Printable View
Trio#1: Constant f2.8 on all three but shorter and 3rd party lenses
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 Pro DX $600
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM $1060
Sigma 50-150 f2.8 II EX DC HSM $750
Totalingto $2410 at B&H.
Trio#2 Slower but more reach ... and all Canon for $150 more
Canon EFS 10-22 f3.5-5.6 USM $770
Canon EF 24-105 f4L IS USM $1150
Canon EF 70-200 f4L USM $640
Totaling to $2560 at B&H.
All prices for USA models and without rebates ...
Which would you choose for a 50D user?
I'd pick #2.
I would pick #2 also.
I might rather pick a mix of those two trios... like this:
Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM $770
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM $1060
Canon EF 70-200 f4L USM $640
Totalling $2470
If you didn't need the extra zoom on the 24-105 and would prefer f2.8.
opt 2 :D
Maybe with a 17-55 2.8 in stead of the 24-105 if you shoot a lot of photo's indoors. The canon 70-200 f4 will blow the sigma's 2.8 away I'm sure of that.
And I'll choose option 3:
Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-5.6 USM $770
Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM $1060
Canon EF 70-200 f4L USM $640
Totaling $2470
Those are the best of the lenses you're considering, and the combination is right in your price range. Plus, you get at least one lens wider than f/3.5.
You might want to shop Adorama's refurbished inventory to get even better prices on the gear.
My two cents: buy one lens at a time. Learn it, know it, become comfortable with it. Buy another lens, learn it, know it, become one with it. Use the knowledge from the first to help you pick the second. Use the knowledge from the first two to help you pick the third.
I have the 50D with the trio of lenses listed as #2. It's perfect for me, although I'm about to pull the trigger on a fast prime because I do feel limmited by the f4 max aperature. I'm trying to decide between the 50 f 1.4 and the 85 f 1.8.... Leaning to the 85.
I would generally agree with everyone else here. I don't know anything about the Tokina but I have only ever heard praise for the EF-S 10-22mm. I can understand the difficulty with the decision between the 24-105 and the 17-55 especially if you want everything to overlap and not to miss any of the range. The difference for me would be mostly the fact that with the 24-105 I could reach a little farther and still be able to shoot my still subjects in low light. Then again if you are shooting moving subjects you probably should look at the wider aperture for stopping the action. Finally I might also suggest if you have not used primes that are of high quality you get your hands on some and play with them. When I borrowed a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM from a friend a couple of months ago I was blown away with what having a good prime made my pictures look like and on top of that how creative and different my pictures were because I was being limited to one focal length. It is an interesting challenge and a fun experiement at the same time and of course you often get much better lenses with better aperatures when you go prime. Just a thought to consider as you step up your lens line.
Samuel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
i have this Sigma, its a great lens, especially for the price
Any issues with the gap between 55-70?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaming
I've got the Sigma 30 f1.4 and the Canon EF 50 f1.4. I'm planning to pick up a trio of zooms over the next year or so and then pick up a third prime ..... probably the Canon EF 100 f2.8 MACRO. Would love the IS L but I don't know if I can justify the cost ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanKing
I've got the Canon 50 f1.4 and I love it. At 80mmequivalent,it's great for head/shoulder shots and still somewhat usable in tight indoor spaces.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.34.06/holeysox001.jpg[/img]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
I agree but I am trying to plan ahead a little .... [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
I'm on board with the option 3 folks. I'd definitely take the 17-55's f/2.8 over the 24-105's f/4.0.
I gave up the 24-105 for the 24-70 mainly for the extra stop.
I have a Sigma 30 f1.4 prime and I think, in terms of IQ, it's on par with my Canon 50 f1.4 prime and probably a bit sharper around the edges. The Sigma 30 f1.4 is a great normal prime for APSC cameras.
This is why I don't mind considering 3rd party lenses, especially the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 as I have seen and heard some of the great results it produces. The only issue for my Trio #1 is the Sigma as I haven't been able to find much feed back and sample images on it.
Perhaps you can post a few photos from the Sigma 50-150 for me?
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by holeysox
Only an issue if you can't use your legs (which, for me, doesn't happen often).
Here's a couple from the Sigma 50-150mm II f/2.8
1/640s f/2.8 iso 100 @ 150mm
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/So...6/_MG_0244.JPG
1/1250s f/2.8 iso 400 @ 150mm
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/Sk...sticsmile2.jpg
1/400s f/4 iso 100 @ 60mm
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/Sx...2/_MG_9863.JPG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Only an issue if you can't use your legs AND:
1) You're completely forbidden/unable to edit the image before submission AND you need the composition to be perfect, or
2) You're printing the image so large that a small amount of cropping in post will severely impact the appeal of your finished product.
I suggest option 1. To me, the focal length ranges are more useful and the DOF control / low light performance are important. I would replace the Canon EF-S 17-55 with the Tamron 17-50 VC, though, and put the savings toward a fourth lens.
I am glad to hear you are already out there with great glass! I wish I could drop money on lenses of that caliber and justify it. Oh well.
I would encourage you to check out Daniel's suggestion of the Tamron. I have never heard anything bad about it and if my ASP-C camera were EF-S compatible I would be very tempted to buy it as a replacement of my current EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. If you did save this little more then you might be able to justify that 100mm L Macro!
Samuel
I agree with the Tamron option. Though looking at the ISO charts, the VC version of the lens doesn't seem anywheres near the quality of the non-VC. My dad has the non-VC 17-50 f/2.8, and it's super sharp. Unbeatable for the price. At around $450 it compares extremely well with the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which is over twice the price. Highly recommended for a fast midrange zoom.
Derrick
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
+1 on this approach. It's a good way to learn and figure out what lenses one really needs.
If I only use a 50D and don't have FF bodies, these are the 3 lenses I'm gonna have:
- Tamron 17-50/2.8
- Canon 85/1.8
- Canon 70-200/4L IS
It should come cheaper as well, but you lose a bit on the wide angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin
I agree...but then, I don't. I know I'm going to get a macro lens, I know I'm going to get a UWA lens, and I know I'm going to get a 70-200 zoom, in addition to the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 that I currently have. Since a 10-200mm f/2.8 zoom with 1:1 macro capabilities is not going to happen, the questions become which order I get them in and which lens in each class I will choose. What is important is knowing what kind of shooting one does/plans (low light, action, macro, landscapes, wildlife, architectural, all of the above) and picking lenses that meet those needs. Oh - and coming up with the coin to buy them...
How about....
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ($699)
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ($990)
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM ($1135)
Total = $2824, if this price is too high I'd go with the 17-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4L IS for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
Very sage advice! Heed it well! That being said, try the utilitarian lenses first, like the 24-105 f/4 L. With the high ISO and the IS of the lens, and you'll be well-served with a very sharp lens wide open. This lens is extremely versatile and on one of my bodies over 50% of the time. That, and the 70-200 f/2.8 L, will be all you need for the vast majority of your shooting.