Newbie confused about lenses

[Daniel Browning]

I just thought that the 24-105 was a better range for general purpose.

On full frame, 24-105 is the "typical" wide-to-telephoto general purpose range. 50 is "normal", so 24-105 gives a good range from ultra wide to normal to telephoto.


On APS-C, 24-105 is not typical, it is normal-to-almost-super-telephoto. 24 is "short normal", 31 is "normal", 50 is telephoto, and 105 is almost into super telephoto.

One more question, the 40D comes with two different kit lenses, is the 18-55 ISbetter than the 28-135 IS?

In the range where they overlap, I think the 18-55 is better or the same. It's certainly far far cheaper. But they cover very different focal lengths.

As of right now, option 1 or 2 will best.

The EF-S 55-200 IS is cheaper, longer, and has a wider aperture. I think the 28-135 is a suboptimal choice. It costs a lot because it is designed for full frame. I think the only reason why it is so popular is that most people like to shoot telephoto and don't really care for wide angle.


If someone has 18-55 and 55-200, then every time they want to shoot telephoto, they have to stop and change lenses. Someone who has 28-135 and wants to shoot wide angle has to stop and change lenses.


If you plan to shoot at around 50mm most of the time, and go down to 40mm, 30mm, and up to 60mm, 70mm, then it makes sense to get the 28-135 so you don't have to change lenses.


But if you plan to shoot at around 30mm most of the time, and go down to 24mm, 17mm, and up to 40mm, 50mm, then get the 17-50mm f/2.8 and a cheap telephoto such as 55-200.

[Daniel Browning]

The Tamron is a great lens for the price but the image quality from the canon is noticeably better.

I kindly disagree. The 24-105 has better build, focus, IS, and other advantages, but image quality is not one of them. They may be close enough to equal under some circumstances, but many times the Tamron will eat it for lunch. The Canon 17-55 is a different story.

[Jack M.]

Based on multiple reviews, here is an option you couldconsider -





Tamron17-50mm f/2.8 - $420


Canon EF-S60mm f/2.8Macro - $400


Canon 50mm f/1.8 - $90





The Tamron will work as a great general purpose lens. From what I have read, the IQ will be on par with the 17-40L.


The 60mm macro will be fun for playing around with macro work, and will serve as a good prime portrait lens.It's relatively fast so you can use it if the lighting is not great also.


And the 50mm f/1.8 will be a great wide aperture lens. You can use it in low light,its sharp, and you can always upgrade to the f/1.4 versionin the futureif you want to.


You can get these three lens under $1000. You will be able to experiment with all types of photography, and along with the 70-200mm you will cover plenty of range.


Good luck choosing your lens! It can definitely be overwhelming at first.


Jack

[peety3]

First, I need lens for outdoor sports. I am going for the 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM. I know it's heavy and expensive but I need the IS and fast lens to stop action. When adding a 1.4 TC I'llgetmore reach andbe atf4 which is still very good. I did struggle with opting out of IS but I think I'll regret it. This lens should cover more than sports but I'm afraid I'm not going to want to keep it on the camera all the time.


My next priority would be indoor low light portraits. What is a good choice for lowlight? Should I get a prime or another telephoto? I think I'm going to purchase body only on the 40D. I like the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM but the price is steep. It's double the price of the kit lens should I decide to get the 28-135 IS that comeswith the camera. I've been reading about the 50mm 1.2, the 85mm 1.2 but which one is better for the 40D?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

70-200 is definitely not a single-lens solution. That said, 28-135 is a poor choice because you'll end up setting it aside to collect dust someday, having replaced it completely with other lenses. If you have 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.2L is likely low on your shopping list (you already have 85 covered at ~2 stops slower, you'd want a well-rounded lineup before you went specialty like the 85/1.2). Likewise, push the 50/1.2 way down on your list; I wouldn't buy it unless I also had and knew the 50/1.4 very well.


With all of that covered, lots of choices remain, as you're already seeing. Canon: 17-55/2.8IS, 24-70/2.8, 24-105/4IS, and others. Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, all sorts of options. I'd also think about Canon's 35/1.4 or maybe the 24/1.4II - both would help round out your 70-200 well.


All that said, RENT. Try some things out. Yeah, it's money you don't get to put straight to ownership, but it helps solidify your choices. I for one will not buy the 17-55/2.8IS, because of my rental experiences (and because it won't fit on 1 of 3 cameras in the house). I have the 24-105/4IS from my original entry into Canon, and agree with others that it's not an "amazing" lens. Very, very good, but not stellar. I'm renting the 24-70/2.8 (just arrived today!) for a pair of gigs, and I'm hoping that it's as good as others have described it.