSRP for that lens alone.

You cannot compare the 17-55 and 15-85 at all. One is a fixed aperture lens and the other is variable, one has a fast aperture and the other is slower plus one is optically superior which other one is inferior.

[pillainp]

My bad, forgot about the fixed 2.8 of the 17-55. But the 15-85, though slower, is still worth every penny.

[Honda Monk]

What is the review of EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM?
People don't recommend it over 55-250, any specific reason?

[wildsdi5530]

@ R2D2 : I doubt I will be upgrading my body anytime soon. By medium telephoto, do you mean it will be difficult to use indoors? And a D lens is out as I need auto-focus.

[architect]

Originally Posted by pillainp

This is a very very sharp and adequately wide and long lens for the crop body, and will perfectly complement your 55-250 for range.

If I understand correctly, you mean the 15-85 is a good replacement to the 18-55 Kit lens AFTER I have bought the 55-250, right?

Originally Posted by SunnyBoi

You cannot compare the 17-55 and 15-85 at all. One is a fixed aperture lens and the other is variable, one has a fast aperture and the other is slower plus one is optically superior which other one is inferior.

So the 15-85 is the one to buy, right? It is currently priced at Rs 47,500/- at Flipkart. This is the EF-S-15-85 F3.5-5.6 IS-USM. I can also look at the EF-S 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS-USM which is priced at Rs 29,090/- at Flipkart. Let me add that even the cheaper one will need some planning on my end before buying, since it's not a cheap glass!

Originally Posted by Honda Monk

What is the review of EF75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM? People don't recommend it over 55-250, any specific reason?

I keep getting confused between EF and EF-S lenses. I believe the EF-S are superior, right?