Lens suggestions

Hello all,

(I put this initially on the beginner form without much of a response, so I thought I would try here.)

I am new to this form (and sorry in advance for the long first post), but admittedly always wanted to join as there seems to be some very knowledgeable people on here, and the site itself is very educational.

Anyway, being a graphic designer I have always seen photography as a bit of a hobby, but I'm looking to take it a bit more seriously, and need some help facilitating this in for the form of some new gear choices.

I have had for about a year and a half a Canon Rebel XSi (also known as the 450D I believe), and while I realize it's probably not the best option out there for someone like myself I feel it can handle what I am able to throw at it. That said, I want to start throwing more at it.

I have had only the kit lens for this year and a half, and while it's a nice starter lens, I'm really itching for some new glass so I can really start attempting new things that I wasn't able to do previously.

I shoot a variety of subject matter, nothing really that specific, lots of scenery, night/sky shots, low light, some sports/wildlife, and lately more people and portraits. Obviously being that the kit lens is a 18-55mm the need of a zoom lens is quite apparent. That said, some of the more very basic lenses, such as the Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM caught my eye as well for it's portrait and depth of field ability, but I wonder if what it does is that much beyond the kit lens makes it worth buying (beyond it's low-light abilities)?

I have done some shopping in the past months and after trying out a few of the cheaper zoom lenses (specifically the Canon EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 III USM, which I thought was not very nice at all, cheap-feeling), I found the L-Series Canon EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM to be so much better in every single way, obviously, as it's over a grand (Canadian) more. However, as I said, I still see this as a hobby, and while a nice L-Series lens like that would be great to have, I am not sure if I am ready to handle the $1,400 CDN price ($800 CDN for the non-IS version) as my first add-on lens. I originally wanted to stay below a grand if possible.

A few people/friends have told me to stay away from lenses that have a large focal length (for example 18-300mm) due to the distortion they will ultimately give at each end of the spectrum. This was the sort of lens I was originally going to target due to its theoretical versatility, but the more I listened the more it seemed like it wasn't the best option. I have also thought about Sigma and Tamron lenses, but again people have said to steer away from those as well as the quality just isn't as good.

Also a wide angle at some point would be great as well, but from what I have found those are the most expensive of the bunch.

So basically, given the above, I am asking for any and all suggestions you can share with me. If there are any other questions or info that I didn't cover that would help give those suggestions please feel free to ask.

Thanks!

For longer tele lens, buy kit Canon EF-S 55-250 IS. Great quality/price ratio, nice zoom range, capable of producing fine results, stabilised, relatively small. Granted, "L" series lens will beat its quality, but the difference in price will be huge.

For portraits with shallow depth of field and for low light photography, buy a fixed prime lens. They also usually produce better, more detailed photos than zooms. Some options here:

EF 50mm f/1.8 - extremely cheap, good photo quality, low built quality (does not bother me, though)

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - faster USM focus, f/1.4, but shows stronger chromatic aberrations

EF 85 f/1.8 USM - a "reference lens", seems to be almost perfect. However, can be a little too tight on APS-C sized sensors like yours, and would require you to step back from the subject.

I also have Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which, while having some problems (chromatic aberrations, lower quality near the edges), I find extremely useful for indoor shooting. Also, this lens really great resolution (at least in the center part) - even after cropping, there's plenty of details left.

tips said:

Anyway, being a graphic designer I have always seen photography as a bit of a hobby, but I'm looking to take it a bit more seriously, and need some help facilitating this in for the form of some new gear choices.

Click to expand...

I'm a graphic designer who has gradually moved over to doing my own photography for work. The advantages over engaging a specialist pro photographer, in terms of cost but most of all speed and flexibility, are enormous.

tips said:

I have had for about a year and a half a Canon Rebel XSi (also known as the 450D I believe), and while I realize it's probably not the best option out there for someone like myself I feel it can handle what I am able to throw at it. That said, I want to start throwing more at it.

Click to expand...

I have a 40D now (and if buying today I'd choose the 50D), but I used a 400D very successfully before I upgraded - your 450D is fine if you don't want to spend money on a body upgrade at this point in time.

tips said:

I have had only the kit lens for this year and a half, and while it's a nice starter lens, I'm really itching for some new glass so I can really start attempting new things that I wasn't able to do previously.

I shoot a variety of subject matter, nothing really that specific, lots of scenery, night/sky shots, low light, some sports/wildlife, and lately more people and portraits. Obviously being that the kit lens is a 18-55mm the need of a zoom lens is quite apparent. That said, some of the more very basic lenses, such as the Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM caught my eye as well for it's portrait and depth of field ability, but I wonder if what it does is that much beyond the kit lens makes it worth buying (beyond it's low-light abilities)?

Click to expand...

There are so many reasons why a lens might be better. Speed (in the sense of large aperture) obviously, but also sharpness, lack of distortions and aberrations, build quality, focusing speed, colour and contrast, and more.

tips said:

I have done some shopping in the past months and after trying out a few of the cheaper zoom lenses (specifically the Canon EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 III USM, which I thought was not very nice at all, cheap-feeling),

Click to expand...

The main problem with that lens is the image quality. Not recommended at all. The best low-cost lens in that class by far is the EF-S 55-250 IS.

tips said:

I found the L-Series Canon EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM to be so much better in every single way, obviously, as it's over a grand (Canadian) more.

Click to expand...

From one extreme to the other - this is the best lens in its class from any manufacturer.

tips said:

However, as I said, I still see this as a hobby, and while a nice L-Series lens like that would be great to have, I am not sure if I am ready to handle the $1,400 CDN price ($800 CDN for the non-IS version) as my first add-on lens. I originally wanted to stay below a grand if possible.

A few people/friends have told me to stay away from lenses that have a large focal length (for example 18-300mm) due to the distortion they will ultimately give at each end of the spectrum. This was the sort of lens I was originally going to target due to its theoretical versatility, but the more I listened the more it seemed like it wasn't the best option.

Click to expand...

Yep. If you simply want to increase your focal range, get the 55-250 and keep the 18-55.

But also consider upgrading the 18-55 (I'm assuming you have the old non-IS version)...

tips said:

I have also thought about Sigma and Tamron lenses, but again people have said to steer away from those as well as the quality just isn't as good.

Click to expand...

That's poor advice. There are some excellent lenses made by Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. In particular, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 macro would make an ideal upgrade from your kit lens. Tamron makes a 17-50 f/2.8 which is also highly regarded but personally I would recommend the Sigma.

tips said:

Also a wide angle at some point would be great as well, but from what I have found those are the most expensive of the bunch.

Click to expand...

You already have 18 mm which is wide angle, so presumably you mean ultrawide. Only a little more expensive than standard zooms of similar quality, but there are no 'cheap' ultrawides.

tips said:

So basically, given the above, I am asking for any and all suggestions you can share with me. If there are any other questions or info that I didn't cover that would help give those suggestions please feel free to ask.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

tips said:

I shoot a variety of subject matter, nothing really that specific, lots of scenery, night/sky shots, low light, some sports/wildlife, and lately more people and portraits. Obviously being that the kit lens is a 18-55mm the need of a zoom lens is quite apparent. That said, some of the more very basic lenses, such as the Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM caught my eye as well for it's portrait and depth of field ability, but I wonder if what it does is that much beyond the kit lens makes it worth buying (beyond it's low-light abilities)?

Click to expand...

(Sorry for the long post, its way to early)

There is always a trade-off, its the nature of the beast. So in the end you have to choose what is right for you. I cant tell you what you should get, but from the sound of it, primes are what you would be after for low light and portraits.

the 50 1.8 is a nice lens to start exploring what you really want. That was my first lens aside from the kit. After having it, I now know I want the 30 1.4.

The kit lens is actually a really great lens, and I decided that it was good enough after going to the Tamron 17-50 2.8 briefly. Decided to put my money towards the 70-200 f4 IS. Amazing piece of equipment! Still trying to catch up to it, since it out matches my skill at this point.

Anyway, for me, the 2.8 was not enough for low light, so the 30 1.4 will be my next lens.

I think the kit lens that you have, can most likely handle all of your needs for scenery, and you could add one or more of the 30/50/85 lenses to accompany your kit for low light.

For tele, they dont call the 55-250 IS the nifty two-fifty for nothing.

If nothing else, make sure you get a nice bounce flash, it dramatically changed my photos for the better!

Hope this doesn't confuse you more.

Let us know what route you take!

Michael

Well, it's almost not possible to answer your question.
Or rather, you'll get as many answers as you get posts...

I'm afraid you'll have to make your own choices.
Try some. One at a time.

Example :
I started Photo with an EOS Rebel (24x36 era) with std zoom.
Something similar to your combo, by today's standards.
Then I added an old 135mm prime lens.
And I've build my first system from that combo, gradually adding several primes.

But that was old film days.
When I started digital, 5 years ago, I started from what I most wanted :
a 70-200 2.8L IS for theatre (one of my main subject) + a 50mm 1.4.
Then I added a 16-35 (on 10D), and, later on, a 24-105.
Then some primes again.

SO where to start if you have varied tastes ?

What wll give you the most "Yeah !" effect compared to 18-55 ?

This little one is good enough for landscapes in good light (or even dim light with tripod) if stopped down.

So I'd start with a good portrait lens, able to provide a good 'bokeh' or blurred Out Of Focus... even with a cropped sensor.

Test some of them to find the right focal length for your taste (try a 50mm 1.4 and a 85mm 1.8).
Then buy one and enjoy it.

(70-200 is also a good alternative. But you may get less OOF blurr at normal distance, given the smaller apreture f/4... But it's a zoom. And a very good one.)

Later on, if you miss something else, add another lens, and so on.

My rule : don't spend money on average lenses.

NB: If you buy a 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8, don't forget the lens hood and screw it on the lens. Especially for 50mm 1.4, NEVER remove it. For mechanical protection.

Have fun !

--
Raoul

Get a (why not used) EF 85/1,8 - takwe one step back and enjoy!

J

--
Ansel Adams: 'There is nothing worse than a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea.'

thanks for the suggestions guys! it's greatly appreciated!

Also, the Kit lens I have is a IS model. So yeah, it's a pretty good little lens for what it can do.

And yes sorry, I ment a ultra wide angle.

Thanks Again!

tips said:

I have had for about a year and a half a Canon Rebel XSi (also known as the 450D I believe), and while I realize it's probably not the best option out there for someone like myself I feel it can handle what I am able to throw at it. That said, I want to start throwing more at it.

Click to expand...

the xsi is a very good little camera. i would stick with it until you felt like you really needed to upgrade. there is something to be said for 'feel', that's for sure, but you wouldn't get a real-world image quality improvement without a significant cash outlay, say the 5dII

tips said:

I shoot a variety of subject matter, nothing really that specific, lots of scenery, night/sky shots, low light, some sports/wildlife, and lately more people and portraits. Obviously being that the kit lens is a 18-55mm the need of a zoom lens is quite apparent. That said, some of the more very basic lenses, such as the Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM caught my eye as well for it's portrait and depth of field ability, but I wonder if what it does is that much beyond the kit lens makes it worth buying (beyond it's low-light abilities)?

Click to expand...

i have and enjoy the 50/1.4, but i always find myself going longer when at large apeture and in low light...dunno why, i just do. for that purpose i have the 85/1.8. it's a great lens, very sharp and i find the focal length versatile. i shoot a lot of portraits, details, shapes, lines, etc. and frequently use this as my walkaround lens. on a recent trip to istanbul i left the big guns at the hotel and hit the streets with only my rebel xti and this lens and returned with the best photos of my trip. the 100/2 is also a great lens, as is the 100/2.8 macro, which allows you to get even closer to those details, though the macro is significantly larger than the 85 or 100.

in comparison to the 50/1.4, i find that my 85/1.8 has better sharpness and contrast at very large apetures...i need to stop down to about f/2.2 to get equivalent results, so that negates any speed advantage that it has.

tips said:

I have done some shopping in the past months and after trying out a few of the cheaper zoom lenses (specifically the Canon EF 75-300mm F/4-5.6 III USM, which I thought was not very nice at all, cheap-feeling),

Click to expand...

avoid this lens like the plauge.

tips said:

I found the L-Series Canon EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM to be so much better in every single way, obviously, as it's over a grand (Canadian) more. However, as I said, I still see this as a hobby, and while a nice L-Series lens like that would be great to have, I am not sure if I am ready to handle the $1,400 CDN price ($800 CDN for the non-IS version) as my first add-on lens. I originally wanted to stay below a grand if possible.

Click to expand...

i own and use the canon 70-200 non-IS extensively...it's my main landscape lens. for scenics and cityscapes, i prefer to get back and then isolate details...i like that style of 'drawing'. i live in vancouver and for shooting the city from the beach at spanish banks this lens is perfect. i got mine for $580 CDN on ebay from a canadian seller. i use the advanced search function and search for auctions in canada. i also find that these lenses are quite frequently found on craigslist which is a great option as you can see and check out in person. i think lots of people are uprading to the IS or f/2.8 version.

honestly, you really can't go wrong with the non-IS version for the money.

tips said:

A few people/friends have told me to stay away from lenses that have a large focal length (for example 18-300mm) due to the distortion they will ultimately give at each end of the spectrum. This was the sort of lens I was originally going to target due to its theoretical versatility, but the more I listened the more it seemed like it wasn't the best option. I have also thought about Sigma and Tamron lenses, but again people have said to steer away from those as well as the quality just isn't as good.

Click to expand...

the advice to stay away from the 'superzoom' category is good but i'd rethink some 3rd party lenses. as mentioned, the sigma 18-50/2.8 is a great lens and has a very useful and somewhat unique 0.20m minimum focus distance allowing for some really dramatic wide-angle compositions with interesting near/far effects. you should also never underestimate the value of a constant f/2.8 standard zoom. i own and use the tamron 17-50/2.8 which i love. it's very sharp at all apetures and focal lengths with only slight softenss in the corners wide open. it's tack sharp across the frame by f/4...i found it slightly sharper than the sigma in the corners and, with it's 67mm filter thread which is the same as the 70-200/4L, it's a good match. again, i found mine slightly used on ebay for about $400 CDN shipped.

tips said:

Also a wide angle at some point would be great as well, but from what I have found those are the most expensive of the bunch.

Click to expand...

really think about if you'd use an ultrawide. i traded my 17-40L (great lens!) for a canon 10-22 and found that i really wasn't an ultrawide guy. track down a friend who has one and borrow it for a week first.

tips said:

So basically, given the above, I am asking for any and all suggestions you can share with me. If there are any other questions or info that I didn't cover that would help give those suggestions please feel free to ask.

Click to expand...

again, you can't go wrong with a fast prime and you will never regret owning the 85/1.8 or 100/2....well, you might, as that level of quality is addictive and you'll find your 18-55 used less and less! in addition to that, the 70-200/4L non-IS is a beauty and a real bargain for the price. with some careful searching, you may be able to get the 85 and the 70-200 for around $1000, maybe slightly more. you'd have a very useful set of lenses.

i'm pretty good at finding lens bargains in canada so don't hesitate to ask! we canadians gotta stick together in our quest for reasonably priced gear

--
dave

jonte0 said:

Get a (why not used) EF 85/1,8 - takwe one step back and enjoy!

Click to expand...

we should start a fan club for this lens.

--
dave

Great Suggestions!

Do you really think that the non-IS is worth it for the 70-200? It seems like it would be such a great help for camera shake, as I imagine I woulden't be suing a tripod all the time.

Also that 85 sounds like a good deal too, the only thing that worries me about it is that its a 85mm, maybe a bit too zoomed in... but I should try it and see.

What are you tricks to finding decent used gear? I have tried looking at ebay and other places without much luck.

Thanks!

you are looking to the 70-200 range have you considered the 70-200 F2.8 sigma. This can be brought into Canada for under $1000 a friend of mine got one and it came out to around $950 Cnd from Hong Kong...

BTW the quality is quite good and while not as much contrast as my 70-200 F2.8 IS it is still very good....
--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/

tips said:

Great Suggestions!

Do you really think that the non-IS is worth it for the 70-200? It seems like it would be such a great help for camera shake, as I imagine I woulden't be suing a tripod all the time.

Also that 85 sounds like a good deal too, the only thing that worries me about it is that its a 85mm, maybe a bit too zoomed in... but I should try it and see.

What are you tricks to finding decent used gear? I have tried looking at ebay and other places without much luck.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I went for the IS and glad I did! I can get some great photos at 1/50th easy, as long as the subject doesnt move. It also helps for panning subjects as well. The second mode on the IS helps for vertical stabilization.

As far as a prime, from my research, the 85 1.8 is one of the best primes canon offers, but for me it would never get used since it is way to tight on a crop, plus I have my 70-200 f4, while not the same dof, it can still be a great portrait lens.

I say start with the 50 1.8 if you dont know what focal length you really need. I haven't bought used, but fredmiranda.com, photography-on-the.net, and keh.com are a few good places to look for used stuff that I know of.

tips said:

Do you really think that the non-IS is worth it for the 70-200? It seems like it would be such a great help for camera shake, as I imagine I woulden't be suing a tripod all the time.

Click to expand...

well, that's a tough question. the IS version is a better and more useful lens and IS is all that it is cracked up to be...however, you're looking at $600+ more than the non-IS, enough to a) get the 85 or 100 prime as well or step into the 70-200/2.8L. i like the smaller size of teh f/4 version, so i'd still go with that, but many prefer the larger apeture. i use mine on a tripod for scenics a lot, so IS isn't as big a loss, however, i will admit that, had i the money, i'd get the IS version. but, life being what it is, my gear must pay for itself so i simply can't justify the added cost, especially since my main money maker is my nikon kit. daycare in vancouver, $11,000+ a year, tends to bite into the camera fund!

tips said:

Also that 85 sounds like a good deal too, the only thing that worries me about it is that its a 85mm, maybe a bit too zoomed in... but I should try it and see.

Click to expand...

yes, something that's very personal. i get very close. from viewing thousands and thousands of photos from students during our critique sessions, messy composition with distracting backgrounds, especially with portraits, is probably my #1 criticism and i find getting closer rarely makes a photo worse. i always preferred 135mm in my film days and the 85mm FOV is roughly equivalent on the aps-c cameras so it works perfectly for me. i even like using 200mm on my f/4L for portraits!

tips said:

What are you tricks to finding decent used gear? I have tried looking at ebay and other places without much luck.

Click to expand...

time and patience. craigslist has been very good for me. i usualy put a 'want to buy' post once i have the cash. i also search ebay and watch a lot of acutions on the lens i want...i look for american sellers willing to ship via the United States Postal Service...the ground service of fedex or ups levy a huge brokerage fee which negates a lot of the cost savings. i also ask the seller to clearly mark the package as a used lens, as we only pay 5% gst on used items. you can also ask if they would put the value of the item at $50 to eliminate tax, but that's a personal issue.

where in canada are you?

--
dave

Thanks again for the suggestions, this has been a great help.

After reading this, and doing even more research on the web beyond what i have done over the past few months, and then even going to my fave camera store and talking to the clerks for about half a hour and quickly playing with many of the lenses that were talked about and beyond that... I decided to purchase the Canon 50mm 1.8 as it seemed to cover much of what the higher 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm could do, at least for what I will probably be doing with it. After only messing with it for only a day I can't believe how oblivious I was to not getting it sooner, especially for such a small cost. It's a great little lens.

Also, I rented a couple of longer telephoto lenses for the day and one of them was the Canon 70-200 f/4L USM (non-IS version) and i have to say I was very pleased with this lens, very much stood out from the rest, and I was surprised how much I was able to capture without the IS. I think I will end up buying this lens as well, as they are willing to sell me new for $699 CDN, by far the cheapest (local) new price I have found.

So all things considered, 2 pretty decent lenses (for me) for under a K CDN is a pretty good result for me in all of this I believe (basically Canon's cheapest lens with their cheapest L lens). So thanks for all the shared info and help, ill be sure to stick around in this form more often and see if I can help any one, and I know where to ask if I come across any other questions.

Also, I am in Edmonton by the way.

Thanks again!

Thanks for the suggestion! THis sounds like a great lens as well, but I think it's a bit much price wise for me a tthe moment. I will look at that more closely in the future!

Thanks again!

Beginners often feel they need a zoom, and even for many pros, a zoom is the only lens for certain jobs.

However, consider that you could get by quite nicely with a 24mm, a 50mm or 85mm, and a 135mm or 200mm prime lens.

Even the low cost ones have excellent low light capability and produce excellent results. Many experienced photographers prefer the prime lenses.

One day, you will come to realize this and then sell off most of your zooms and buy primes. So, don't go out and buy all zooms, consider a 85mm or 100mm prime to supplement your 18-55.