What should my lens purchase be???

Ok, now that I finally have my tripod/ballhead issue taken care of, I'm ready to "focus" on what my next lens purchase should be [:O]!
I enjoy taking a variety of photos...macro, wildlife, landscapes, portraits and fast-action being my 3 dogs (blink and their gone) and toddler grandbabies.I live by LakeMichigan and am looking forward to taking pictures this spring/summer ofsunrises and our beautiful new marina (during the day & at night).


I am looking a few lenses as high possibilities ...
CanonEF 70-200 f/2.8LIS
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS
Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS

Currently own ....

Canon Rebel T1i (hopefully moving to a a 7D or T2i soon)
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS
Canon 1.4x II Extender
Kenko extension tube set
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS& EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS [+o(]


Any suggestions on what lens to add next (Canon or good IQ non-Canon) greatly appreciated!

Denise

Hi Denise,


Cross the 24-105 off your list. It's built for a full-frame body and on a 1.6 FOVCF it's rather blah. If you don't shoot indoor sports you don't need the 70-200 f/2.8, the lighter, sharper and far less expensive 70-200 f/4IS is a great lens. the 17-55 may be your best bet. The 10-22 might be a nice choice for landscapes. I'd use your 100 macro for portraits, you don't need another portrait lens IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Ok, now that I finally have my tripod/ballhead issue taken care of, I'm ready to "focus" on what my next lens purchase should be [img]/emoticons/emotion-3.gif[/img]!

---

Only you can answer that. What is missing in your kit? I see only one hole: landscapes. And so, I'll recommend the 10-22 as the next lens. Now, if you buy that, a 7D, and a macro flash you'll have spend $2400 more on gear. If that's no problem for you, then fine, order it today. But I think you need to know your priorities. When you shoot with your current gear, what do you wish you had? Narrow it down from there. And remember that no gear will take good pictures. You take good pictures. Don't think "OK, what next to buy?". Think, I have a problem here. Is it me, my subjects, or the camera? Go from there. Know your priorities and you will end up spending a whole lot less money. Don't buy a tripod because others say you need one. Buy a tripod because you feel a genuine need for sharper photographs.


In this case, either 17-55 or a 10-22 makes sense from what I know about your needs, which is not much. Can you explain what you think you're missing in your kit?


brendan

I agree with Brendan, the thing I see missing most is the wide end. If you are looking at staying with 1.6 fovcf then the 10-22 would be a great addition to what you have now. 24-105 is a great general purpose lens (and a lens I almost cough up dough for yesterday) but it is better suited to a FF body. I am also currently a T1i user but I am looking to get the 5dmkII soon, just waiting to see if any new of a mkIII comes out. Out of curiosity, have you considered a FF? If not I am just curious as to why. Might help with my decision too.


Anyway my only other thought on what you should go with is - if you plan to stick to 1.6 then the 17-55 is awesome too and wide enough for most - that being said the 10-22 really is perfect for landscapes.


Clark

I second the recommendations for an ultrawide. Of the choices given, I think I'd recommend the 17-55. The f-number is much faster than the kit lens, and most people use this angle of view a lot. On the other hand, if you are more of a telephoto person and you like compressed portraits, the 70-200 f/2.8 L would be excellent. It's certainly a much bigger and heavier lens. Build quality, focus, etc. are a step up.

If your interest is in obtaining a focal length / aperture combination that you don't have at present, then get a zoom. If your interest is in maximal image quality, get a fast L prime. In either case, you'll benefit most from a wide angle. This gives you possibilities such as the EF-S 10-22 (as mentioned), or for something a little more exciting...


TS-E 17/4, 14/2.8L II, 24/1.4L II, TS-E 24/3.5L II...


Of course, none of these lenses are cheap but if you did splash out on a TS-E...wow.


As for the 70-200/2.8L IS (either Mark I or the upcoming Mark II), that's not a cheap lens. If that's under consideration then so should the 14/2.8L and definitely the 24/1.4L. I'll be honest--once I got the 100/2.8L macro IS and the 300/4L IS, my 70-200/2.8L IS doesn't get to see a lot of light these days. Had I known this would happen I probably would have purchased the 300/2.8L IS instead of the 300/4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Cross the 24-105 off your list. It's built for a full-frame body and on a 1.6 FOVCF it's rather blah. If you don't shoot indoor sports you don't need the 70-200 f/2.8, the lighter, sharper and far less expensive 70-200 f/4IS is a great lens. the 17-55 may be your best bet. The 10-22


Only you can answer that. What is missing in your kit? I see only one hole: landscapes. And so, I'll recommend the 10-22 as the next lens. Now, if you buy that, a 7D, and a macro flash you'll have spend $2400 more on gear. If that's no problem for you, then fine, order it today. But I think


In this case, either 17-55 or a 10-22 makes sense from what I know about your needs, which is not much. Can you explain what you think you're missing in your kit?


brendan



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

I think right now I am leaning toward the 17-55. I still have to check out the 10-22 (thanks for the info) and a few others suggestions I've been given. As far as what I feel I'm lacking currently ...my two lenses that came with my camera I'd like to replace with better IQ lenses. I guess looking at it more carefully, yes a nice landscape lens would be very beneficial.


BTW - I just sold my camera on ebay [:D]! So, I have to decide between the 7D and waiting a month or so for the T2i! Not being a patient person ...a month without a camera is a LONG time...I feel withdrawal pains already! [:P]


Denise

In that case, don't get a lens, and buy a 5D Mark II. That's my suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Superman

Out of curiosity, have you considered a FF? If not I am just curious as to why. Might help with my decision too.


Anyway my only other thought on what you should go with is - if you plan to stick to 1.6 then the 17-55 is awesome too and wide enough for most - that being said the 10-22 really is perfect for landscapes.


Clark
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Hi Clark,


I never really considered a FF, mostly due to price I guess. I'd rather spend the $$$ on lenses and accessories. I have a lot of suggestions here to look at so I have my researching cut out for me tonight! I have scratched the 24-105 off the list at least!


Thanks for your help,


Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I second the recommendations for an ultrawide. Of the choices given, I think I'd recommend the 17-55. The f-number is much faster than the kit lens, and most people use this angle of view a lot. On the other hand, if you are more of a telephoto person and you like compressed portraits, the 70-200 f/2.8 L would be excellent. It's certainly a much bigger and heavier lens. Build quality, focus, etc. are a step up.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

the 17-55 is looking like the winner here! I just sold my camera so now I have that to figure out too!

Thank you for your recommendation Daniel...very much appreciated!


Denise

Definitely look at FF. Now that you've sold your T1i a 5D2 makes a ton of sense. It may keep you from more glass, but Denise, I can really tell you you have a great kit and have chosen some very nice equipment that doesn't need much improvement. I think that you should go 1) 5D2 and then 2) wideangle zoom lens &ndash; 17-40l is very nice. But don't rush any purchases and take some more photos!


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

If your interest is in obtaining a focal length / aperture combination that you don't have at present, then get a zoom. If your interest is in maximal image quality, get a fast L prime. In either case, you'll benefit most from a wide angle. This gives you possibilities such as the EF-S 10-22 (as mentioned), or for something a little more exciting...


TS-E 17/4, 14/2.8L II, 24/1.4L II, TS-E 24/3.5L II...


Of course, none of these lenses are cheap but if you did splash out on a TS-E...wow.


As for the 70-200/2.8L IS (either Mark I or the upcoming Mark II), that's not a cheap lens. If that's under consideration then so should the 14/2.8L and definitely the 24/1.4L. I'll be honest--once I got the 100/2.8L macro IS and the 300/4L IS, my 70-200/2.8L IS doesn't get to see a lot of light these days. Had I known this would happen I probably would have purchased the 300/2.8L IS instead of the 300/4.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

WOW! You have given me a lot to look into and I very much appreciate all of the suggestions! I think you have pointed me into a much better direction...the 70-200/2.8L and 24-105 or off my list and yes, I do wish now that I would have waited at purchased the 300/2.8L instead but I am still grateful for what I do have.

Thanks Much,


Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

WOW! You have given me a lot to look into and I very much appreciate all of the suggestions! I think you have pointed me into a much better direction...the 300/2.8L and 24-105 or off my list and yes, I do wish now that I would have waited at purchased the 300/2.8L instead but I am still grateful for what I do have.

---

That's not the point. Wicker is saying that once he got the 100 macro and 300, the 70-200 wasn't used much. He wasn't (I don't think) suggesting the 300 f/2.8 for you. That's a beast of a lens, you'd need an even stronger tripod and gimbal to support that baby. Honestly, I think the 300 f/4 is better for you due to its macro capability and light weight. The 300 f/2.8 is a sports lens, you pay $3000 for that 2.8 aperture which most don't need. I shoot birds with my 300 f/4 and can manage shutter speeds of 1/2000 with ISO 400 in wooded areas on overcast days. If you need to shoot a running back running at the camera at night in crappy lighting, the 300 f/2.8 is for you. Otherwise, keep your 300 f/4.


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

WOW! You have given me a lot to look into and I very much appreciate all of the suggestions! I think you have pointed me into a much better direction...the 300/2.8L and 24-105 or off my list and yes, I do wish now that I would have waited at purchased the 300/2.8L instead but I am still grateful for what I do have.

---

That's not the point. Wicker is saying that once he got the 100 macro and 300, the 70-200 wasn't used much. He wasn't (I don't think) suggesting the 300 f/2.8 for you. That's a beast of a lens, you'd need an even stronger tripod and gimbal to support that baby. Honestly, I think the 300 f/4 is better for you due to its macro capability and light weight. The 300 f/2.8 is a sports lens, you pay $3000 for that 2.8 aperture which most don't need. I shoot birds with my 300 f/4 and can manage shutter speeds of 1/2000 with ISO 400 in wooded areas on overcast days. If you need to shoot a running back running at the camera at night in crappy lighting, the 300 f/2.8 is for you. Otherwise, keep your 300 f/4.


brendan
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Oops, I meant to type that the 70-200 and 24-105 are off my list (I have corrected the error).I do get the point Wicker was making and realize he was not suggesting I get the 300/2.8 now nor would I even think of purchasing now that I already have the 300 f/4.

Denise

Is the 5D2 in the ballpark for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Ok, now that I finally have my tripod/ballhead issue taken care of, I'm ready to "focus" on what my next lens purchase should be [img]/emoticons/emotion-3.gif[/img]!

---

Only you can answer that. What is missing in your kit? I see only one hole: landscapes. And so, I'll recommend the 10-22 as the next lens. Now, if you buy that, a 7D, and a macro flash you'll have spend $2400 more on gear. If that's no problem for you, then fine, order it today. But I think you need to know your priorities. When you shoot with your current gear, what do you wish you had? Narrow it down from there. And remember that no gear will take good pictures. You take good pictures. Don't think "OK, what next to buy?". Think, I have a problem here. Is it me, my subjects, or the camera? Go from there. Know your priorities and you will end up spending a whole lot less money. Don't buy a tripod because others say you need one. Buy a tripod because you feel a genuine need for sharper photographs.


brendan

---

#1 - I would never purchase anything I could not afford.
#2 - If "no gear willtake good pictures", then why doesn't everyone just own the lowest end camera, a inexpensive lens and just pp the heck out of everything? And why doesn't Bryan just give up giving awesome reviews for us to make the best decisions possible? I'm sorry but I truly believe good gear helps make my crappy photos look less crappy!
#3 - Why am I the only one that gets so kicked in the shins by you anytime I want to purchase ANYTHING? [:'(]

Maybe I will take crappy photos no matter what I purchase but I will still have fun doing it! [:P]

Cheers,


Denise

Agree with Brendan again, don't start going down the 300 f/2.8 road. The f/4 w/extender is solid enough for wildlife.


Wow so you pulled the trigger on selling the T1i. I couldn't wait so I'd be on a 7D by now which isn't bad at all. If that is case or even if you have more patience than me and wait for the T2i, I think 10-22mm AND 17-55 f/2.8 will fill out your kit and cover landscape and general purpose (to replace the kit lenses you had before - I assume you sold those w/the T1i).


I still think you consider the 5DmkII though. Sees like you really have the photography bug and FF with something like the 17-40 f/4 (or if budget allows 16-35 f/2.8) is awesome. This would also bring the 25-105 f/4 back into the picture (as the 17-55 ef-s won't work w/5D). You could save up for that or you get the 50 1.4 and foot zoom it. It would be a relatively inexpensive and a great indoor/low light lens for you.


I have the 17-40 f/4, 70-200 f/4 and 50 1.8 right now on my T1i. Went this route because I am still heavily leaning on going full frame. Some of the other guys here have only further validated my thoughts on 5DmkII and I really think your talent (i've seem some of the pics you've posted already and they are great) would really be expanded with a FF camera. The 5DmkII current comes in a great kit w/24-105 f/4 and is a great deal. I would then get the 17-55 ef-s lens and keep my T1i as a 2nd body (might have to fight the wife for the 5D and I usually will lose that fight).


I really think you should consider the 5DmkII - but do what feels right for you, as much as we try the rest of us sometimes can't help put our own biases in.


Clark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Superman

Agree with Brendan again, don't start going down the 300 f/2.8 road. The f/4 w/extender is solid enough for wildlife.


Wow so you pulled the trigger on selling the T1i. I couldn't wait so I'd be on a 7D by now which isn't bad at all. If that is case or even if you have more patience than me and wait for the T2i, I think 10-22mm AND 17-55 f/2.8 will fill out your kit and cover landscape and general purpose (to replace the kit lenses you had before - I assume you sold those w/the T1i).


I still think you consider the 5DmkII though. Sees like you really have the photography bug and FF with something like the 17-40 f/4 (or if budget allows 16-35 f/2.8) is awesome. This would also bring the 25-105 f/4 back into the picture (as the 17-55 ef-s won't work w/5D). You could save up for that or you get the 50 1.4 and foot zoom it. It would be a relatively inexpensive and a great indoor/low light lens for you.


I have the 17-40 f/4, 70-200 f/4 and 50 1.8 right now on my T1i. Went this route because I am still heavily leaning on going full frame. Some of the other guys here have only further validated my thoughts on 5DmkII and I really think your talent (i've seem some of the pics you've posted already and they are great) would really be expanded with a FF camera. The 5DmkII current comes in a great kit w/24-105 f/4 and is a great deal. I would then get the 17-55 ef-s lens and keep my T1i as a 2nd body (might have to fight the wife for the 5D and I usually will lose that fight).


I really think you should consider the 5DmkII - but do what feels right for you, as much as we try the rest of us sometimes can't help put our own biases in.


Clark
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Thank you Clark for the comment about my photos! [:D] [:D]
I sold the T1i body only on ebay this morning and posted the 55-250mm this afternoon on there. If I go with the 5DmkII, there would be absolutely no lenses in my near future so I'll really have to do some heavy thinking of which direction I want to take. I don't see me being able to wait for the T2i. The 7D is looking like the leader in this scenerio right now. But I've been known to change my mind quickly! [:P]

Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

If "no gear willtake good pictures", then why doesn't everyone just own the lowest end camera, a inexpensive lens and just pp the heck out of everything? And why doesn't Bryan just give up giving awesome reviews for us to make the best decisions possible? I'm sorry but I truly believe good gear helps make my crappy photos look less crappy!

---

I will quote Nate from another post: "Beginners tend to think "my camera sucks, it gives crappy results, I wish I have a better camera so I can make better images".http://community.the-digital-picture.../emotion-1.gif" Hey, maybe we're wrong, but I think it's a valuable viewpoint. I'm a beginner myself and that thinking has helped me. It's not that gear doesn't help, well, it's that maybe it isn't Jesus to your photography (I think I didn't say it very well in my previous post). That's the big debate: (http://community.the-digital-picture...7298.aspx#7298). Maybe that will explain. Remember, some of those posts in that thread are more relevant than others, many don't apply to you.


I certainly don't mean to kick you in the shins and I apologize if I come off that way. I am a bit overcautious, so take what I say with a (few) grain(s) of salt [pi]


Good Luck!


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

#3 - Why am I the only one that gets so kicked in the shins by you anytime I want to purchase ANYTHING?

---

Hi Denise! I'm certainly not one to 'kick in the shins' for purchasing additional gear...admittedly, I suffer from gear acquisition syndrome, lens lust, whatever you want to call it (5 lenses in 5 months, and probably my 6th next week). However, I think you certainly raised a few eyebrows by purchasing your first dSLR body in December and selling it to purchase a new body less than two months later. I think there's a difference between adding to your kit and replacing parts of it soon after purchase (kit lenses are an exception, but for that reason I recommend buying body-only). You have us wondering if, after the 7D now you'll be onto a 5D MkII in April and a 1Ds MkIII by summer (or the 1Ds MkIV if that comes out first). [:P]


The other eye-opening part, for me at least, is your mention of considering a T2i - that's like buying a 2009 Accord, then selling it after a couple of months to get a 2010 Accord. I'd wonder if the fact that they moved the cruise control buttons 1" closer to the edge of the steering wheel spoke and added a second cabin air filter could really make such a difference...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

I'm ready to "focus" on what my next lens purchase should be...

---

I'd vote for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. You've got longer primes with fast apertures and great IQ, both of which your kit lens lacks. You've mentioned shooting dogs, grandkids, etc. - around-the-house shots. The 17-55mm focal length is ideal for that sort of thing - that's the lens on my camera most of the time, and the fast aperture and IQ are excellent. 17mm is wide enough for most landscape shots. I do also have the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, which has its place and is a fun lens. But I really think you'll get more out of the 17-55mm at first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Maybe I will take crappy photos no matter what I purchase but I will still have fun doing it!

---

Not true (the crappy picture part - I know you're having fun!) - the more pictures you take, the better you'll get. That's true of almost everything in life... [;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

However, I think you certainly raised a few eyebrows by purchasing your first dSLR body in December and selling it to purchase a new body less than two months later. I think there's a difference between adding to your kit and replacing parts of it soon after purchase (kit lenses are an exception, but for that reason I recommend buying body-only). You have us wondering if, after the 7D now you'll be onto a 5D MkII in April and a 1Ds MkIII by summer (or the 1Ds MkIV if that comes out first).

---

The T1i was purchased in Sept. not December when I didn't know a thing about cameras or photography and it was in my price range at the time. Now thatI have the $$$ available and I have had 4 months of using it and doing a great deal of reading and trying out other cameras, I know it was the wrong camera, right price. In all honesty, there are a few things that were improved with the T2i that were wrong (for me) on the T1iand the price allows me to still purchase another lens. Plus, although I have come quite a ways from not even knowing what ISO and apeture was 4 months ago, I realize I am not ready for all the 7D has to offer but would rather learn from using it than a Rebel but don't want to overwhelm myself at the same time. I am also hesitant on the 7D because there are as many bad reviews as there are good. Sounds like some are having issues with it.

If I purchase the 7D, I will own it for a number of years to come. The ones you mention above are out of my price range and I would much rather buy a good lens instead.

In my opinion, you have to be happy with the body you're holding or it ruins the entire experience! [:P]

Denise


P.S. i do think I will get the 17-55 once I get the camera issue squared away.

I agree, glass is more important in many ways. I use 50d myself but try not to buy ef-s because some day i might upgrade to FF some day. if your going on a budget the 17-40f/4 is fine, unless you need that extra stop of light. In most cases there isn't a real need to get the 2.8 unless your making money off photography because its real hard to dish out 1.5k+ for top glass. I run into the same issues all the time when it comes to picking a lens. If your mostly a hobbiest 17-40f/4 is great for wide angles, 24-105f/4 is great if you can only pick 1 lens to take with you like to the beach or water park with kids, 70-200f/4 IS to save that extra 800 bucks to get something else. You seemed to be covered pretty well rounded. Don't forget all you need is a camera and a lens ^_~. Lenses stay with you for lifetime if treated well, bodies get replaced.

Just to throw a monkey wrench at you, how about a 1D III. Think about all those FPS! That way you will allways get the "Perfect Shot" of your dogs.[;)]


But if you do consider it, there's one on KEH for about $1900. Here is the link, http://www.keh.com/Product-Details/1/DC029991062210/DC02/FE.aspx.


John.

$1900! Wow. I'd seen them on B+H for $2500 and I thought that was a steal...anyways, why do you suggest it? That sure is a monkey wrench...The 7D is better for the birds and dogs she shoots due to all the stuff Daniel talked about (I'll let him elaborate) and the 5D Mark II would be better for portraits and macro. And they'd be new. And if she went in the 1D3 direction her 300 wouldn't be that long anymore (390mm vs 480mm). And the 24-105 would make some sense.


*phews* this is very complicated. I'm going to go drink some water.


cheers!


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

learn from using it than a Rebel but don't want to overwhelm myself at the same time.

---

Well, the 7D is called a "prosumer" camera. Read: pro features, consumer ease of use and price. I don't think you'd be overwhelmed, but you might not use it to the fullest immediately. My suggestion when buying any camera is to fully read, from front to back, the camera manual. That manual will make any camera easy to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

I am also hesitant on the 7D because there are as many bad reviews as there are good. Sounds like some are having issues with it.

---

Can you link some of those bad reviews for me? I haven't seen one hands-on review that was able to say that the 7D was a bad camera. what problems did the reviewers address? I'm curious to know, as I think it's a great overall camera for anybody and the reviews I've read seem to support this.








thanks,


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Can you link some of those bad reviews for me? I haven't seen one hands-on review that was able to say that the 7D was a bad camera. what problems did the reviewers address? I'm curious to know, as I think it's a great overall camera for anybody and the reviews I've read seem to support this.


thanks,


brendan
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

This is one of them. It didn't stop me ...I ordered my 7D today! [:D]


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;message=33193832

Denise

Phhh...Don't worry about those reviews. I shoot single-pt focus and don't have any of those problems. Congrats on your purchase, I think you'll find it to be a major upgrade. Try some bird shooting and post your shots!!!


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

...I ordered my 7D today! [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

---

Haha Denise I love your energy!!!


I totally understand you, but I also like to tease around a little when there are people so excited like you are (and I am) [:D] It's no biggie...currently the weather was bad for about 2 months now and now it's finally looking to get better in a short time!!! The bad weather really didn't help out with making good pictures. At least in my case...my keeperrate in spring/summer is a lot higher than it was last 2 months, and it gets you thinking. Maybe I should buy a better camera/lens etc [:P]


Back to the point! I'm glad you decided on a 7D and not a FF camera! I was anxious, because I already saw you selling your 300mm because it didn't do what it used to do on your T1i [:P] The 7D is a great choice!


Last but not least I vote for a 17-55. It's just a brilliant lens and it will give you nice pictures as long as you get a good composition[A] It would suit you very well I think. At least I was a very happy owner and I know for sure there are many here that agree with me.


Good luck and enjoy the weather which gets better by the day [H]

Thanks to all the suggestions!!!

I ended up getting the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. After much debating, I think this one will workgreat for me! Both the 7D and 17-55mm are on order but as soon as I get a chance, I will post some photos!


Thanks again,


Denise [:D]

Sound great Denise! Have fun at your road trip!