Recommendations on a lens ...

[holeysox]

Hi all,


I've been combing through a pile of reviews and forums AND I've gone to the local stores to try out my next lens purchase but still can't seem to decide on one ...


I've currently got a Canon XSi with the EFS 18-55 IS kit lens, a Sigma 30mm EX 1.4 prime and a Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM.


I have a one year old at home and he and my wife are primarily the subjects of all my photography. The primes have been excellent in low light situations and have been great for "stopping action" of my little one as he moves quite fast and he does not like to pose.


Over the summer the family has been on a couple of trips. Specifically kids events such as local fairs and theme parks. I've found my 18-55 a bit short and I am unable to get a shot of my kid on the rides with his mom. I was also unable to use the 18-55 at his first birthday party as it was indoors and to avoid using flash I ended up mounting the 30mm 1.4. With the 30mm I was able to get most of the group shots but none of the candid close ups.


I have thought about the following lenses:


1) EFS 17-55 2.8 IS - still short ....just a way better version of my kit lens


2) EF 24-70 2.8L - good length but a bit heavy


3) EF 24-105 4L - great length but maybe too slow for my kid when indoors


4) EFS 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS - havent been able to try it since its not in stock yet and maybe too slow


5) LEARN TO USE A FLASH with option 3 and 4 =) ... I currently have an old 380EX Speedlite that doesnt rotate %&^@#


My budget is about $1300 CDN so the most I can afford is the 24-70 ....


Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[Joel Eade]

Maybe take a look at extending your focal length with the 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM....based on your description it might "fit the bill" just right and this lens gets great reviews.

[IAMB]

I've had some pretty good results with the 24-105 on my backup body (30D) for basketball in poorly lit gyms... it works fine as long as you're not afraid to turn the ISO up. The 24-70 might be heavy, but I think you'd get used to it pretty fast once you saw the results.

[Mark Elberson]

I've found my 18-55 a bit short and I am unable to get a shot of my kid on the rides with his mom.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

I was also unable to use the 18-55 at his first birthday party as it was indoors and to avoid using flash I ended up mounting the 30mm 1.4.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

With the 30mm I was able to get most of the group shots but none of the candid close ups.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

My budget is about $1300 CDN

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

In all seriousness, it sounds to me like you need more reach but not at the expense of speed. I would have recommended the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS but, with your budgetthis lens fits the bill!

[hotsecretary]

You really have 3 options... IMO


24-70 is a great lens if you think it'll be enough reach, best best is to honestly maybe rent it and try it.. or just go into a store and bring your camera and try it out.


24-105 is the next best thing and others will argue possibly better, especially with the IS if you're moving around trying to capture the moving child.


70-200 4 IS is about your budget currently, before taxes.. same with the rest of them really.


2.8IS is great ... but it's way over your budget and might be too heavy for you to carry around all day at the park, etc. But I love mine





But those are pretty much your options IMO for the price. The 2.8IS is $1800 use if you're lucky.. and well over $2k if you buy it new.. + taxes.

[Cory]

With your budget in mind and the lenses you list, I'd say the 24-105 4.0 IS L if you don't need to stop action and the 24-70 2.8 L if you do. Light-wise I don't think you'll see a huge difference between them due to the IS on the 4.0.


The 70-200mm 2.8 L would be wonderful, but it's a little out of your price range.


You might take a look at the 100mm 2.8's (Macro or not). The non-L macro version takes great pics and is well under your budget, but the focal length may be too long (then there's the new L version that fits right on your budget). You could also look at the 50mm and 85mm 1.4's and 1.8's... you might even be able to get one of each.

[George Slusher]

In all seriousness, it sounds to me like you need more reach but not at the expense of speed. I would have recommended the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS but, with your budgetthis lens fits the bill

Well, sorta. First, let me say that I own and use a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, but I've found that it is overkill for many uses. It's expensive, heavy (3.5 pounds!), bulky, and requires 77mm filters (more expensive--a good 77mm CPL can cost $85-225). It's not as "good" a lens as the 70-200mm f/4L and especially the f/4L IS (both of which I've used--I still use the f/4L IS), which is actually cheaper than the non-IS f/2.8L

I've found my 18-55 a bit short and I am unable to get a shot of my kid on the rides with his mom.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

That would work, but, as it's outdoors, f/2.8 probably isn't needed. See below.

I was also unable to use the 18-55 at his first birthday party as it was indoors and to avoid using flash I ended up mounting the 30mm 1.4.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

With the 30mm I was able to get most of the group shots but none of the candid close ups.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

The 70-200mm may be too long for that use. On holeysox's XSi, that would be equivalent to 112-420mm. 112mm could be too long for most indoor shots, unless the room is large. Also, f/2.8 may be a bit slow, depending upon the circumstances. His (assuming that holeysox is male--he referred to "my kid" and "his mom" on a ride) 30mm and 50mm lenses are 2 stops faster than the 70-200mm f/2.8L.

My budget is about $1300 CDN

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L

I don't know what the price would be in Canada. The 70-200mm f/2.8L (non IS) is $US 1330 at B&H. Converting that comes to $CDN 1376. The 70-200mm f/4L IS is $US 1210, $CDN 1252, for example.


It sounds like holeysox needs a longer lens for outdoors, but not a fast long lens, unless he needs to stop action in dim light. (I use my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS only for indoor horse shows. For outdoor shows, it stays home and I use the much lighter (and better quality!) 70-200mm f/4L IS or, if circumstances require, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, plus a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS.


Here are some possibilities, with prices at B&H in $US and their weight in oz (without tripod collars), in addition to those that holeysox listed:

• EF-S 18-200mm IS f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $595; 21 oz
  
• new EF-S 18-135mm IS f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $500; 16.1 oz
  
• EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM @ 200; 13.2 oz
  
• EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM @ $410; 19.1 oz
  
• EF 70-200mm f/4L @ $660; 24.9 oz
  
• EF 70-200mm f/4L IS @ $1210; 26.8 oz
  

Each has advantages and disadvantages, of course. Some considerations that may or may not be important for holeysox:

• Weight & convenience. It can be a pain to carry a big, heavy lens, especially if you also have to carry another shorter lens. You can easily lose a great shot in the time it takes to change lenses. That would make the 18-135mm & 18-200mm quite attractive for trips to the park, zoo, etc. The 18-200mm can also be a great lens for travel or any other time you want to carry only one lens.
  
• Image quality would be an advantage of the L lenses, but at the expense of cost, weight, and convenience.
• Full-time manual focus is not available on the two EF-S lenses.
• IS can be a real help.
• Filter size might be an issue, though only the 28-105mm uses the same size filter (58mm) as any of holeysox's current lenses (50mm f/1.4)
• If full-frame compatibility is an issue (e.g.., if holeysox is considering a 5D), then the EF lenses would be better choices than the EF-S.

I'm not sure if holeysox really needs a much longer lens for his indoor shots--his 50mm f/1.4 lens might do the trick, plus there's also a little trick called "cropping."[] If he does need a bit more length and fast speed, the 85mm f/1.8 ($439) might fit the bill, though, like the 70-200mm, it could be too long for his needs.


If holeysox needs a flash that rotates (helps with bouncing--that's about all), the Canon 430EX II at $280 would be a good choice. Slightly cheaper and a bit more powerful and flexible is the Sigma EF-530 DG Super, at $219.


Here are possible choices that fit within holeysox's budget ($CDN 1300 = $US 1258)

• EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $410 for outdoors
  
• EF 85mm f/1.8 @ $439 for tight/longer shots indoors (including some indoor sports) if he really needs it
  
• 430EX II @ $280 - better flash
  
• Total = $1129

• EF 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS @ $595 for outdoors (well, actually, most anything in good light)
  
  
• EF 85mm f/1.8 @ $439
  
  
• Sigma EF-530 DG Super @ $219 - cheaper than 430EX II
  
  
• Total = $1253

Check Bryan's reviews of these lenses. If holeysox wants to "replace" his kit lens for everyday use, he might choose the new 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS instead of the 28-135mm, but I'd wait until we see thorough reviews, as this is a brand-new design.


One last thing: while the "L" lenses usually (not always!*) have better image quality and are noted for their sturdiness, they may not be the best choice for everyone. They're expensive, heavy, expensive, bulky, expensive, and usually need large filters (72-77mm)--and, did I mention that they're expensive? For many people, the mid-range (in cost) lenses can provide a significant step up from the kit lens at a much lower cost and lighter weight, especially for 1.6x body users.


*One exception, according to Bryan's reviews, is the EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which appears to have as good or even better image quality than the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L or 17-40mm f/4L or even the 24-70mm f/2.8L at comparable lengths and apertures. It uses the same glass as L lenses, but in a less-sturdy body. It's one of my favorite lenses.

[Daniel Browning]

The 24-70 f/2.8 L is not a very good value on a crop body, because most of the money goes into paying for the part of the image circle that you're not using (because you're not full frame). A lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 L, on the other hand, gives you the full bang for the buck. I'm sure you've already considered lenses like the 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, 135mm f/2, and 200mm f/2.8.

[George Slusher]

The 24-70 f/2.8 L is not a very good value on a crop body, because most of the money goes into paying for the part of the image circle that you're not using (because you're not full frame). A lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 L, on the other hand, gives you the full bang for the buck. I'm sure you've already considered lenses like the 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, 135mm f/2, and 200mm f/2.8.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Could you explain that a bit further? The image circles will be the same size for both lenses, I expect.


OTOH, I agree that the 24-70mm f/2.8L may not be a great choice for many 1.6x body users. It doesn't go that "wide"--the equivalent of 38-112 on a full-frame camera. Indeed, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS--27-88m full frame equivalent--was apparently designed to fill the same niche for 1.6x cameras as the 24-70 does for full frame. The fact that the 17-55mm has L-quality glass is a major clue.


From a focal-length standpoint, the 17-85mm or new 15-85mm might be better, but they are slower by 1-2 stops. For many uses, however, they would work well, especially if one would benefit more from IS than from full-time manual focus and doesn't need action-stopping fast shutter speeds in low light.


For holeysox's purposes, long primes may not be that useful, if he's primarily concerned with shooting indoors in available light, unless he's shooting sports or similar activities at longer distances than in a typical room. I have three of the four Daniel mentions, missing only the 135mm f/2, though I'll be selling the 200mm f/2.8L now that I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. I often photograph horse shows in indoor arenas. Some are well-lit and a f/2.8 lens is fine, but others are poorly-lit and I really need the fast primes to avoid motion blur. I've used 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 II, 85mm f/1.8, and 100mm f/2. I bought a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.4, but haven't had the opportunity to use either extensively where it would be "required."

[Cory]

The 24-70 f/2.8 L is not a very good value on a crop body, because most of the money goes into paying for the part of the image circle that you're not using (because you're not full frame)...

I don't get that either. The 24-70 just turns into a 38-112 on a 1.6 body. Likewise the 70-200 is really a 112-320.



Personally I think 38-112mm at 2.8 (but no IS) is pretty dang good for what he's trying to do.