Newbie confused about lenses [Archive] - The-Digital-Picture.com Community

View Full Version : Newbie confused about lenses

Lizzy

04-08-2009, 09:49 PM

Hi, I'm finally going DSLR. I've decided on the 40D and I'm trying to pick the best lenses for the types of shots I will be taking. Some of the lens info is getting confusing.

First, I need lens for outdoor sports. I am going for the 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM. I know it's heavy and expensive but I need the IS and fast lens to stop action. When adding a 1.4 TC I'llgetmore reach andbe atf4 which is still very good. I did struggle with opting out of IS but I think I'll regret it. This lens should cover more than sports but I'm afraid I'm not going to want to keep it on the camera all the time.

My next priority would be indoor low light portraits. What is a good choice for lowlight? Should I get a prime or another telephoto? I think I'm going to purchase body only on the 40D. I like the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM but the price is steep. It's double the price of the kit lens should I decide to get the 28-135 IS that comeswith the camera. I've been reading about the 50mm 1.2, the 85mm 1.2 but which one is better for the 40D?

I'm so new at this that it is hard to really know what I will need. The sports is a must right now but I can see myself being interested in all types of subjects - nature, macro, night scenes, people, buildings, vacation, fireworks.

I guess you can see I'm confused and that's why I'm here seeking direction.

Thanks,L

Sean Setters

04-08-2009, 10:19 PM

First of all, I own both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and both are fantastic lenses and make a great pair. However, if you think you'll be using the 70-200 more often, you may want to look at the 50 f/1.4 as an indoor/lowlight lens. It's relatively cheap, better built than the 50 f/1.8, and will probably do exactly what you want it to do (for a very reasonable price). Look at Bryan's review of the 50 f/1.4, then go onto bhphoto.com and look at the reviews ("http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html#revie ws) for the lens from people who have purchased and used it. The reviews are always very good, and no one seems to regret the purchase. Out of 307 reviews, it averages 4 1/2 stars (that's not too shabby).

Colin

04-08-2009, 10:20 PM

Isn't the17-55 f/2.8 IS less money than the 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 L primes? It'd be more versatile, I think. The 85mm f/1.2 is a killer portrait lens (though you'll needa good amount of working distancewith a 1.6 crop body) and great in low light, but then you really don't have any means to take anything that isn't in the telephoto field of view with that and your 70-200, and the 85mm f/1.2 is WAY more expensive than the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I believe.

I haven't tried the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, thoughmost people consider it pretty great, and it would sound like a more versatile investment. The only consistent downsides I know about is lack of full frame compatibility, and the build quality isn't the very, very best that Canon offers in the 'L' line. If the price is too steep, I wouldn't get into a single L prime to compliment the 70-200before getting a quality 'walk around' range zoom, unless you're going to quickly follow that lens with more lenses. The 28-135 is a pretty good affordable lens, in my opinion. You could always compliment that with a 50mm f/1.4 for low light and portraits, or the 85mm f/1.8, which is highly regarded (but I haven't tried). Still, I might want something a little wider for big skies and landscapes, but that's not listed as an immediate priority.

But, as for the easy choice, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is just a wonderful tool. You'll enjoy it!

SupraSonic

04-09-2009, 03:04 AM

1. EF 24-105 IS L F4

2. EF 50mm F1.4 USM

3. EF 17-40 F4 L

4. EF 24-85mm F3.5-5.6 (or from no.1)

Lizzy

04-09-2009, 09:47 AM

I'm going to run some scenario's of which combo's I'm leaning toward.

The dilemma that I have is finding the best lens to compliment the telephoto. I don't think I'm going to want to walk around for long periods of time with this lens on my shoulder.Yes, I will invest in a shoulder strap for this lens.

So the question is should I get longer reach as in the 24-105mm f/4, or wider angle as in the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 or Canon's EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 which as noted has dust problems which have me very concerned.

I think the purchase of the 50mm 1.4 is a given for the indoor low light shots I love to take.

I just can't see myself purchasing all of this outright. Hope it's ok to post pricing but it will help for me to list the choices and combo's with pricing.

50mm f/1.4 USM $360

EF-S 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS $400 (Kit lens)

EF-S 17-50mm f/2.8 IS USM $1000

24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM $1059

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (NO IS) $410

Canon 17-40mm f/4.0L$670

Out of the combo's below, can someoneadvise thebest compliment for the 70-200 mentioned above?

Option 1 (most economical)+$360

40D with 28-135 kit lens, 50mm f/1.8

Option 2: +$770

40D with 28-135, 50mm f/1.8, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8

Option 3: Most expensive and no wide angle lens capabilities, +$1400

40D, 50mm f/1.8, 24-105 f/4

I know I'm trying to purchase too much all at once. I could probably do without the wide angle lens since I'm not sure I appreciate the wide angle lens capabilities yet.

I guess it comes down toIQ,photo style,and pocketbook. That's a lot to decipher.

Sorry for the lengthy post. Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome.

L

Jon Ruyle

04-09-2009, 10:08 AM

I own the 24-105 f/4 and it's great, but I wouldn't consider it (or any other wide full frame lens) for a cropped body, unless I really felt like I needed that focal length range (or if I also had a full frame camera). You'd be paying a lot for a lens that illuminates a 35mm sensor and wasting it.

You're wasting less (less cost, that is... same amount of light) with longer lenses, so its a different story with the 70-200.

Tastes vary considerably. I would suggest option 1 since it is inexpensive and versitile. Use the 28-135 and the 50mm for a while. Maybe option 1 will be all you need. If not... well, then you'll know what you want.

KeVancity

04-09-2009, 10:27 AM

Get the Tamron 17-50, and the 50 1.8 or 1.4. IS on a wide angle to normal lens is not as useful as on a telephoto. IS doesn't slow movement, remember that. In other words, if your shooting something that requires IS and is not moving, you could most likely use a tripod in the same situation.

Daniel Browning

04-09-2009, 01:26 PM

How about Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, and a cheap telephoto like the Sigma 70-300 f/4.5-5.6? (Or a more expensive tele if you want.)

Lizzy

04-09-2009, 01:35 PM

I don't have a full understanding of why certain lenses are meant for full frame sensors.

I just thought that the 24-105 was a better range for general purpose. It really is out of my price range right now.

I thought Sigma was thinking the same thing when they came up with the 18-125 f3-f5.6 OS but I think the slowAF will bother me on that lens.

I guess I wish there was an affordable 17- 135 f/4 IS USM lens for general purpose.

One more question, the 40D comes with two different kit lenses, is the 18-55 ISbetter than the 28-135 IS?

As of right now, option 1 or 2 will best. I should have a decent amount of flexibility. I just know that I'm a perfectionist and could easily be discouraged if IQ problems are a result of the equipment rather than my inexperience.

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts.

clemmb

04-09-2009, 01:55 PM

Daniel Browning

04-09-2009, 03:08 PM

I just thought that the 24-105 was a better range for general purpose.

On full frame, 24-105 is the "typical" wide-to-telephoto general purpose range. 50 is "normal", so 24-105 gives a good range from ultra wide to normal to telephoto.

On APS-C, 24-105 is not typical, it is normal-to-almost-super-telephoto. 24 is "short normal", 31 is "normal", 50 is telephoto, and 105 is almost into super telephoto.

One more question, the 40D comes with two different kit lenses, is the 18-55 ISbetter than the 28-135 IS?

In the range where they overlap, I think the 18-55 is better or the same. It's certainly far far cheaper. But they cover very different focal lengths.

As of right now, option 1 or 2 will best.

The EF-S 55-200 IS is cheaper, longer, and has a wider aperture. I think the 28-135 is a suboptimal choice. It costs a lot because it is designed for full frame. I think the only reason why it is so popular is that most people like to shoot telephoto and don't really care for wide angle.

If someone has 18-55 and 55-200, then every time they want to shoot telephoto, they have to stop and change lenses. Someone who has 28-135 and wants to shoot wide angle has to stop and change lenses.

If you plan to shoot at around 50mm most of the time, and go down to 40mm, 30mm, and up to 60mm, 70mm, then it makes sense to get the 28-135 so you don't have to change lenses.

But if you plan to shoot at around 30mm most of the time, and go down to 24mm, 17mm, and up to 40mm, 50mm, then get the 17-50mm f/2.8 and a cheap telephoto such as 55-200.

Daniel Browning

04-09-2009, 03:10 PM

The Tamron is a great lens for the price but the image quality from the canon is noticeably better.

I kindly disagree. The 24-105 has better build, focus, IS, and other advantages, but image quality is not one of them. They may be close enough to equal under some circumstances, but many times the Tamron will eat it for lunch. The Canon 17-55 is a different story.

Jack M.

04-09-2009, 03:55 PM

Based on multiple reviews, here is an option you couldconsider -

Tamron17-50mm f/2.8 - $420

Canon EF-S60mm f/2.8Macro - $400

Canon 50mm f/1.8 - $90

The Tamron will work as a great general purpose lens. From what I have read, the IQ will be on par with the 17-40L.

The 60mm macro will be fun for playing around with macro work, and will serve as a good prime portrait lens.It's relatively fast so you can use it if the lighting is not great also.

And the 50mm f/1.8 will be a great wide aperture lens. You can use it in low light,its sharp, and you can always upgrade to the f/1.4 versionin the futureif you want to.

You can get these three lens under $1000. You will be able to experiment with all types of photography, and along with the 70-200mm you will cover plenty of range.

Good luck choosing your lens! It can definitely be overwhelming at first.

Jack

peety3

04-09-2009, 04:09 PM

First, I need lens for outdoor sports. I am going for the 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM. I know it's heavy and expensive but I need the IS and fast lens to stop action. When adding a 1.4 TC I'llgetmore reach andbe atf4 which is still very good. I did struggle with opting out of IS but I think I'll regret it. This lens should cover more than sports but I'm afraid I'm not going to want to keep it on the camera all the time.

My next priority would be indoor low light portraits. What is a good choice for lowlight? Should I get a prime or another telephoto? I think I'm going to purchase body only on the 40D. I like the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM but the price is steep. It's double the price of the kit lens should I decide to get the 28-135 IS that comeswith the camera. I've been reading about the 50mm 1.2, the 85mm 1.2 but which one is better for the 40D?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

70-200 is definitely not a single-lens solution. That said, 28-135 is a poor choice because you'll end up setting it aside to collect dust someday, having replaced it completely with other lenses. If you have 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.2L is likely low on your shopping list (you already have 85 covered at ~2 stops slower, you'd want a well-rounded lineup before you went specialty like the 85/1.2). Likewise, push the 50/1.2 way down on your list; I wouldn't buy it unless I also had and knew the 50/1.4 very well.

With all of that covered, lots of choices remain, as you're already seeing. Canon: 17-55/2.8IS, 24-70/2.8, 24-105/4IS, and others. Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, all sorts of options. I'd also think about Canon's 35/1.4 or maybe the 24/1.4II - both would help round out your 70-200 well.

All that said, RENT. Try some things out. Yeah, it's money you don't get to put straight to ownership, but it helps solidify your choices. I for one will not buy the 17-55/2.8IS, because of my rental experiences (and because it won't fit on 1 of 3 cameras in the house). I have the 24-105/4IS from my original entry into Canon, and agree with others that it's not an "amazing" lens. Very, very good, but not stellar. I'm renting the 24-70/2.8 (just arrived today!) for a pair of gigs, and I'm hoping that it's as good as others have described it.