Which Two Lenses

Just some advice.

I have a 450D and I think I am going to invest in better glass than the kit lenses.

I do all sorts of photography but I am not heavily in to bird photography so I do not need an extreme Zoom. I do a bit of traveling and I am go to Bali and New Zealand later this year so landscapes and people will be my mission. I have the ok to spend a little and wish to spend it wisely .

I have put the 70-200 f4L down as my first choice to replace the 55-250 IS which is very good its just that I know the L is better and it might be time to grab it.
The next choice is a little harder but it has to come in at around US$600.

The lens has to be my basic walk around lens and I know I am not going to secure that in an L for the money I have to spend.Any suggestions.

Also I am not adverse to looking at the scenario of spending all my money US$1200 on one good walk around and retaining the 55-250Is to cover those distance situations.
Thanks for any advice that you can give

I would only move up to the 70-200 f4 L if you are speaking of the IS version. A great lens to compliment it is the 17-55 f2.8 IS but these 2 will set you back nearly $2K for the set. You could substitute the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and that will knock of about $600.

Another option on a $1200 budget. Keep the 55-250 IS. Buy the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and fast prime like the 85mm f1.8 and/or possibly a macro lens like the 60mm macro and you will have money left over.

Keep your 55-250mm IS and compliment it with the awesome 24-105mm f/4L

I agree with jrscls and would only move up to the 70-200/4 if it has IS. The 70-200/4L is definitely better than the 55-250 IS but if the light is less than perfect you will get better pictures with the 55-250 IS, unless you use a tripod.

I also agree that the 17-55/2.8 IS is a great option. I use the 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/4 IS but that costs about $2K (I'm not sure what that would be in Australia). The 17-55 goes from reasonably wide to short telephoto and it is especially great for indoors and at night. The f/2.8 and IS really help.

The 24-105 is another good lens. It goes to 105mm, has better build quality and has a red ring. However, 24mm is not that wide on a crop camera (especially for landscapes), it is not as sharp as the 17-55/2.8 IS, it is one stop slower, and you have the 55-105 range covered with your other lens.

Therefore, I would recommend getting the 17-55/2.8 IS and later when you have the funds getting the 70-200/4 IS. That is what I did.
--
http://www.pbase.com/cartlett

Keep the 55-200IS and get 17-55/2.8IS. I have the 70-200/4L but found that I need IS for many situation so I ended up with the 70-200/2.8L IS.
--

What camera do I have? I rather you look at my photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

If you're going the 70-200 f4 route, get the IS version. I have both and am about to eBay the non-IS. It's a great lens but needs good light. I use the IS version much more and have stacks more keepers. It's also quite a bit sharper at the long end. The obvious complement to it is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. It's an APS-C lens so can't be designated as L but optically, if not in build quality, it's an L. I don't have that lens - I have the 17-40 f4L which I am extremely happy with and use as my standard lens. It's not quite as pin sharp in the corners as the 17-55, but has a wonderful balance of colour and contrast and produces beautiful pictures. It's also a lot cheaper than the 17-55 so may fit within your budget. I got the EF-S 60 f2.8 macro to fill the gap between 40 and 70.

Michael

I am also going through the same questions. I have the 18-55 non-IS and the 50mm 1.8 lens with my 400D and am looking to expand my lens collection. I am also looking at the 70-200 f4 L for the telephoto. The wide end is the confusing part. I am not sure whether to get the canon ultra wide angle 10-22 lens or wide angle 17-40 L lens. I am thinking of renting out the 10-22 and trying it out to help me make the decision.

• DK

I am extremely happy with the 70-200 4L (non-IS), but am about to upgrade to the 2.8 non-IS (I shoot a ton of my kids' sports). Also very pleased with the IQ of the Tamron 17-50 2.8. These two have performed well for me, and have met most of my needs. If you're shooting people/things more than action, you'll probably be happier with IS version of the 70-200.

Roger

do you use the 200 end? Then the 70-200 f4IS makes sense.
24-105L or the 28-135 IS

Steve Dudley said:

Just some advice.
I have a 450D and I think I am going to invest in better glass than
the kit lenses.
I do all sorts of photography but I am not heavily in to bird
photography so I do not need an extreme Zoom. I do a bit of traveling
and I am go to Bali and New Zealand later this year so landscapes and
people will be my mission. I have the ok to spend a little and wish
to spend it wisely .
I have put the 70-200 f4L down as my first choice to replace the
55-250 IS which is very good its just that I know the L is better and
it might be time to grab it.
The next choice is a little harder but it has to come in at around
US$600.
The lens has to be my basic walk around lens and I know I am not
going to secure that in an L for the money I have to spend.Any
suggestions.
Also I am not adverse to looking at the scenario of spending all my
money US$1200 on one good walk around and retaining the 55-250Is to
cover those distance situations.
Thanks for any advice that you can give

Click to expand...

I agree with you, I got the 70-200 f4 non IS. It's razorsharp over its whole range, has no close focus issues, like the IS, just one of the sharpest and best zoomlenses Canon makes.

It is also so small and compact, that it's no problem hauling it around on the camera all day, the IS is noticably bigger and heavier. As a final bonus, it's downright CHEAP, one of the VERY few Canon lenses that are actually worth the money you spend, when you compare it with non Canon lenses, and it's a white L lens too

Just take the time to learn how to use it properly, with that I mean, make sure it gets enough light and keep your shutterspeed high enough to avoid camerashake, use flash if needed and possible. Do this, and you'll just love that lens.

In the 70-200 F4, you have a lens that will give you top of the line image quality, I'd therefor think more about versatility when considering a walkaround lens. My research tells me to get the Sigma 18-125 OS or the Sigma 18-200 OS, nothing else comes close to these for versatility, certainly nothing Canon makes, they even give you great image quality. I'm getting the 18-125, as it's smaller in size,and I allready have the 200mm part covered.

With the rest of the money, buy yourself a sturdy but compact tripod and a decent flash, like the Sigma EF-530 Super, or something else that can be used off camera ( http://strobist.blogspot.com/ ). Off camera Flash pfotograpfy with the 70-200, can give you some truly amazing shots, it's my absolute favourite lens to use in my strobist inspired home "portrait studio"

That, plus the 70-200 / 4L (I'd get the IS version, myself), will have you set up pretty nicely.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

I second the recommendation. The Tamron stands up well in comparison to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, Sigma 18-50, and handily bests the 17-40 L at all equivalent focal lengths:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2

I don't think the Tamron is better than the 17-40L. Unless we really need that F2.8.

Daniel Browning said:

I second the recommendation. The Tamron stands up well in comparison
to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, Sigma 18-50, and handily bests the 17-40 L at
all equivalent focal lengths:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=396&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2

Click to expand...

pc168 said:

I don't think the Tamron is better than the 17-40L.

Click to expand...

In what way? The L has better build quality, manual focus, and resale value, but less contrast, resolution, and flare resistance.
--
Daniel

My 17-40 has very high contrast and has never given me the slightest indication of flare in the 2.25 years I've owned it, unlike my 70-200 f4. What's special about the 17-40 is the exceptional balance between colour, contrast and micro-contrast that produces wonderful photos, quite the best of all my lenses. My 35 f1.4 is noticeably sharper and has even greater contrast, but pictures taken with it seem somewhat harsh compared with the 17-40, which is more than sharp enough to produce large prints. Pixel-peeping sharpness isn't everything - the colour/ contrast balance is at least as important IMO. YMMV.

Michael

You have the 18-55IS kit lens right? This is a nice lens, just a little slow, but it's a not bad combination with the 70-200 f4 IS.

You have three holes to fill if you splurge most of your money on the 70-200 f4 IS; low light, wide angle and long telephoto. You say the long stuff is not a priority so drop that; I would therefore suggest a fast prime lens or a wide angle zoom, ideally both; but the fast lens is what you'll be missing most.

so:

35mm f2 canon: $240
70-200 f4 IS canon: $1070

I just ordered the 70-200 f4 IS for my 450D+kit lens, can't wait to get it...