Help with lenses

[shane_c]

I currently only have the 18-55 kit lens. I'm looking to get more into photography and take some portraits, maybe some weddings, engangement shots, etc. But I also want to have some good lenses for landscape and nature since that's where my passion is. Ideally I'd like to get the 70-200 f4 but that's out of my budget. So here's what I'm thinking. 100-300 (4.5-5.6 USM), 60 mm macro for close ups, and it'll likely be a sharp lens for some portraits, and I'd like to replace the 18-55 with something better but don't know what that would be. Any suggestions?

[JeffreyG]

Do you have a budget?

Some common lenses people look at to replace the 18-55 (I'm going to ignore the longer lenses like the 24-70 and 24-105 since you sound as though you will need the range down below 20mm).

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM - This lens is not cheap but it is a huge jump from the kit. f/2.8 for starters, and it is pretty sharp wide open (the kit lens needs f/8 to get very sharp). Also adds IS and USM with FTM, which are both very useful. If you can afford it this is the best replacement for the 18-55 on APS-C.

EF-S 17-85 IS USM. I don't have it, but this lens would get you longer plus IS and USM. What it does not get you is faster aperture. It should also be sharper than the kit lens wide open.

EF 17-40 f/4 L - I personally think 40mm is too short on APS-C, and this lens is slow (f/4) and lacks IS. The draw is solid build and sharp optics, but it's only a little cheaper than the 17-55 and I think the 17-55 makes a lot more sense.

Third party. I'm not very familiar, but there is a 17-50 f/2.8 that is about half the cost of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. You lose IS, but it seems like a reasonable alternative

[shane_c]

Do you have a budget?

Some common lenses people look at to replace the 18-55 (I'm going to ignore the longer lenses like the 24-70 and 24-105 since you sound as though you will need the range down below 20mm).

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM - This lens is not cheap but it is a huge jump from the kit. f/2.8 for starters, and it is pretty sharp wide open (the kit lens needs f/8 to get very sharp). Also adds IS and USM with FTM, which are both very useful. If you can afford it this is the best replacement for the 18-55 on APS-C.

EF-S 17-85 IS USM. I don't have it, but this lens would get you longer plus IS and USM. What it does not get you is faster aperture. It should also be sharper than the kit lens wide open.

EF 17-40 f/4 L - I personally think 40mm is too short on APS-C, and this lens is slow (f/4) and lacks IS. The draw is solid build and sharp optics, but it's only a little cheaper than the 17-55 and I think the 17-55 makes a lot more sense.

Third party. I'm not very familiar, but there is a 17-50 f/2.8 that is about half the cost of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. You lose IS, but it seems like a reasonable alternative


Thanks for the reply. I definately have a budget. The lower the price the better! I've heard good things about the Tamron 17-50 as well as the Sigma 17-70. I wonder if it would be better to ditch the kit lens for one of them, forget about the 60 mm macro, and get the 70-200 F4 instead of the 100-300.

[timbop]

For weddings and landscapes, you need wider. I know a wedding photog who only uses a 28/2.8, 70-200/2.8IS, and an 85 - but he is the exception to the rule and experienced/talented enough to work that way. Everyone else uses a fast wide zoom. So for you a more practical choice (particularly since you want to shoot landscapes) would be something like the tamron 17-50 and 70-200/2.8. If you can't afford the f/2.8 used, then the 70-200/4 would also be a great choice

[Mark_Cohran]

You need to share your budget with us so we can give you informed advise. Without knowing a budget other than "the lower the price the better" then it's more difficult to tell you the best lenses for your specific budget.

Mark

[shane_c]

Thanks for the replies. I figure my budget would be around $1000. So that's why I'm thinking the 70-200 F4 and either the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70. And I would sell the kit lens for a couple dollars. So is the 17-50 much sharper than the kit lens?

[Madweasel]

I compared the 100-300 side-by-side with the 70-200/4 and the L was far superior. You do get what you pay for generally.

[Maxed Out]

you should get the 70-200 f/4 and the tamron 17-50 f/2.8. - about $950 or less

[The_Camera_Poser]

I'd go with the canon 70-200 F/4 and the sigma 17-70. I don't have any of these lenses, but from what I've read the Tamron 17-50 is SLIGHTLY sharper than the sigma, but you can use the sigma for macro-type pics. I guess at the end of the day it depends on whether you are going to do a lot of low-light portrait-type pics, or stop-action type pics, in which case you want the Tamron, or more good-light, general photography with the option of macro, and a wider range of focal lengths, in which you go the sigma.

Most of my pics are outside, landscapes and nature pics, so I'd go the sigma in your shoes.

HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, I (and almost everyone else I do believe), absolutely worship my 24-105 lens. It can take your photography to a whole new level, does macro-like pics, and will last you forever. New at B&H it's just of $1000- I'd go for that, and save your $$ for a 70-200 F/4 IS. When you've put that combo together, you'll be sporting one heck of a set-up!

[WMS]

Ether the 17-55 f/2,8 or the 70-200f/4 are within your budget, unfortunately eather would use the entire $1000 budget.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457678-USA/Canon_1258B002_70_200mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html

I chose toe replace my kit lens with the EF-S 17-85 IS USM and a EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS However I don't think this combination would be the best for you, as I don't take wedding pictures so I don't need the large aperture for indoor shots. However I have used both indoors with out flash and they work nicely in a reasonably well lit (office type lighting) room.

WMS