Planning my lens collection...

[bewaretheblur]

Okay, so I've got the dslr. I want to get a nice core set of lenses that will cover my basic needs. Here's what I'm thinking:

For the wide end:

EF-S 10-22mm

For the midrange:

24-70L

For the long end:

70-200L


What do you think? If you had to use three lenses to break apart wide, medium, and long, is that how you would do it? If not, what would you choose? I was thinking about the 24-105, but how does it ocmpare to the 24-70?

Thanks in advance.

[Juan Zas]

From the point of view of the focal overlaping, you have two series to go:

1 - 10-22 mm // 24 - 70 mm // 70 - 200 mm or

2 - 10-22 mm // 24 - 105 mm // 100 - 400 mm.

Now is your choice go all with Canon, mixed like I did or other combinations posible. If your pocket is strong, you have more choices.

[corterlifecrisis]

are you hell bent on zooms? i've always planned on primes and added a couple zooms to help when i need the leeway, mostly because I love the simplicity and quality of primes. i see you've got the 50, you could go 14/35/70-200 or 10-22/35/85/70-200 or something like that. just a suggestion, as it seems you've got your zoom options covered.

[bewaretheblur]

i'm not totally bent on zooms, no... I just figured it was cheaper/easier not having to play "musical lenses" all the time. Is the quality of something shot with say, a 24-70L at 50mm noticeably worse than something shot with a 50mm prime?

[René Damkot]

Might be an idea to use the lenses you've got first for a couple of (thousand) shots, to find out what their shortcomings are. That way, you'll be able to decide for yourself what your next lense(s) will need to be...

[Lester Wareham]

Okay, so I've got the dslr. I want to get a nice core set of lenses that will cover my basic needs. Here's what I'm thinking:

For the wide end:

EF-S 10-22mm

For the midrange:

24-70L

For the long end:

70-200L


What do you think? If you had to use three lenses to break apart wide, medium, and long, is that how you would do it? If not, what would you choose? I was thinking about the 24-105, but how does it ocmpare to the 24-70?

Thanks in advance.

I you want zooms it is fine. A few of questions:

a) Is the 70-200 a f2.8 or a f4?
b) Do you need any kind of serious macro capability?
c) Do you need anything longer (for wildlife or field sports)?

You should tell us what sort of thing you shoot so we can figure out if you need zooms or primes, fast or slow apatures.

Also you want to think about how much weight you want to drag around. Wide apature zooms tend to mass a lot more than equivalent or faster primes as well as being expensive; in the case of primes you can thin out what you take to keep the weight down.

Is cost a consideration?

[bewaretheblur]

I you want zooms it is fine. A few of questions:

a) Is the 70-200 a f2.8 or a f4?
b) Do you need any kind of serious macro capability?
c) Do you need anything longer (for wildlife or field sports)?

You should tell us what sort of thing you shoot so we can figure out if you need zooms or primes, fast or slow apatures.

Also you want to think about how much weight you want to drag around. Wide apature zooms tend to mass a lot more than equivalent or faster primes as well as being expensive; in the case of primes you can thin out what you take to keep the weight down.

Is cost a consideration?

a.) 2.8, preferably...
b.) At this point, I don't see myself doing any real sort of macro, other than maybe a few fun shots here and there... I can just use an extension tube (or flip my lens backwards) for those...
c.) I don't think I'll be doing much wildlife/field sports stuff...

I personally see myself as a landscape and people photographer... helping out with weddings, taking pictures from my kayak, that type of stuff.

Cost is very much a consideration (I'm a youth pastor... ouch.), which is why I thought going with 3 zooms instead of 6 or 7 primes made sense. If it doesn't, then I'm game for whatever.

I'm pretty well sold on the 10-22... other than that, I'm all ears.

Thanks for your help guys (and gals)! I don't know what I'd do without you. :)

[Lester Wareham]

a.) 2.8, preferably...
b.) At this point, I don't see myself doing any real sort of macro, other than maybe a few fun shots here and there... I can just use an extension tube (or flip my lens backwards) for those...
c.) I don't think I'll be doing much wildlife/field sports stuff...

I personally see myself as a landscape and people photographer... helping out with weddings, taking pictures from my kayak, that type of stuff.

Cost is very much a consideration (I'm a youth pastor... ouch.), which is why I thought going with 3 zooms instead of 6 or 7 primes made sense. If it doesn't, then I'm game for whatever.

I'm pretty well sold on the 10-22... other than that, I'm all ears.

Thanks for your help guys (and gals)! I don't know what I'd do without you. :)

The 200/2.8 is a lot smaller, lighter and less expensive than either 70-200/f2.8.

I would say primes for the landscapes but zooms for weddings. However the primes will be more discrete. I would say the 24-70 covers you for weddings where the 70-200 if probably too long.

I would say you have the option of the 70-200/2.8 possibly IS or a couple of primes. I chose the 100/2.8 Macro and 200/2.8 for this range - but I was really keen on macro and hate bulky heavy lenses.

Yep, the 10-22 is a great lens.

[nomorebs]

Okay, so I've got the dslr. I want to get a nice core set of lenses that will cover my basic needs. Here's what I'm thinking:

For the wide end:

EF-S 10-22mm

For the midrange:

24-70L

For the long end:

70-200L


What do you think? If you had to use three lenses to break apart wide, medium, and long, is that how you would do it? If not, what would you choose? I was thinking about the 24-105, but how does it ocmpare to the 24-70?

You are thinking about the same lens setup as I am, and this is what I am planning on:

EF-S 10-22mm
EF 24-105mm (already have it)
EF 100mm Macro (getting it in a day or two)
EF 70-200 f/4 or EF 100-400.
EF-S 17-55mm or a fast & wide prime lens.I feel that this setup will give me coverage for just about any focal length I could possibly need, with the exception of the big white ones - 300/2.8 IS, 500/4 IS & 600/4 IS primes.. they are out of my league anyway, unless I win the lottery ;)

[jjonsalt]

I don't often need/use a wide angle lens. I have a 17mm prime and hope to replace it someday with Canon's 15mm prime. I do have the 24-70L and strongly suggest you consider getting that lens instead of the 24-105L which is slower (f/4 vs f/2.8). I went with the 135L and 1.4x TC instead of the 70-200L f/2.8 which is larger and heavier. I end up with 17mm, 24-70mm, 135mm, and 189mm. These fill 95% of my needs. I would also like to get a macro (100mm) someday.

[cfcRebel]

From the point of view of the focal overlaping, you have two series to go:

1 - 10-22 mm // 24 - 70 mm // 70 - 200 mm or

2 - 10-22 mm // 24 - 105 mm // 100 - 400 mm.

I really like Juan's option #2. ;) That's my dream setup.

[clengster_77]

i think just get a 16/17 - 35/40, 24 -70 and 70 - 200 2.8 coz the 10-22 is an EF-S mount and you can't use it anymore in case you upgrade your body to a full frame but if you have no plans of upgrading ato a FF body i think 10-22 mm // 24 - 70 mm // 70 - 200 mm is the way to go.

regards
cleng

[rklepper]

I have the 10-22 and the 24-70 and they are excellent lenses. I opted for the 200 prime over the 70-200 as for me it is just more flexible. Lighter, sharper, and yes cheaper. And yes I have owned the 70-200, both f/4 and f/2.8, and sold both due to the downfalls.

[bewaretheblur]

I really appreciate this guys, thanks!

I think I'm going to go for the 10-22 next, and then the 24-70l... after that , I may just get a prime or two... I don't shoot long often, and maybe I can save a few bucks with a 100 or a 200... we'll see. First things first. Thanks again!

[Juan Zas]

I really appreciate this guys, thanks!

I think I'm going to go for the 10-22 next, and then the 24-70l... after that , I may just get a prime or two... I don't shoot long often, and maybe I can save a few bucks with a 100 or a 200... we'll see. First things first. Thanks again!

If that´s your real thought actually and money concers, and you are not "L-Alcoholic", let me suggest you save some money going for some nice "non-L" lenses like:

The Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX ($350) or the Tamron equivalent 28-75 f/2.8; as many people have done here. If you need or you can, then Canon 24-70 L is more than 3 times expensive.

So for the price of the 24-70 "L" you can buy the UWA 10-22 or 12-24 mm (Sigma, Canon or Tokina) + the 24-70 mm.

Then save for the next step as you have thought, some prime in the long end ...

As you see, an open world of oportunities and choices ....

[Skippy29]

Dump all your lenses and shoot everything with an 8mm fisheye. If you own anything else you're just a lens collector.

[I Simonius]

Okay, so I've got the dslr. I want to get a nice core set of lenses that will cover my basic needs. Here's what I'm thinking:

For the wide end:

EF-S 10-22mm

For the midrange:

24-70L

For the long end:

70-200L


What do you think? If you had to use three lenses to break apart wide, medium, and long, is that how you would do it? If not, what would you choose? I was thinking about the 24-105, but how does it ocmpare to the 24-70?

Thanks in advance.

Only get the EF_S lenses if you never plan to go FF

[hef]

If your not planning on Full Frame in your future than:

EF-S 10-22mm
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
EF 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 versionIf you are planning on Full Frame and money is NO object!

EF 16-35L f/2.8 or 17-40L f/4
EF 24-70L f/2.8
EF 70-200L f/2.8

[bewaretheblur]

well, i don't plan on going full frame in at least another year or so, and lenses have great resale value, so i'm not think about that.

... and unfortunately, money is definitely a consideration...

[Billginthekeys]

id say 10-22, 24-70 sigma (to save money). but not the 28-75 tamron because 22-28 is too big of a gap. then id have to reccomend a zoom over a prime for the telephoto in your case. perhaps the 70-200 2.8 sigma. from what i hear its just about as good as the L.
the 10-22, 24-70 sigma, 70-200 sigma should run you like 1,700. whereas going all L would be closer to 2,700. with the saved money you can also get a 580 EX flash, quality filters, more flash memory, another lens, and still have money to spare. I do a lot of shooting at the youth group i attend and the 50 1.4 is invaluable. with those lenses and a nice flash you should be able to do anything you need, especially since you dont have the birding bug (resulting in an obsession with needed a long lens... which will set you back another grand lol). (goes off to contemplate how much reletives have to give me to purchase a 400 5.6L for graduation).

[Lester Wareham]

Only get the EF_S lenses if you never plan to go FF

I plan to go FF but still got the 10-22. To be honest I would not have entertained a crop camera if that lens had not been available.

There are no true ultra wide options for crop cameras that are usable on full frame, even if they can be mounted.

[chris clements]

Plan your photo collection, not your lens collection.
You can only gauge where best to spend your bucks next after taking a few thousand pix with the lens(es) you already currently own.

[kram]

Range looks good. If you want Canon and top quality Canon at that, its tough to argue against the lineup.

Personally, I decided to get the comparable 3rd party lenses and save a bit of cash.

Also, getting the lenses for the range you want is probably more important than covering the entire range.