Need help picking the right lens for trip to Europe

[ElCid52]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"] OK so admittedly I am very new to the camera world but I love my Cannon Xsi (450D) and I am really getting into learning how to get the best pictures that I can, but I am having a problem picking a lens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] We just found out that we may be moving to The Netherlands and I want to make sure that I can get the best pictures possible to remember our trip.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I currently have the 18-55mm lens and the Cannon EF-S 55-250 IS lens that came with the kit that I bought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] These have been fine to learn on, but I need better for this trip.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I have been reading your reviews (great website by the way) and I don&rsquo;t know which way to go.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I want to be able to take great scenic shots and great shots of my family but I am not sure which way to go with the lens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Do I get the <span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"]Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]<span style="line-height: 115%; color: windowtext; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;)for the better scenic shots, or do I get the <span>Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens<span style="line-height: 115%; color: windowtext; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"]<span> (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]<span style="line-height: 115%; color: windowtext; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;)for a better range of pictures at a good price.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I could just spend the extra money and get the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens and wait for the EF-S 10-22mm lens later.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I want to spend as little as possible (moving overseas is expensive) but I want to get the best pictures that I can.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I am currently thinking that the 15-85mm lens is best.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] It has a good range and while it isn't as good as the 10-22mm for taking wider pictures it still gets close and would be a great starter lens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] What would you suggest?

[neuroanatomist]

That's a pretty tough call. IMO, the best 'walkaround' lens for a 1.6x crop body like yours (and mine) is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It really offers the best combination of image quality and speed (aperture). The EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM also has very good image quality, but it suffers quite a bit from distortion at both the wide and long ends (that's almost unavoidable with a &gt;4x zoom lens). Also, the variable aperture is slow at the long end (f/2.8 lets in 4 times more light than f/5.6) - that will make indoor photography with the 15-85mm difficult. The EF-S 10-22mm is good for scenic shots, but honestly 17mm is usually wide enough, and 22mm is definitely not long enough for a general purpose lens. Whether you decide on the 17-55mm or the 15-85mm, you'll likely want to take your EF-S 55-250 IS as well.


I can tell you than of my 7 lenses (4 of which are L-series lenses), it's the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM that's on my 7D more than any of the others.


One alternate possible solution to your problem is to rent for the trip, then decide later. In that case, I'd recommend the combination of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS.


Whichever option you choose, have a great trip (and possibly a great relocation)!!


--John

[Brendan7]

One alternate possible solution to your problem is to rent for the trip, then decide later.
Always a good idea.


If you are thinking of buying, I think buying a 17-55 and renting a 10-22 for the duration of the trip. I personally don't like the 17-55 very much due to quality issues. I'm sorry but I shouldn't pay $1000 for a lens that is made of plastic and has dust issues. And 55mm is not very long IMO. But it is fast AND has IS, plus low distortion. It's a good indoor lens, but for traveling the 24-105mm f/4L IS might make more sense due to the extra 50mm of focal length, esp. if you're renting a wideangle lens.





my 2&cent;

[SupraSonic]

24-105 F4 L

[Jordan]

Well... your 18-55mm kit lens, though the quality isn't very good, certainly won't get you any money. Therefore, I'd suggest keeping it for the "wide" shots that you want to get. You can simply take two or three shots and stitch them together in the computer to get more of a panorama if you need. As a result, I'd suggest one of two lenses. Either the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM, which is about a grand and L-series. Very nice lens - I used to own it. It's not real wide on a cropped body, but gives you a huge range and the quality is nice. You can then use your 18-55 for the wide shots you want. The alternative, is to get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. This is the lens that I actually sold my 24-105 to get. I find that even though the range is much less, it's much wider, and must faster. Then you can simply junk your 18-55 (keep it as a backup is the best) and you'll have speed! When I took a vacation to France last November, I rented the EF-S 10-22mm. I found it to be very fun! I ended up actually buying a super wide-angle a few months ago: the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. It'll cost you about $250 less than the Canon 10-22 and though the range isn't as good, I find the picture quality to be as good, if not better. Build is great too. A SUPER wide-angle lens is ALWAYS nice to have... especially while traveling. But, inevitably, you'll have to switch lenses. I think you'll be fine with the EF-S 17-55 instead. That's my vote ;)





- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com

[Fast Glass]

If you plan on sticking with 1.6 then you can consider a EF-S lens, lenses desinged for 1.6 crop cameras. But if you want to upgrade to full-frame later on then it would be much better to get a EF lens for full-frame compatibility later on.


If you are sticking with EF-S, my vote 17-55mm.


If you are going Full-Frame, my vote 24-70mm or 24-105mm.


The 24-105mm is a great dealin a kit too.


John.

[neuroanatomist]

I personally don't like the 17-55 very much due to quality issues. I'm sorry but I shouldn't pay $1000 for a lens that is made of plasticand has dust issues...the 24-105mm f/4L IS might make more sense


Funny thing - the 24-105mm f/4L IS costs $1000, has a plastic barrel (polycarbonate, just like the 17-55mm), and a google search for "Canon 24-105mm dust" pulls up plenty of hits. Plus, internal dust really just affects resale value and the mental state of persnickety owners, not image quality. Any zoom lens with an extending design will move air in and out of the barrel during zooming, and with air can come dust - a 'dust skirt' isn't exactly an annular HEPA filter around the barrel of the lens. [:P] Having said that, I've used both of these lenses in dusty environments, and neither has accumulated any internal dust.


Actually, I think the 10-22mm plus the 24-105mm would make a nice travel kit! I'd probably miss the f/2.8, and I think 17mm is wide enough in most circumstances, whereas 24mm on a 1.6x crop body isn't wide enough. For travel, if I could take only one lens, it would definitely be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. If taking two lenses, they would be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. But, for a three-lens kit, I'd strongly consider the EF-S 10-22mmf/3.5-4.5 +EF 24-105mm f/4<span>LIS +EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span>LIS II.


ElCid52, if you're going to buy, I do think theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best choice (assuming you're not getting a FF body in the near future). Ifyou are willing to rent for the trip,theEF-S 10-22mmf/3.5-4.5 +EF 24-105mm f/4<span>LIS might be a good combination to consider, with the EF-S 55-250mm along for the long end or also rent a 70-200mm f/4 zoom. Regardless of your lens choices, if you're relying on your pop-up flash for indoor shots, I strongly recommend you consider an external Speedlite like the 430EX II.

[Steven23]

Rent, better to save up just in case you have to move over seas. 24-105/f L is best for that 1 lens. I'd get the 17-55f/2.8 only if the family is gonna be indoors mostly like eating, hotel, not because of low light or fast aperture, you cant back up when a a wall is in the way. If you are going to be outside most of the time, sight seeing, water park, family park, when you know you can back up, 24-105 should do the job of just that 1 lens kinda thing. Again rent it, to save that extra cash for a big move that might happen, and you'll know if you will want to buy it before/after the move.

[Brendan7]

and a google search for "Canon 24-105mm dust" pulls up plenty of hits.


"EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM dust issues" pulls up 12,000 results on my browser.


"EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM dust issues" pulls up 610 results on my browser.


Most of the hits for the 24-105 dust issues are present when it is noted that the 24-105 is dust and moisture resistant.However, the 17-55mm is known to have mechanical issues that don't end with dust and for something that costs $1000 that is inexcusable IMO (just like the Sigma lenses that don't AF). It has a higher failiure rate at lensrentals.com than other lenses -- I know you said that's not the way to judge a lens, but heck, the other lenses aren't failing!


I know the 17-55mm is a very good lens, but I wouldn't buy myself one. I try to convince myself to but can't.


my 2&cent;

[neuroanatomist]

"EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM dust issues" pulls up 12,000 results on my browser.


"EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM dust issues" pulls up 610 results on my browser.





Wow - what search engine are you using? Bing-o? [:P]


I get ~5,200 and ~3,700 respectively in Google (I added the -S to the 17-55mm) for the same search terms (without the quotes).


Nevertheless, you're absolutely correct in that many people have apparently had dust issues with the 17-55mm, and the 100-400mm, and the 28-135mm, and many other lenses, moreso than with the 'weather-sealed' L-lenses, on average.



the 24-105 isdust and moistureresistant.


Yes, it is. Resistant &ne; impervious. It's a zoom lens. The barrel extends and retracts, changing the internal volume of the lens. Therefore air must move in and out of the lens, unless someone changed the laws of physics when I wasn't looking. Air contains dust. Moving air moves dust. Moving air into the lens can move dust into the lens, and that dust may settle there. It doesn't really matter if it's a 100-400mm push-pull zoom or a 'weather-sealed' 50L with the only the focus elements moving. I've run across reports of dust in the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS - that's a 'dust and moisture resistant' lens with completely internal focusing - but air (and apparently dust) can still get in.


Regardless, I think you may be unfairly judging an excellent lens, which Bryan calls, "...one of the best general purpose lenses available." If mine was filling up with dust, I'd certainly feel differently! Obviously, choosing a lens is a personal decision, and if you don't want one, don't buy one! I've read a number of POTN and FM posts from people who indicate that lens is their sole reason for keeping a 1.6x body. I'll keep my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, thanks.


But then again, I like my EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]L a lot, too - especially when I'm going out in the rain. [:)] (In fact, a couple of days ago I was shooting pics with the 17-55mm of my daughter running around the yard when I felt the first few drops of what became a nice, cooling rain shower on an 80&deg; day. She wanted to stay out and play in the rain - how come we grown-ups forget how fun it is to jump in puddles?? - so I ducked inside to swap on the 24-105mm, then went out and kept right on shooting.)


Thanks also, Brendan, for your suggestion of 24-105mm + a UWA - that combo vs. the 17-55mm will be a tough decision for an upcoming trip.

[Brendan7]

Wow - what search engine are you using? Bing-o? /emoticons/emotion-4.gif


Yahoo.



Yes, it is. Resistant &ne; impervious. It's a zoom lens.


true.



Regardless, I think you may be unfairly judging an excellent lens, which Bryan calls, "...one of the best general purpose lenses available."


quite possible.



Thanks also, Brendan, for your suggestion of 24-105mm + a UWA - that combo vs. the 17-55mm will be a tough decision for an upcoming trip.


I'd say the advantage of the 17-55 is indoors, and the 24-105mm is outdoors. It depends on where you shoot IMO.


brendan

[neuroanatomist]

I'd say the advantage of the 17-55 is indoors, and the 24-105mm is outdoors. It depends on where you shoot IMO.


I agree with that in general - and currently, that's mostly my usage pattern. That's for family-type shots, though - indoors, walls often preclude backing up for the full scene, and outdoors for people shots it's usually easy to back up a step or three to frame with 24mm on a crop body. But for many indoor shots, I'm finding that the 24-105mm with a Speedlite works well, too.


The only place that 24mm doesn't work is scenic shots/landscapes, where the subject is sufficiently distant that sneaker-zoom is not feasible. That's where having something wider is needed outdoors - 17mm is usually enough, but 10mm is really nice sometimes!

[Sheiky]

We just found out that we may be moving to The Netherlands and I want to make sure that I can get the best pictures possible to remember our trip.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;"]


Welcome to the Netherlands!!! [:D] Oh oh...more local competion for me [:P]


Well I guess I can give you quite solid advice since I live there [A]



<span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:small;"]Do I get the <span style="line-height:115%;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif';font-size:10pt;"]Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]<span style="line-height:115%;color:windowtext;mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;)for the better scenic shots


Hmm yea cool lens, but very wide. The Netherlands are pretty much a concrete jungle and it's all pretty small and closely build, so you probably don't need a superwide-angle. And the times you want to have one you could also make a panorama shot. I live without a such an extreme wide-angle and I can do great without it (Don't miss it at all). In the bigger cities it's perhaps an option to shoot architecture with it, but that's about it.



or do I get the <span>Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens<span style="line-height:115%;color:windowtext;mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;"]<span> (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]<span style="line-height:115%;color:windowtext;mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;)for a better range of pictures at a good price


Great lens when reading the reviews...although it would be great here in the summer-time...(I don't know how long you would be staying) we've got very grey and "dark" autumn and wintertime. Especially f5.6 can be challenging in a lot of situations. Personally I would pay a bit more and buy the 17-55 for it's constant f2.8 aperture. Which comes in handy in more situations [;)]



I could just spend the extra money and get the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens and wait for the EF-S 10-22mm lens later


Sounds like a good decision.



<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;"] I want to spend as little as possible (moving overseas is expensive) but I want to get the best pictures that I can.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;"] I am currently thinking that the 15-85mm lens is best.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes;"] It has a good range and while it isn't as good as the 10-22mm for taking wider pictures it still gets close and would be a great starter lens.


Well I'm with you on the biggest part, but... you buy a lens for a longer period of time. Eventually you will find out that the 15-85 will lack massively in low-light and you need another lens for low-light. The 10-22 won't help you with that so you have to buy a 3rd lens...


My advice: If and only IF your budget allows it, buy the 17-55. Buy once, buy good. Instead of reselling with a big loss later on. Or having to buy another lens for low-light.


I agree the 15-85 range sounds great, but I'm pretty sure you will be just as happy with the 17-55 range.


-Jan


Ps: where will you be going exactly?

[ddt0725]

I love my 17-55mm! Dust issues? I have not experienced any problems at all. I have a dog that is allergic to house dust, and our grass amongst many other things ...I can't keep him in a bubble. My point being, we can't avoid some things but we can take extra care so they do not present a problem for us.


I would rather enjoy the range and beautiful photosthe 17-55mm gives me andtakes extra care and precautions as I do withall my gearthan avoid it because of the posssibility of it giving me any problems from dust. Also, from what Jan mentions, it sounds like this would be the perfect lens for you for anumber reasons.

Whatever you decide, enjoy your trip and be sure to share photos!!

Denise

[ElCid52]

<p class="MsoNormal"]Thanks for the help everyone. I really appreciate the advice. Now it seems that I am torn between two very good options. I can go with the EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM as the &ldquo;all purpose&rdquo; lens. Or I can go with the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 + EF 24-105mm f/4L IS combination. Again, I am new to photography, but I really like the wide angles that the 17-55mm give me and I will definitely be able to use it in both the outdoor landscapes and indoor castle, museum, etc shots. I have to admit that the combination of the 24-105mm and the 10-22 mm would be great but the cost and having to switch the lenses out (especially with three kids) does cut down on the time that I have to get those great shots. The 17-55 mm is a little more than I wanted to spend, but I know that a good lens is critical. Bryan says that the 17-55 is one of the best all purpose lenses available, but he also says that &ldquo; If I had only one lens, this would be the one.&rdquo; (referring to the 24-105 lens). So in the end, is the wider angle a better choice, or is the longer focal length a key? I have never been to Europe but from what I have seen I think that the wider angle would probable suite me better in this case. Is there anyone who has traveled overseas who can give me some advice here?

[ElCid52]

Jan,


We are going to be working at Volkel AB and I think that we are going to live in Gemert. From everything that I have read, The Netherlands isa great place to live and there is a lot to do. My family is really excited and the kids have even started to learn Dutch. I appreciate all of the help with the lens, do you have any more advice for a family from America getting ready to move? Where do you live? What are some things that we should pu on our list of things to do right away?

[ElCid52]

I will be sure to post some pictures once we get there. I am having fun with these posts and I am looking forward to getting everyones advice on how I can improve and take better pictures.

[neuroanatomist]

Bryan says that the 17-55 is one of the best all purpose lenses available, but he also says that &ldquo; If I had only one lens, this would be the one.&rdquo; (referring to the 24-105 lens).


Bryan does most of his shooting with 1DsIII cameras - full frame bodies. It seems (to me) that he keeps a 50D around primarily for reviews of EF-S lenses, which do not mount on FF bodies. Thus, if he could only choose one lens (for his FF bodies), it would be the 24-105mm f/4L.



So in the end, is the wider angle a better choice, or is the longer focal length a key? I have never been to Europe but from what I have seen I think that the wider angle would probable suite me better in this case. Is there anyone who has traveled overseas who can give me some advice here?


It all depends on what you want to shoot. In general, though, I think you'll be better served by 17mm (rather than 24mm) on wide end for a couple of reasons - first, for many of the architectural shots and indoor shots, your ability to back up will likely be more limited than your ability to step forward, and second, while you can often crop especially with the reasonable pixel density of the XSi/450D, you cannot add pixels later. If you were going on an African safari, the recommendation would be different. On trips to Amsterdam, Madrid, etc., I've found myself using the wider end rather than the longer end, in general. Having said that, I would think you'd still take the EF-S 55-250mm (or rent a 70-200 f/4L IS), so you'd have something for the longer end as well,just in case.

[Sheiky]

Jan,


We are going to be working at Volkel AB and I think that we are going to live in Gemert. From everything that I have read, The Netherlands isa great place to live and there is a lot to do. My family is really excited and the kids have even started to learn Dutch. I appreciate all of the help with the lens, do you have any more advice for a family from America getting ready to move? Where do you live? What are some things that we should pu on our list of things to do right away?





Hey there,


I am leaving to Denmark and Sweden for the weekend so I don't really have time to answer all your questions in detail now. I'll do that when I come back ok?


By the way I'm pretty sure you can't go wrong with the 17-55. For your information, you could also rent lenses here. Pretty close to where you'll be staying, but it's not cheap. And the cost of a new 17-55 here is 850 EURO excl hood. We don't have rebates here so you might get a good deal while you're in the states?


Jan

[Superman]

Let me contribute my 2 cents...


I got the sense from the posts that you will be doing a lot of indoor shots. If the majority is going to be inside buildings then I think the advice to go with the ef-s 17-55 f2.8 is the right recommendation. I wouldn't worry too much about the dust. I would assume if you are taking the time to participate on this forum, I belive you will take the time to care for your equipment - besides, dust rarely affects the image quality.


However if many of your shots will be outdoor in good light you might want to consider the 17-40 f4 L. It is less expensive (relatively speaking) than the ef-s 17-55 and will be compatible if you go full frame at some point. With the money saved you could add a flash for when you are indoors or a decent tripod (although you mentioned 3 kids which likely doesn't give much time for tripod setup). I recently got back from a trip and I had the 17-40 f4 L and the 70-200 f4 L. I didn't miss the 30mm inbetween, found I was able to move around enough to account for the gap in focal length. Sorry if this throws a wrench into your decision making process.


Clark

[ElCid52]

Thanks again for the help all. I am ordering the 17-55 to start my lens collection. I am also really excited about the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens but I still need to buy Photoshop elemnts and a couple other things to really get started so that will have to wait until Christams or the new year. I am pretty sure that I will haveenough to learn with the 17-55 to keep me occupied. I am really excited to get started. I have already read a couple of books on photography, are there any books you would suggest, or any tips for a true beginner? I really like this forum and I am sure that I will be posting plenty of questions, and with a little luck some pictures as well.


Thanks,


Matt