question about canon lenses

[fenix]

Hey guys, im new to this forum. :) i just recently bought my drebel w/kit lens, which i upgraded from a80. it was a great p/s camera by the way. im really new to the canon area since i used to own and shoot with pentax zxm film based slr.. my question is do you guys have any suggestion on whats step level up from the kit lens it came with? im looking unto a decent wideangle lens and maybe a macro lens. really appreciate it..

btw, whats the difference with the L and EF lenses? thanks

[timmyquest]

my question is do you guys have any suggestion on whats step level up from the kit lens it came with?

It really depends on what your spending.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a MUST. Near L quality image wise (perhaps on par?) at a mere $70

The 28-135 is a great walk around lens and from what i've seen is sharp enough for most people. (i'm sure i'll buy it at some point).

Depending on what you want to spend, you can get an L lens for $600 or so with the 70-200 f/4.

To fill your W/A need, if you really want something better then the kit lens, another L lens for $700 is the 17-40. Is it worth the cost given the kit lens? I'm honestly not so sure of that.

It's expensive, but the prices dont really drop and they are a very long term investment.


im looking unto a decent wideangle lens and maybe a macro lens. really appreciate it..

btw, whats the difference with the L and EF lenses? thanks

L lenses are EF lenses.

EF is simply canons EOS system lenses.

The L is simply implying that it is a serious of lens vs a non L lens. Kind of like a truck is a truck is a truck. Some are 4wd though.

[fenix]

hi thanks for the input. i am definitely getting the 50mm f/1.8, but i heard there is a waiting list for that or its just really in demand right now.. i was looking of spending up to $500 for a decent lens from canon.. but im taking your suggestions.. thanks

[ron chappel]

As tim says all autofocus canon lenses are EF lenses

L lenses are ones that require special construction,materials,etc to make them have awsome image quality-in spite of the compromises needed to make such lenses.
This means anything with a super large aperture, very wide zooms, very long lenses or very high image quality normal zooms are candidates for the L treatment 8)
Notice many of the normal prime lenses simply don't need the L treatment to be great-it's easier to make them great using normal 'cheap' tech

Unfortunately there is little or nothing available yet that fits inbetween the 18-55 kit lens and the awsome L lens.
The canon 20-35 is not a whole lot better and is not very wide.There have been many brands of 19-35 lenses available for some time but no one seems to have yet done good comparison tests against the kit lens.
Soon there will be more available from tamron,tokina etc so hopefully things will get better for those of us that can't afford an L zoom

[Olegis]

Hi fenix and welcome.

The 50mm f/1.8 MkII is a must, like timmyquest said - it's tiny, very light, very cheap and produces VERY good results. About wideangle lens - I personally went for the "third-party" route on this one and bought the Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5. I got it used for about $450. The only problem of this lens is its flare performance - you have to control every frame very carefully for any bright objects / other light sources. Other (small) drawbacks are - the zoom works in the opposite direction than that on the Canon lenses, the AF/MF switching mechanism is not very convenient to use (you have to flip a switch and then to pull the focus ring towards the camera, if I remember correctly) and of course the filters are HUGE (83mm, I think). But then again - all those are quite small problems, and once you get used to them - you stop to notice them.

Other wideangle option is the Sigma 12-24, which gets quite mixed set of opinions - there are people who love that lens and there are those who are not satisfied with it. One more option to consider may be the new Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens - but I suggest to wait for the reviews. The same goes for the new Tamron SP AF 11-18mm F/4.5-5.6 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43970).

For "walkaround" lens I suggest the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Xr Di - a quick search in this forum will reveal a lot of info about this lens.

[Toogy]

For a 'walk around' lens, I am using a Sigma 18-125mm, so far it seems pretty decent. It seems alot more solid than the kit lens on the rebel, that's for sure.

[dhbailey]

Fenix, the 50mm, 1.8 lens is available at BHPhotoVideo, instock, for $69.95US.

[fenix]

i really appreciate you guys suggestions. im definately considering of getting the 50mm f/1.8 for $70.. dhbailey, ill look into that thanks. and im also thinking of getting the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS or probably the EF 70-200mm F4.L (im not too sure about this one) as my walk around type lens. ill just go with canon's 100mm f/2.8 Macro and an L type wide angle in the later future. thanks for the help guys

[Olegis]

The Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro is one incredible lens ! Nice build quality, fast, quiet and VERY precise AF - and it's sharp ! Here are few examples - http://www.pbase.com/olegis/ein_hemed

Get the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 instead of the Canon 28-135 - it's smaller, lighter, faster and has better optics.

[fenix]

Olegis, what do you think of tamron's af 90mm f/2.8 di 1:1 macro compared to canon's 100mm f/2.8? do you think canon's bit more expensive lens is worth the price? thanks in advance

[Olegis]

Well, I asked the same question about a month ago - which macro lens to get, Tamron, Sigma or Canon ? The Tamron is also VERY good optically, but it's 10mm shorter than the Canon and it doesn't have USM (My Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is quite noisy - nothing to write home about, but still noisy compared to the Canon lightning fast and unaudible USM).

Here is the original thread - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43330 . Most of the folks here voted for Canon, so I went for it. 8)

[Persian-Rice]

I would say 50mm for sure, its just a must have.
70-200 is one of Canons best valued lenses in terms of build, quality etc etc, but I would not really suggest it as a walkaround, it stands out like a sore thumb.

The 17-40 would make a good walkaround though, it also goes almost as wide as you will find.

I personally will probably never buy any lens that doesn't have a Canon logo on it, and except for the 50mm, a red ring around the end. But that is my preference....

[Persian-Rice]

Oh btw, if you can't afford a couple lenses, get some kenko extensions for a 50mm and you got youself an "as good as it gets" macro lens without it actually being a macro lens.

[fenix]

Persian-Rice, check your PM box. got couple of questions..