Which Lens?

[MoliroMan]

Hello!

I am new to this forum and to digital SLR photography. I have by chance stumbled onto this forum and found it very informative.

I have recently purchased a Canon Digital SLR 350D or Rebel XT and have only 2 lens:
EF-S 17-85mm
EF 100mm f2.8 macro.


I want to expand my lens collection. I am mainly interested in taking portraits, indoor photography, and aquarium macro photography. I may be doing some landscape and wildlife photography.

I have been looking at the following Canon lenses:

1. 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.
2. EF 24-70mm f/2.8L.
3. 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM.
4. 75-200 f/2.8L IS USM.

Which one would you recommend me to add to my collection and why?

Thanks
Dave

[condyk]

Welcome ...

For normal indoor shots you really need as fast a lens as you can get, f2.8 or better. For wildlife you need as long as you can get ... 200 or 300mm won't do it unless you stay in your garden or only like the Zoo. Minimum 400mm is realistic, including the so called crop factor.

To be honest it depends on your priorities as none of these lenses are competing with each other. So, you could buy them all. Better question might be to ask about recommended lens for a specific use and then give your price limit and also say if for indoor or outdoor, if relevant. Otherwise, people could reel of loads of options, many which could be irelevant.

You have a nice Macro lens there and be good to see some shots. As an ex marine-keeper I am often tempted to return, but one expensive hobby is enough for now!!

[tim]

Dave, that 100mm F2.8 is a great portrait lens, a great aquarium macro photograpy lens, and might do ok for wildlife depending on its size and distance. For indoors photography i'd want a fast, wide lens, something like a 28mm F1.4 perhaps, make the decision of what length (50mm etc) based on your experience with your zoom.

To be honest i'd hold off buying anything now until you decide what the major short comings of your current lenses are before laying down more cash.

[Andy_T]

Ditto.

Use your 17-85 (which is a nice allround lens) and decide based on the experience what else you need.

24-70 is a great allround lens as well, it will be sharper and faster (f/2.8 ) than the 17-85 IS, but doesn't have the range. A cheaper alternative would be the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI.

70-200/2.8 IS is also a great lens with a great range.

But considering the price of either of these lenses, I'd advise getting more acquainted with your current equipment first.

Another avanue to look at might be considering a fast portrait lens, e.g. the 70$ 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, also the 85/1.8. Still, the other 2 f/2.8 lenses you are considering (plus the 100/2.8 ) should do nicely for portraits.

Best regards,
Andy

[mdr]

I assume your 100mm macro is the USM version? If not, you may want to consider upgrading this to the later USM version.

I agree with the others. Use your lenses first to decide which range(s) you use most before spending big money on other lenses, although you may want to add the fast 50mm f1.8 in the short term. For portraits, the 100mm may be on the long side, and your 17-85mm is not fast enough to throw the background out of focus with a nice bokeh.

[MoliroMan]

Thanks guys for all your replies.

The telephoto lens 70-200 looks amazing but i can't justify buying it at this stage since i rarely do any landscape/nature photography.

I think i should get a better wide angle lens for taking photos of my 7 month old son. I find that my macro and 17-85 lens doesn't allow me to take full body photos close up and do not have the speed required to take clear shots. What lens is the best for the job? I don't want to buy a cheap lens and later need to buy a more expensive one.

Have u guys any experience with the new EFS 10-22 lens? Is the 17-40L or 24-70L a better investment? And r these lens still good for aquarium photography since i found my macro with it's limited depth of field difficult to take fully focussed shots on fast moving fish.

thx
Dave

[Andy_T]

Moliroman,

you should use a longer focal length (or more specifically ... a greater distance to your subject) for portraits. If 17 mm is not wide enough for you, you might be too close.

Take a look at these 2 threads with portraits of user Schmoelzel's lovely daughter Julia:

Taken with 50/1.4 ('Ideal' portrait lens on 1.6 crop) (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=73212)
Taken with 16-35/2.8 (wide angle lens) (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=74249)

While the 16-35 might be a great lens with wonderful colours and nice sharpness, I think that the images with the 50/1.4 are a lot better representations. Schmoelzel is using a 1D with a 1.3 crop, the distortion at wide angle might not be that bad on the 20D.

Best regards,
Andy

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yea, it's a known fact that you don't want to get to close to your subject when taking portraits. In all actuality, for what you want I would suggest the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens. 70-100mm is an excellent focal length for portrait, and the extra 100mm zoom is nice too. Shoot sports, animals at the zoo, some birds if your really stealthy and can get within a few feet of them, ect. It has outstanding indoor performance from what I've heard because of it's advanced IS system. This lens will allow you to shoot indoors with f/2.8 and a 1/30th shutter speed hand held and still get sharp images if you have a relatively steady hand. The IS is said to be that spectacular. So, that lens definately conquers in low light situations. Although, it is big, and it is heavy!

You say you don't shoot landscape and what not? Then I doubt you would benefit from a truely wide angle lens like the 10-22mm plus the fact that it doesn't have a fast enough apeture doesn't help things. Shooting pics of the kids and stuff, the 24-70 f/2.8 would rule. Sweet lens. Personally I'd prefur it have internal zoom, but oh well.

Another suggestion would be the 16-35mm f/2.8. Produces sharp, vibrant images with fantastic bokeh. That things a beast. Wish I could afford it! :-) I guess it'd be good for the aquarium shots... get nice and close to the glass and have the wideness you need to fit the whole fish in the frame.

Also, the 85mm f/1.2L is another choice. On the very expensive side at a price of $1500.00. But I think you'll like it's incredibly fast f/1.2 apeture. 85mm is also the sweet spot for portrait shots. That and it's a prime. As everyone knows, primes = higher quality pics. To me, this sounds like the best lens for you. Only goes up to f/16 though.... not sure if that matters to you since you don't shoot land scape and what not.

Well, hope that helps! I've never used most of these lenses, but I've researched them all quite a bit so I guess that gives me some credability.... Anyone correct me if I said something wrong. :-)

[MoliroMan]

thanks guys!

u have got me all confused now. So which lens is the best for crystal clear portraits? The 50/1.4, 24-70 f/2.8L, 16-35 f/2.8L OR 85 f/1.2L?

Dave

[Andy_T]

That depends a lot on your shooting style!

Figure out with your 17-85 and 100/2.8 which focal length you like best for portraits. Look at Schmoelzel's images.

IMHO, on a 1.6 crop DSLR (like the 20D) you should not go much below 50 mm focal length. First of all to avoid distortions, second to get shallow DOF to isolate the subject.

Also, find out whether you like primes or zoom lenses better for that kind of work.

As far as the individual lens is concerned, here your budget very much determines which one to get.

All of those make good portrait lenses, if used right!
(first option is the $$$ alternative :wink: )

- 135/2.0 L or 135/2.8 or CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 (manual focus lens!)
- 100/2.8 Macro or 100/2.0
- 85/1.2 L or 85/1.8
- 50/1.4 or 50/1.8
- 24-70/2.8 L or Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI
- 70-200/2.8 L(IS?) or 70-200/4.0 L

ALL these lenses can give you crystal clear portraits.
One more thing to bear in mind is bokeh ... there's also quite some information available on that issue recently.
(for a primer, read this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69785&highlight=bokeh) and take a look at the other threads mentioned in the last postings)

You see, there's a lot of options available :wink:
That'S one more reason for you to try out your lenses for some time and decide which one it really should be (I know that's hard :wink: )

Best regards,
Andy

[grego]

70-200mm F/2.8L IS.

Very very versatile lens. Based on your interests it covers them pretty well. You can't go wrong there. Even though its a big investment, you won't regret it.