A beginner with high aspirations

[jeustace]

I was look for a forum to punch my question into, and seeing that I've been looking at all the photos on the site here to see which lens I want to buy I figured I'd start here.


A little background : I'm a web designer so photoshop is no stranger to me. Since I've had a baby girl I've really wanted to step up my photography skills a whole bunch... so I got a Canon t2i and started taking shots. I currently have the kit lenses : Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and the EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III.


I can take nice photos with both, but I want exceptional photos. I don't have a lot of money but I know that if I want amazing photos I'm gonna need some L-class glass. Keep in mind, I'm going to be taking photos of my daughter - many of them in a split second and speed might be of value.


I've taken the time to learn a little about aperture and I know that the lower my fstops the faster I can take a picture and the better I can get the bokeh. I also know that IS is very important especially with someone that doesn't have seasoned photography hands.


So my question is this : I can spend a lot of money on one lens, and only one. I won't have more money for another lens for a couple of years. I do plan on getting a full frame camera in the future so I'm going with an EF and not an EF-S.


From what I see there are two lenses that probably fits what I need - EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM or the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. Now I'd really like to have the f/2.8 over the f/4 but the f/4 has IS. Why did Canon make such a hard choice?


Am I barking up the wrong tree? Should I be looking for a different lens? Or am I on the right track? I'm lost but I wanna buy a lens... PLEASE ADVISE!


Thanks!

[mikehillman89]

First off, Welcome jeustace!


And yes you did bark up the wrong tree! There are so many 24-70 vs 24-105 debates here! Just joking!


It's a tough one to decide, but obviously depends on what you plan on doing more of.


If you plan on being indoors more often then the 2.8 may work better for you than the 4.0. If you however plan on getting a flash as well then perhaps the IS and extra range is worth the sacrifice of one stop. If no flash is in your future and you plan on being indoors often then I would suggest the 24-70mm just for the additional stop.


My 2cents.


Cheers,


Mike

[Jon Ruyle]

If you plan on being indoors more often then the 2.8 may work better for you than the 4.0.

Rather than indoors vs outdoors, I would say the question is moving vs non-moving. For moving objects, the f/2.8 gives double the shutter speed, and thus allows pictures in half the light. But for non-moving objects, the IS gives a two stop advantage (three stops for the IS, minus one stop because of the f/4) thus allowing hand-held pictures in 1/4 the light of the f/2.8.


For portraits in good light, I would prefer the faster lens for the option of a narrow DOF, especially on a crop body.


The 24-105 IS is truly amazing for hand-held night photography.


I guess that settles it


I agree with John- I would think again about how soon I plan to go full frame. If it is a far off idea, you might consider getting the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, then selling it when you get the full frame camera.

[Lars]

I agree that the best choice would be 17-55mm + 85mm. I have the Tamron 17-55 (far much better than the canon kit lens) and a crop sensor (400D) and use the 17-55 almost all the time. If I had the money, I would probably go for the canon version with IS, but my experience with shooting kids (with camera [:P]) is that fast lens is more important than IS. Remember that the IS does not stabilise the kid, only the camera. So if I had to choose between 2.8 w/o IS and 4 w IS, I would go for 2.8 without.


Also, I see a lot of people being extremely satisfied with the 7D, which has crop sensor. If you are not 100% sure that your next body will be a full size, I suggest 17-55. Anyway, if you choose Canon's top quality lenses, I am sure you will be satisfied whatever you end up with.

[Scott]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]Jeustance, welcome to the forum, I&rsquo;m sure you will obtain heaps of information from these wise folk here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I was or should I say am in a similar position to you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I purchased the 50D with the 28 &ndash; 200 kit lens and must say that I wasn&rsquo;t impressed at all with the quality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I found the ideal focal range for crisp photos was between the 40 &ndash; 120mm mark, anything outside of this was called soft, in other words blurry to me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]</o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]Long story short I did save for and purchase the 24 &ndash; 105L, I too want the full frame in the near future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I can not afford to have a piece of equipment in my bag that I do not use; it would do my head in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I couldn&rsquo;t be happier with my choice and the good people on this site did help a lot with my decision along with the reviews here as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] It is on my 50D 90% of the time, I have used as a studio lens as well as for a few weddings and I couldn&rsquo;t be happier, as are my clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]</o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]Bodies, lenses, tripods etc etc are a real preference choice and you will get a great debate from a myriad of people to explain why they think one is better then the other, which is great you get to hear form all sides, pros and cons, but it all comes down to what you want to shoot your style, speed, light and the list goes on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]</o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]If your are in the position to rent a lens for a few days or a week I would also suggest this, try before you buy / choose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Hope this has helped a bit and keep asking the questions.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]</o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]Scott

[erno james]

I can speak only to the f/2.8 24-70. GET IT! it was my first lens and I have no regrets, even without the IS. get the fastest glass you can afford. enjoy!

[neuroanatomist]

Hello, and welcome to TDP Forums!


To be honest, it's a tough choice. IMO, the best general purpose zoom lens on a 1.6x crop body like the T2i is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It's the lens on my 7D at this moment, and it's the lens that I leave on my camera so it's ready when I want to pull it out for shots around the house. I currently have 7 lenses, 4 of which are L-series lenses (including the EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]L IS USM which you're considering).


Why do I recommend the 17-55mm? Focal length range, fast aperture, and IS. The other two lenses - 24-70mm f/2.8L and 24-105mm f/4L - aren't really wide enough at the wide end on a crop body. There's a significant difference between 24mm and 17mm - you can at least compare 18mm to 24mm with your kit lens; I suggest you either look over the EXIF data on shots you've taken around the house, or set it to 24mm and shoot for a day, and see if it's wide enough. For me, indoors I find that with the 24-105mm I'll often back into a wall and still need to move back more.


You mentioned that you're planning on going FF in the future - the question is when. If you mean in the next year or two, you have a valid concern about getting an EF-S lens. But if you mean maybe, in several years, then I think it's less of a concern - especially since you can sell the EF-S lens if/when you get a FF body. The usual recommendation is to get good lenses first, then worry about the body - the T2i is a very capable camera.


Regarding the 24-70mm f/2.8 vs. 24-105mm f/4 with IS, keep in mind what IS will and will not do for you. It will enable you to get handheld shots at low shutter speeds, and 3 stops of IS sounds better than one stop of aperture. But, if you're shooting people, you'll want to plan on at least 1/30 s (for someone holding still for the camera) and 1/60 s or faster (for someone not posing) to freeze their motion. That's where f/2.8 has the advantage, one stop of light means one stop faster shutter speed. That's another reason I recommend the 17-55mm - you get the best of both worlds, f/2.8 and IS.


The image quality of the 17-55mm is comparable to L-series lenses. The build quality is very good, but not quite L-series level. The 17-55mm lacks weather sealing, but that's not an issue since your body isn't weather-sealed (the 7D is, which is the main reason I bought the 24-105mm - to shoot in the rain).


Just to throw one more wrinkle at you - if the 24-70mm f/2.8 will fit within your budget, you might have a little $ to spare if you get one of the other two lenses. If so, I'll make two additional recommendations. First, if you don't have an external flash already, get one - I recommend the 430EX II. If you shoot indoors a lot, you'll probably find that even f/2.8 is often not enough and you'll want a strobe. IMO, the pop-up flash is horrible (except perhaps as fill-flash for outdoor shots) - shots with the pop-up look like they could have been taken with a point-and-shoot. I recommend the 430EX II over the cheaper 270EX because of the AF assist lamp (personally, I hate the rapid-fire AF assist flash, which is what you get with the pop-up and the 270EX). Second, if you already have a flash, another lens to consider is the EF 85mm f/1.8 - that makes a great portrait lens for close-ups of your little daughter, and that lens is really one of the best values(IQ vs. cost)in the Canon lineup.


If you're set on EF, I'd recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8L over the 24-105mm f/4L IS.


But I really think the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 85mm f/1.8 is a killer combination. Personally, that's where I started - a T1i, the 17-55mm and the 85mm f/1.8. For me, that was a 'test' to see if photography was something I wanted to pursue again (I shot 35mm SLR in the dark ages aka before autofocus lenses, but only P&amp;S since then). Since then, I moved to a 7D and invested in several L lenses. Even so, I use both the 17-55mm and the 85mm prime lenses a lot - they're that good.


Either way, good luck with your decision!


--John

[Brendan7]

my simple 1.6 crop formula:


For outdoor shooting: 24-105mm. (add canon 10-22 or tokina 11-16 for wide angle, 85mm 1.8 for fast prime??)


For indoor shooting: 17-55mm. (85 1.8 for longer shots?)

[neuroanatomist]

my simple 1.6 crop formula:


For outdoor shooting: 24-105mm. (add canon 10-22 or tokina 11-16 for wide angle, 85mm 1.8 for fast prime??)


For indoor shooting: 17-55mm. (85 1.8 for longer shots?)

I have pretty much that setup on the short end (17-55mm for indoors, 10-22mm and 24-105mm for outdoors, and 85mm f/1.8 for both), and it works great. Only thing missing from the list is a 3-stop or so ND filter for the 85mm f/1.8 if you want to shoot wide outdoors.

[Sean Setters]

Then again, I've seen some fantastic images made with a $100 50mm f/1.8 plastic wonder and a couple of off-camera shoe mount flashes.


I don't have the fantastic plastic nifty-fifty, but this was made with the 50mm f/1.4 and two (relatively cheap) shoe mount flashes:






In my opinion, as long as you have a lens that performs decently, you can do more for your images with creative lighting.