which new lens

Hi all, so I am not exactly new to photography, but I am by no means seasoned. I am currently shooting a t5i. I mainly do climbing photography (bouldering specifically, no ropes but only going about 15ish ft off the ground), but I have gotten into landscape (I'm out in nature, so why not!!!), some macro style stuff, and portraiture - mainly of climbers out in nature but some street style portraits. My current lens set up is: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Canon 50mm f/1.8, and the Canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. I hate my kit lens, I can never get a good quality photo off it even when I stop it to f/8 and am in the middle of the zoom, so I mostly shoot my 50.

My question is as follows: I want to get a new lens and am looking at GOOD glass. I found that my lighting conditions are variable as boulders can either be deep in the woods or out in the open. We also climb at night so something fast-ish would also be nice. I have been looking at the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 OS ART and the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC gen1. The stabilizer is very important to me as well as constant aperture. Sigmas goes at 900 and the Tamrons are going for 1000 for the g1 as they are putting out their g2 line up now. And I only have money enough for 1 lens at this price and I feel my next purchase after this will be a better body way down the line in the future.

My concern with the Sigma is that it isn't fast enough for nighttime without pushing my ISO too high (I do have a wireless flash to help out with that though) and that the range will make my 50 less appealing to grab which I love shooting with. The concerns with the Tamron is that it MIGHT be too long a focal length and heavy for my treks with all my climbing gear anyways. I also have not shot a long lens outside of grabbing a friends but that was only for an hour or so outside. I feel like this question is a toss up and I need some advice on this! Any help is much appreciated. Thank you all

Rando Calrissian

Have you considered these faster lenses?

Tokina ATX Pro F2 14-20.

SIGMA 24-35MM F2 DG HSM CANON (ART)

SIGMA 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Canon

Hi Mike, thank you for your very detailed reply. I was not aware of the ISO differences of going full from cropped. It certainly confounds my thinking. I was not ready to make the jump on bodies but that would certainly give me the range and abilities to capture the images I was hoping to

rando calrissian wrote:

I have not actually. They are quite fast and I looked up sample images off each and they appear pretty dang good!! I was hoping for something with a bit more range however as my conditions are pretty variable walking around boulders and navigating potential shooting positions. Thank you for your recommendations, I will certainly be considering these first for future purchases

Best of luck!

rando calrissian wrote:

I hate my kit lens, I can never get a good quality photo off it even when I stop it to f/8 and am in the middle of the zoom

Welcome to the Forum!

Can you tell what makes you hate the kit lens? (which version lens?)

Is it too soft? Are the shutter speeds too slow? Image Stabilization not effective enough? Poor colors or contrast?  Distortions?  Purple fringing?

so I mostly shoot my 50.

Which 50 f/1.8 do you have?

I want to get a new lens and am looking at GOOD glass.

My initial thinking is that you're going to want at least f/2.8.  Better yet f/2.

The zooms will be big and heavy, no matter what range you get.

You might try the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 if you like that zoom range.

Otherwise, there are some nice fast primes that aren't too heavy or expensive.

But it all keys on the answer to question #1. 

R2

Hi! Thanks for the welcome and sorry for the novel!!

So my kit is the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM version. It gives me soft, low detail, non-contrasty images and the color rendition is just flat. I will take a shot and swap over to the 50 and the colors pop and they just look so crisp! The entire kit lens image is soft, not just in the corners. The images that come off look just like that, images, nothing really pops with them.

My 50mm is the EF f/1.8 STM. Not the best glass but its really pushing me for composition and positioning. Also gives me some pretty good images for sure.

I have felt the zooms and they do have some heft; especially compared to the 50!! I was initially looking at getting a 100mm f/2.8 macro (Sigma or Canon) and after playing with some friends zoom gear I figured it would make more sense to get something with some versatility as my shooting stances are super variable. With the 50mm I can only crop out so much and have so much detail, then I worry about pixelation or I have too much background on either side of my subject. When I was shooting the kit 18-55 I found when I was on top of the boulders shooting down on my subjects I was at the 18mm end of it to play with the perspective of the outstretched reaching hand and high up perspective, which is (one reason) why I got the 11-16 f/2.8, its also just a fun lens.

I took my friends 18-135mm kit zoom out yesterday and I found something out. I can *usually* find another boulder near-ish by to climb onto for a shooting position. This takes me out of the field of spotters so I won't get fallen on, and gets me up so I am not taking butt shots all day. I decided to go with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC against some other posters recommendations, but with my gut from what I learned from my friends 135mm length. I sometimes wanted to get all those expressions of peoples "try hard" face, they usually look pretty silly though. It is a heavy lens and a lot to shlep through the woods with the rest of my climbing gear (my summertime was spent parking the car at about 13000ft and hiking into a boulder field at 12000ft, climbing and shooting all day, then hiking back out...brutal), but its the lightest of the 70-200mm and I think it is fast enough (I would love to go to a f/2 but unless I wanted to go prime I don't think thats in the cards).

Thank you for your input, I hope you aren't going to tell me that I done messed up and wasted my Lyft check!

PS rad DPR handle

have you considered the Sigma 17-50/2.8 as a replacement for your kit 18-55?

rando calrissian wrote:

Hi! Thanks for the welcome and sorry for the novel!!

Thanks. The more information, the better!

So my kit is the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM version. It gives me soft, low detail, non-contrasty images and the color rendition is just flat.

You don't happen to have a filter on the lens, do you? That can cause all of the above. Also, add a lens shade (if you don't use one already).

I will take a shot and swap over to the 50 and the colors pop and they just look so crisp! The entire kit lens image is soft, not just in the corners. The images that come off look just like that, images, nothing really pops with them.

Definitely might be something wrong with the lens. The STM kit lenses really aren't too bad.

My 50mm is the EF f/1.8 STM. Not the best glass but its really pushing me for composition and positioning. Also gives me some pretty good images for sure.

I certainly enjoy shooting with my 50 STM too. What a bargain!

I have felt the zooms and they do have some heft; especially compared to the 50!! I was initially looking at getting a 100mm f/2.8 macro (Sigma or Canon) and after playing with some friends zoom gear I figured it would make more sense to get something with some versatility as my shooting stances are super variable. With the 50mm I can only crop out so much and have so much detail, then I worry about pixelation or I have too much background on either side of my subject. When I was shooting the kit 18-55 I found when I was on top of the boulders shooting down on my subjects I was at the 18mm end of it to play with the perspective of the outstretched reaching hand and high up perspective, which is (one reason) why I got the 11-16 f/2.8, its also just a fun lens.

There is the 100mm f/2 prime also (for double the reach). Not very large.  Quite sharp.  Fast focusing.

I took my friends 18-135mm kit zoom out yesterday and I found something out. I can *usually* find another boulder near-ish by to climb onto for a shooting position. This takes me out of the field of spotters so I won't get fallen on, and gets me up so I am not taking butt shots all day.

My 18-135 STM is a very handy walk-about lens. Not the sharpest lens in the bag, but adequate for most subjects. Too slow for your needs tho.

I decided to go with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC against some other posters recommendations, but with my gut from what I learned from my friends 135mm length. I sometimes wanted to get all those expressions of peoples "try hard" face, they usually look pretty silly though.

Definitely see how it works for you. Hopefully no AF issues with the newer bodies.

It is a heavy lens and a lot to shlep through the woods with the rest of my climbing gear (my summertime was spent parking the car at about 13000ft and hiking into a boulder field at 12000ft, climbing and shooting all day, then hiking back out...brutal), but its the lightest of the 70-200mm and I think it is fast enough (I would love to go to a f/2 but unless I wanted to go prime I don't think thats in the cards).

Wish I could do that sort of thing!!!  Now I'm a perpetual flat-lander!  Gotta go shoot some birds.

Thank you for your input, I hope you aren't going to tell me that I done messed up and wasted my Lyft check!

One option would be to take (only) your camera with 70-200, and a smaller pocket-camera for the wider stuff.  That's what I do a lot of the time (with my RX100).  Saves on weight and lens changes.

PS rad DPR handle

It's been good roaming the galaxies far far away with you.  Happy shooting!

R2