What is your view of my lens choice?

[Pelao]

Hi
I would appreciate comment on my choice of lens to go with my Rebel.

Background
After nearly a year of pushing my Rebel kit lens beyond it's limits I have a good idea of the photography I enjoy:

Candid shots of family & friends
Nature & landscape
Indoor kid activities : dance recitals and karate
environmental portrait style shots
Plus of course the usual family semi-formal holiday poses & portraits

I also enjoy Macro shots of insects and wildflowers, but this will really have to wait - cash is limited.

So I am starting to build my collection based on these needs. I have some budgetary limitations. I also want to keep the size and weight reasonable so that I can carry easily and hand hold where possible.

I chose the Canon 70-200mm F4L as a lens that would be good for grabbing quick shots of family & friends "in action" and also for landscape.

The lenses I am considering to fill out my range are
Canon EF 135 F2.0 L USM (for the dance & karate)
Canon EF17-40 F4 L USM

I did consider the Canon EF24-70 F2.8 L USM. This seems to be a great lens for a wide range of tasks, but is very expensive.

To tackle as wide a range of what I enjoy with as few lens as possible, am I making the right choices, or should I have gone for the EF24-70 and then maybe the EF135?

I really like 70-200 F4, but perhaps I am not taking a good approach given what I like to shoot.

Any comments (polite :) ) and advice would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

[Pekka]

So Canon 70-200mm F4L is the only lens you have now?

I would say 135/2 is a good choice in your situation and needs. Good cheap primes like 50/1.8, 35/2 or 85/1.8 would work for you, too. If you want to go wide indoors, check out Sigma 20/1.8 - if you get a good copy it is a very good lens. Of course zooms will make life easier but then again you can not beat that wide open look primes give you.

17-40 is a good landscape lens, but slow for people work. For cheap macro solutions there are extension tubes or 500D from Canon.

[phili1]

It is a good lens choice. I have the 70-200 F 4 L and I used it for available light Karate.

[flyfishnj]

Perhaps you should consider the Tamron 28-75 XR DI

[Jesper]

Ok, I'm surprised that I'm the first one who's going to suggest this one: in addition to the EF 70-200 f/4 L and EF 17-40 f/4 L, get the EF 50 f/1.8 II. It's a very small, very light, very cheap but very good lens and fits well in between the 17-40 and the 70-200.

This is what I have myself (all Canon lenses):
17-40L, 50 f/1.8, 70-300 DO IS
28-135 IS
100 f/2.8 Macro

The first three lenses are a nice set which covers (almost) the whole range from 17 to 300mm. For some subjects, the 28-135 is more useful - I use it mainly when I'm going to make photos at an event where I don't have much time to change lenses, at 28mm I can use it for "overview" photos and zoomed in (70-135mm) it's useful for portaits. I use the 100mm macro ofcourse for macro photography, but it's also a very nice lens for other subjects.

[Pelao]

Thanks everyone. this is the sort of feedback I need.

[jylitalo]

Ok, I'm surprised that I'm the first one who's going to suggest this one: in addition to the EF 70-200 f/4 L and EF 17-40 f/4 L, get the EF 50 f/1.8 II. It's a very small, very light, very cheap but very good lens and fits well in between the 17-40 and the 70-200.


50/1.8 II is great for working at low light situations and could be used for potrait work as well, but ... After using G3 for two years, I upgraded to 20D with 17-40/4, 70-200/4 and 50/1.8. From these three lenses 50/1.8 was more or less impulsive purchase, since I needed something that I could use in christmas concerts and other similar activities without using flash all the time. Its nice lens, but due to its 1.6x crop factor it needs lot working space, if you want to use it as walk-around lens in winter time.

I've also found that I am missing the possibilities that G3 gave me for shooting flowers, plants, etc. 17-40/4 can get you relatively close, but since its wide-angle ... 70-200/4 could do some stuff on 200mm end, but due to its 1.2m minimum focus lenght, you need working space and due to its long focal lenght you either need very good lights and/or tripod. 50/1.8 isn't any better than other two. As a solution to keep my camera bag in compact size, I am going to replace 50/1.8 with 50/2.5 macro.

50/2.5 is only half life size macro, but that should be enough for my needs (since 20D's sensor is only 22.5x15mm) and at f2.5 it can hopefully be used on most of the things that I have been doing with 50/1.8, even though 50/2.5 is one stop slower than 50/1.8 (and at the sametime its still more than one stop faster than my f4 zooms).

P.S. 100/2.8 seems to be peoples favorite solution for macros. 50/2.5 is more or less compromise for me, since I want to be able to carry most of my gear on hiking trips with tent, etc.

[Pelao]

I have been looking at reviews of the 50 1.8. It may indeed be useful for filling a gap.

What do you think of the 50 1.4?
I read this useful review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[edsarkiss]

i see so many recommendations for the 50/1.8 -- this is a lens of extreme value, but is more of a portrait lens on these 1.6x cameras. for general purpose, go "normal".

50mm / 1.6 = 31.25mm

so i recommend the Canon 28/2.8 (or 1.8L) or 35/2.0 (or 1.4L).

[jonniewalton]

edsarkiss has a good point about getting glass with 28/35mm

My own view is that if you have the canon 70 -200, you have the 135mm angle covered and not wanting to get into a debate about prime v zoom etc, i think the 17-40 is the ideal choice simply because it gives you much more flexibility. I have the 16-35 L lens and use it for family pictures a lot.

[Jon]

The 50 f/1.8 gets frequent recommendations because it's good, fast, and cheap enough that you can't afford not to have it. If you ever get into dimmish light, you'll wish you had it, and it's only like $70.

[Jesper]

i see so many recommendations for the 50/1.8 -- this is a lens of extreme value, but is more of a portrait lens on these 1.6x cameras. for general purpose, go "normal".

50mm / 1.6 = 31.25mm

so i recommend the Canon 28/2.8 (or 1.8L) or 35/2.0 (or 1.4L).What do you mean with "50 / 1.6 = 31.25mm"? The 50mm lens behaves like 50 x 1.6 = 80mm on an 1.6 crop factor camera..... :rolleyes: so it's slightly tele.

The best thing about the 50 f/1.8 is that it's fast, f/1.8. Very nice for low light situations.

Ofcourse the f/1.4 version is also very nice, but optically it is about the same as the f/1.8 and it's three times or so more expensive. The f/1.8 is very cheaply built (plastic), but it's not a big disaster if it breaks, since it's so cheap.

[HJMinard]

What do you mean with "50 / 1.6 = 31.25mm"? The 50mm lens behaves like 50 x 1.6 = 80mm on an 1.6 crop factor camera..... :rolleyes: so it's slightly tele.

I think that was his point, Jesper. He's using reverse math (division factor :) ) to show that in order to achieve "normal" (50mm on a 35mm) you need a lens of about 31.25mm.

[Pyromaniac]

I have the 50/2.5 in my bag and love it. Wide open at 2.5 it's fast enough for most of the shooting I do. I have used it to do individual shoots of the players on some of the youth scoocer teams I do pictures for, and they come out pretty good. Plus it's macro so I like to think that I killed two birds with one stone by getting it. I have a 35-80mm and a 75-300mm also but the 50mm is usually the one I use the most. I have found it to be very versital

[Pyromaniac]

Here are 2 shots that I have taken with the 50mm f/2.5 one landscape and one macro.

http://home.cinci.rr.com/actionstills/0012820-R1-034-15A.jpg

http://home.cinci.rr.com/actionstills/0585903-R1-006-1A.jpg

I just croped some of the background out of the macro shot of the coin so the detail would still be there. I actually reduced the size of the land scape so it would take up the entire page. Hope it give you some Idea of the what the lens can do.

[BigRed450]

In your situation I would suggest first the 28-135 IS instead of the 70-200, then the 50 1.8 mkll for low light, then when more cash is available the 17-40. after that you can go after the 70-200 if you require the extra reach...

[Andy_T]

Hi Pelao,

you are right that the 24-70/2.8 L is a very nice lens but pretty expensive. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI should come very close image quality wise for about a third of the price.

Regarding the 50 mm lenses ... take a look at this comparison: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
Each of the 2 lenses will make a great addition to your arsenal.

As far as Karate is concerned, this is where it gets expensive (as you already noticed). If the 135/2.0 L (great lens) is out of your budget, take a look at the 135/2.8 SF ... should be about $ 350 and not that much slower. Also, the 85/1.8 should be interesting for you here. And do not forget that there is also a 200/2.8 L prime that is a lot cheaper than either of the 70-200/2.8 lenses.

Best regards,
Andy

[Pelao]

I really appreciate everyone taking the time to offer advice.

I have decided to leave my choice of macro lens for later. My wish is for the 135/2, but I'll have to discuss that with my wife...!

For now, I have decided on the 17-40/4 and 50/1.8 or 1.4. Together with my 70-200/4 I think this will give me a good range of lenses for the things I enjoy photographing.

It will take many months and thousands of shots to learn the character of each lens. I look forward to every moment.

Thanks again.