If you could only have two lenses with a camera body with a 1.6 crop, and budget wasn
Printable View
If you could only have two lenses with a camera body with a 1.6 crop, and budget wasn
I'd pick the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Only downside is the weight of the 70-200/2.8 for travel, and that's a major concern, the 70-200mm f/4L IS instead. But for portraits, I'd take the f/2.8 over the f/4 for the additional OOF blur.
Personally, I would repeat what I did buy, the EFS 15-85, the EF 100-400 and a flash. With those two lenses I cover very wide focal range with the weak point being the fact they are "slow," which the flash helps mitigate.
But with your focus, I would pick from the 15-85 and the 17-55 for a general purpose lens and from one of the 70-200 mm L lenses, the 70-300 L, and the 100-400 L for a telephoto lens. Which lens would depend upon your ratio in you focus and what you do while traveling. But, assuming your travel is more of sight seeing and not wildlife viewing, and by general photography you mean people, I would probably end up with exactly what Neuro recommended, the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L II IS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfindley
You did say which "would you choose"? That would be the 500mm F4 L and the 24mm F1.4 L II.
Now if you had said "which would you choose that seem to fitmy needs",I would go with what Neuro suggested.
I
BTW, if you do get the 70-200 mm f/2.8 II, I would also consider the 1.4x and 2x extenders. They would make the 70-200 mm f/2.8 equivalent to a 90-280 mm f/4 (with 1.4x) or a 140-400 mm f/5.6 (with the 2x) lens. I
17-55 f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.2.
I
I second the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II vote.
My first non-kit lens was the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and and my second was the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS I. I still love both lenses and have never regretted either purchase. I have since added the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and it is outstanding. I tend to shoot a lot of non-flash indoor sports and f/2.8 or larger is a must for me, which is why I favor these two over the others for a two lens kit. As for the weight of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, once you see the images it is capable of it really seems lighter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris White
...and so will your wallet. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
True, but the OP stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfindley
And as an added benefit, well maintained L's hold their value at close to investment grade. ;-)
I could not go with two.
Here are my three, and the why.
10-22 USM
The best wide angle lens you can buy on a crop 1.6
17-55 USM
takes care of the mid to long end, bokahlishous.
70-200 F4 IS
glass is as glass does. no finer.
I appreciate all the replies. There is definitely a pattern in what everyone suggest. Luckily I already own the ef-s 15-85 lens. It is a great lenses. I have definitely been looking at the 70-200 lens, both the f4 and f2.8. For the purposes of carrying I believe I am going to pick the f4. Probably 90% of what I take is outside so the f4 will most likely suit my needs. The option of an extender can make it a very versatile lens. And a flash will probably cover most of my indoor needs. Definitely excited about getting my first L lens. I wish canon would put a lot more effort into turning some of their popular ef-s lens into L lens with the L glass and quality.
That is great....but don
Curious, are those the only three lenses you have Kayaker?
Curious, are those the only three lenses you have Kayaker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco
I also have the 50 f/1.8 II and two older lenses that are never used (the kit lens that came with my Elan II in 1999 and a 75-300 mm lens I bought in 2000).
I primarily use the 15-85 and the 100-400L. If you see a shot of mine that isn't a bird it was probably taken with the EFS 15-85. If it is a bird, the 100-400L. I haven't really gotten into macro photography even though I expect too. The times I use the 100L are mostly as a portrait prime, to use the f/2.8, or when I want a really sharp image (it is a beautiful lens though). I've used the 50 f/1.8 II a couple of times, but it is hardly ever on my camera. I can see some room to expand (EFS 10-22, Sigma 30 f/1.4, a TS lens or a supertele like the 500 f/4), but the lenses I have really serve me well. Right now I am trying to improve the computer/software side of my photography (and technique...constantly). Actually I spent part of today looking at Lightroom and DXO Optic Pro and I upgraded my home computer over the summer.
for travel and landscape?
the 50mm f/1.4 and the 10-22 EFS, respectively. could easily stuff in a backpack and not wear you out. make sure to pack a tripod.
Thanks to the members opinions here I got the
10-22 to cover all the wide angles
24-105L F4.0 best walk around with some reach
70-200L F2.8 IS ii - lens speaks for itself
Own 7D and could not be happier with these choices. I have had great results with 70-200 with EX1.4 but not happy with the EX2. Being spoiled with the quality of the 70-200 the EX2 just does not result in the quality I have come to expect from this lens. Much rather crop than use it. I also found that as the further you get to long end of the zoom the quality starts to fade. I am now looking for a solution for in the 400+ range debating either the new 500 or 600. I shoot lots of eagles and need the reach and 5.6 does not cut it for me.
/click on
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I agree exactly. IMO the only difficulty in this choice is that it would leave me macroless. If I felt this was unacceptable (and I almost do) I would replace one these lenses (a tough choice which) with the 100 IS macro.
70-200 f/2.8 L IS doesn
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
True. I used to use my 70-200 f/2.8 IS with extension tubes (mark 1) for butterflies. But a macro lens is still better for macro shots.
When outdoors, my 70-300L is on my camera most of the time. Extremely versatile and so close in IQ to the 70-200 f/4L IS (which I used to own but sold for the extra range). It