Lenses Suggestions

[El Geek]

Currently my equipment consist of EOS 50D, EFS18-200mm f/3.5-5.6, EF50mm f/1.8, EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. I mostly use 18-200mm at all times but I'm not entirely satisfied with it, specially in low light situations. I will eventually will upgrade to full frame, but in the meantime I want expand my glass collection. With a budget of $2000, what lens or lenses would you recommend? Thanks
<h2><a name="desc" class="desc" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12059-GREY/Canon_2565A003_100_300mm_f_4_5_5_6_USM_Autofocus.h tml"]
[/URL]</h2>

[bob williams]

Well, it sounds like you use the 18-200 most of the time, so if you were looking for good glass that met most of your needs, I would suggest the 70-200 f2.8 L IS. I have never heard a negative thing about this Lens and it seems to be a favorite of many amatuer and pro photographers---Before you make a decision, readBryans review of this Lens and read the reviews on B&amp;H.





My 2CW


Bob

[crosbyharbison]

I'd get the 70-200, and after you recover financially get the 16-35 and have the 50 sitting nicely in the middle. then go full frame

[Sean Setters]

Well, it sounds like you use the 18-200 most of the time, so if you were looking for good glass that met most of your needs, I would suggest the 70-200 f2.8 L IS. I have never heard a negative thing about this Lens and it seems to be a favorite of many amatuer and pro photographers---Before you make a decision, readBryans review of this Lens and read the reviews on B&amp;H.





My 2CW


Bob
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I agree with Bob that the lens is fantastic, but I'll have to admit I did run into an issue when using the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS today--it wouldn't focus when the sun was in the viewfinder. This may be a trait of most lenses, but I just don't know because it's not a technique I use very often. However, I tried today, and the lens wouldn't lock focus on the subect (even though I felt there was enough contrast to get focus under normal circumstances).


So that's my one negative regarding the 70-200mm lens. However, I will ask the original poster this--when you're using the 18-200, are you using it most on the long end or on the wide angle? If you get more use out of the wide angle portion of the lens, you might do better with a different choice. Don't get me wrong, I love the 70-200, but it doesn't spend nearly as much time on my camera as the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. While that lens may not be an option for you because of your plans to upgrade to a full frame camera, you might want to consider something in an equivalent range if you're typically shooting wider angle shots than 70mm.

[Joel]

Instead for picking one of the extremes (the 16-35mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8) I would like to opt (like Sean) for a midrange zoom.

• Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS
• Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM IS
• Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM

If you spend most of the time at the lower focal lenghts of your current 18-200mm, maybe the first suggestion suits your needs. However, you'll miss quite some range at the longer end. The 24-105mm is a bit longer, but at f/4, not as good as f/2.8 for those low light situation. When you don't feel like selling the EF-S when buying a new FF camera, the 24-70mm may be a good option. Not as wide, as the 17-55, but a great lens.


Jo&euml;l

[Chris White]

I have a 50D and currently three lenses, the seldom used (anymore) kit 28-135mm, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS. The reason I seldom use the kit lens is the addition of the other two. I got the 17-55 shortly after the 50D because I need a wider lens and larger aperture for inside sports. I have never regretted buying this lens. Even when I someday upgrade to full frame I will most likely keep this camera/lens as a second option. If, instead, I do decide to sell it, I have already taken thousands of shots that I would have missed. This summer after looking at all four 70-200 options, I chose the 2.8 IS because it is very sharp and covers all the bases. The only two downsides I can find are the initial cost and the weight; it tips the scales at over 4lbs. However, once you see the images it produces, those little complaints are quickly gone. Over Thanksgiving I set up a digital slide show of all my images from the past year. After the comments about the memories the most often heard remark was how sharp and detailed the images all were. 99% of them were taken with my f/2.8 combo.


I am currently looking at two great lenses to fill my range gap, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM or the EF 24-105mm f/4 USM IS. I love the f/2.8, but I am also addicted to Canon IS. That is my personal debate. Either lens would fill my gap and perform well. I just need to decide what I need more, IS or twice the light. I realize that technically I do not have a gap, and the 28-135 is a good lens, but, once you see the results from a great lens, it is had to settle for good. In Addition, with the extra quality I can always crop.


I have never experienced the focus issue Sean mentioned. I do find myself with the 17-55 on the camera about 2-1 to the 70-200, but I do have both on often. I would suggest that you get the one in your most used focal range and then add the second as your budget allows. You may want to consider the EF 24-105mm f/4 USM IS also as mentioned above. It will cover more of your mid-range and give you a constant f/4 through the whole range.


Good luck choosing. The only thing I can assure you is that if you get one of these three lenses, the 18-200 will become a dust collector. []


Regards,


Chris

[El Geek]

Thank you all for your inputs...I have consider the 70-200. I normally shoot wide, but I do use the zoom pass 100 and I like having that versatility with the 18-200. I'm also considering the 17-55, but not for the range but the extra f stop. I'm leanin towards what Joel and Sean said, the midrange zoom lenses. Any thoughts on the 35mm f/1.4 L?

[Sean Setters]

There are plenty of fans of the 35mm f/1.4 L, however, I think a mid-range zoom would be a heck of alot more useful than an ultrafast prime in that range.

[Mike Coulter]

You mentioned in your original post that you will eventually upgrade your camera to a full frame and in your latest post you said that you rarely zoom past 100mm. The 17-55mm lens is a great lens but it won't fit the full frame mounts. It only fits EF-S mounts like your 50D. The 70-200mm lens is one of the best lenses in Canon's line-up. If you don't zoom past 100mm that often, you should consider the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens. It provided 3-stops of IS and is a great walking around lens. It's not very heavy at all. The image quality of the 24-105mm lens and the 24-70mm lens are pretty much the same. I think that this is one of Canon's best.

[Scott]

I will have to agree with Mike. My 24 - 105L is great, well not great at the moment as it is at the Dr's. but that is another story. The kit lens you got with the 50D is very limiting in regards to clear photos, I find mine is very good between 25 to 75 mm for portrait and that is it, outside this it is pretty well pathetic. 24 - 105 &amp; then the 70 - 200, depending on what you shoot,good choice.


Scott