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 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> 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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.