Next lens? 18-55 kit, 50 1.8, 28-135, then _____________?

[randmc]

I'm debating my next lens, and would love advice from more experienced people.


Rebel XSi: Got this with the 18-55 IS kit (justified with impending birth of child), and enjoyed it for awhile. Dissatisfied with max aperture, autofocus speed, image quality.


Wife gave me the 50 1.8 for Christmas. Enjoyed using it. It's great in some scenarios (outside, portrait, etc.). Like the sharpness, but using it inside for group photos requires more distance than I often have. Realizing now how slow it is to focus.


I got the 28-135 IS USM last spring, and I have enjoyed it, particularly at the longer end to take outdoor shots at events, nature shots, etc. Love it overall, but sometimes I'd like more reach with larger aperatur, or it's not quite wide enough.


Added the 270EX, and it is very useful, and much better than the on-camera flash.


I'm definitely on a budget, so I'm eyeing the 70-200 f/4 non-IS as something I can afford and justify. Also interested in the 17-55 2.8 IS, but not sure wife will be happy with a 4 digit lens price. Still, it would cure my complaints about the 18-55 kit.


Wish there were some other upgrade for the kit lens (if it's about $100 value, how is there nothing in between it and the $1,000 17-55 2.8?).


I'm trying to start having semi-professional gigs (shots for the church and rec league sports, etc.).


Any suggestions for what I should get next? In Atlanta, so able to rent the options pretty easily. Thanks!

[neuroanatomist]

I'm definitely on a budget, so I'm eyeing the 70-200 f/4 non-IS as something I can afford and justify.

It's a great lens! If you want a longer focal length on a (relatively) tight budget, there's no better choice.

Also interested in the 17-55 2.8 IS, but not sure wife will be happy with a 4 digit lens price. Still, it would cure my complaints about the 18-55 kit...

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a great lens! But, not cheap. Because it's a great focal length range for indoor shooting, it's on my camera most of the time for around-the-house family shots.

Wish there were some other upgrade for the kit lens (if it's about $100 value, how is there nothing in between it and the $1,000 17-55 2.8?).

Well, there's the new(ish)Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens- much better IQ than the kit lens even with a wider zoom range. Fast focusing with USM. However, you'd still have the variable/slow aperture issue to deal with. I think the 15-85mm would make an ideal outdoor walk-around lens.


Also, if you consider 3rd party lenses, there are well-regarded Tamron 17-50mm lenses (with and without VC, aka IS). Those are ~$400/$625, respectively.

[TucsonTRD]

Both lenses that you mention, 17-55 and 70-200 f4, are great lenses. I just got the 17-55 a couple weeks ago and love it. And the 70-200 is on a UPS truck en route to my house. Though I'd love to have IS on the 70-200, my budget said no.


For what you have and what you are looking for, I would suggest the 70-200. It is cheaper than the 17-55, and it will provide a focal length coverage that you don't currently have. The money you save could be put towards a 3rd party lens as is mentioned by neuroanatomist.

[Shea Design]

I would look for a used 17-40mm f/4 - I have the 16-35mm f/2.8 (my only non prime) and the range is a nice complement to the nifty fifty. I hear the 17-40mm f/4 is very nice too and I sometimes see them for $600 in great condition.


The 70-200 f/4 will get you the reach, but initially you indicated the 50mm was too close, thus the wide angle suggestion. BTW - I sold my 70-200 f2.8 IS in favor of the 300mm f/4 and 1.4 extender combination/option. This suits my outdoor photography requirements, but if you are going semi-pro the range of the 70-200 f/4 is probably a better fit for weddings and events. Best of luck in your research & acquisitions.


-Shea

[rlriii13]

If you do take the leap to four figures, why not consider the 24-105mm f/4 L IS?

[LoneSierra]

So here's the question:


Where do you want to go from here? Do you need to zoom in more? Or do you want to start gettintg better quality pictures, in the range you have now?


In your case, I'd personally go with the 17-55 2.8 IS. I know the 4 numbers is a little detering, but honestly, you aren't going to find much of an upgrade (In your current MM range) for a lot less. This way, you can get those church pictures easier. This is the most hand holdable lens canon makes.


If you feel you need more zoom, obviously that 70-200 f4 is a good price and is giong to give you great IQ. My only thought, is that if you're looking to get some semi-pro gigs, IMO, I think the 17-55 might be better suited for a wider variety of jobs, considering you already have a 135mm. Since you have 12 MP to play with, cropping in a little bit isn't a huge issue. Obviously the extra 65mm is significant, but are the jobs you're going to take going to utilize your wider end, or longer end more of the time?


In building my lens collection I started with 18-55 kit, 50mm 1.8 and 28-135. Got the 60mm macro then 17-55 2.8, got rid of kit, went wide with the 10-22 (amazing lens by the way) then finally went long with the 70-200 2.8 IS. I just sold the 28-135, and i'm selling the 18-135 I got with my 7D, and i'm saving for the 24-105 f4 is.


So, I focused on getting quality short range, before the long range, but that's the route I took, it's not for everyone. Hope I at least gave you an idea! Sorry if it's a little jumbled


John

[randmc]

I rented the 28-70 this weekend, when the 17-55 was 'sold out', as was the 24-70.





The 28-70 was great. Amazing color, great focusing, heavy, but worth it. Enjoyed it very much.


I think I've decided to get the 17-55, as several recommended. The 70-200 will be something I rent when needed, but nothing I need that often, since I have the 28-135 for outdoor events in good light.


I appreciate the help! It seems one gets more comments when one has no budget, so it is great when people can make recommendations under more rigid constraints!


Randy