LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Lenses for a full range...

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 18 Dec 2012 (Tuesday) 17:22   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
Brelly
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
331 posts
Nottingam, England.
[MORE/SHARE]

Okay, so I'm using a 650D. I'm currently using the 18 - 55 kit lens, 40mm pancake and the 55 - 250mm lenses and I'm looking to slowly upgrade to some much better glass (as I've used some friends' gear and found the whole experience and quality much more satisfying).

So my question is, would these lenses be suited to landscape, a bit of portraiture and sports specifically, and also a good 'walk about' lens.

Does this selection cover that entire range or am I missing something? Or even going over the top...?

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

Any suggestions on what I should/shouldn't go for or any alternates would be greatly appreciated!

Post #1, Dec 18, 2012 17:22:18


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsfordexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Scrumhalf
Goldmember
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
4,055 posts
Portland OR USA
[MORE/SHARE]

That's a good set. Alternatively, I would consider a 15-85 instead of the 24-105. It will mean fewer changes on the low end.

Post #2, Dec 18, 2012 17:29:28


6D | 7D | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Brelly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
331 posts
Nottingam, England.
[MORE/SHARE]

Scrumhalf wrote in post #15382960external link
That's a good set. Alternatively, I would consider a 15-85 instead of the 24-105. It will mean fewer changes on the low end.

When you say 'fewer changes', what do you mean? As in changing the lens itself or settings?

Post #3, Dec 18, 2012 17:32:06


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsfordexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
booja
Goldmember
booja's Avatar
Joined Jan 2008
1,603 posts
houston, tx
[MORE/SHARE]

youre good for range... unless you shoot wildlife but you should still be ok with it. as long as its not dark

Post #4, Dec 18, 2012 17:35:12


MayDayGarage.com

LOG IN TO REPLY
LensCaps
Member
LensCaps's Avatar
Joined Sep 2012
73 posts
ɐıןɐɹʇsnɐ
[MORE/SHARE]

I would also consider a fast prime for use in portraiture and low light; something like a canon 28 f1.8, sigma 30 f1.4, sigma 35 f1.4, canon or sigma 50 f1.4, canon 85 f1.8 ect. depending on your focal length preference and budget.

Post #5, Dec 18, 2012 17:36:58 as a reply to Scrumhalf's post 7 minutes earlier.


Gear List | Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Brelly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
331 posts
Nottingam, England.
[MORE/SHARE]

booja wrote in post #15382978external link
it depends what you shoot

but youre good for range... unless you shoot wildlife but you should still be ok with it. as long as its not dark

Well, the main thing I shoot is sport thus the 300mm. Wildlife will be an occasional occurrence. Is it worth getting both an 85 and 105 along side each other? the 105 is more appealing to me as a general walk about lens but still useful for a bit of everything.

Post #6, Dec 18, 2012 17:38:29


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsfordexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
oklaiss
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2011
471 posts
San Francisco, CA
[MORE/SHARE]

For a better walk around consider the sigma 17-50 OS 2.8 or the canon 15-85. The reason for this is because the 24-105 is not very wide at all on crop. For more reach I'd take a 70-200 2.8L IS with a 1.4x teleconverter over the 70-300L

Post #7, Dec 18, 2012 17:39:00


5D Mark II Gripped, 60D Gripped, 450D, 24-105 f/4L, 85 1.8, 70-200 f/4L IS, Nifty Fifty, 28 1.8, B+W/Lee/Cokin/Hitech filters, 430ex II x2
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Goldmember
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
4,055 posts
Portland OR USA
[MORE/SHARE]

In my experience (and yours may be different), I find myself going back and forth a lot in the 17-35 range. Having that range on the same lens would be very useful to me. The 15-85 is a fantastic lens and 15 is pretty wide. You may find that you can get most of your shooting done with it, with the 10-22 only coming out for special circumstances. With the 10-22 and the 24-105, I may be switching back and forth a lot more.

Post #8, Dec 18, 2012 17:40:22


6D | 7D | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Brelly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
331 posts
Nottingam, England.
[MORE/SHARE]

oklaiss wrote in post #15382991external link
For a better walk around consider the sigma 17-50 OS 2.8 or the canon 15-85. The reason for this is because the 24-105 is not very wide at all on crop. For more reach I'd take a 70-200 2.8L IS with a 1.4x teleconverter over the 70-300L

Humm..THe only thing that bothers me is that I get annoyed with my 18 - 55 because the range isn't great on it, so I don't think that would make a huger difference to me as I'll just get annoyed with that anyway, but thanks for the thought! :) And regarding the 200mm with a teleconverter...It's just too expensive for me to spend on one lens! :( But maybe in the future!

Scrumhalf wrote in post #15382995external link
In my experience (and yours may be different), I find myself going back and forth a lot in the 17-35 range. Having that range on the same lens would be very useful to me. The 15-85 is a fantastic lens and 15 is pretty wide. You may find that you can get most of your shooting done with it, with the 10-22 only coming out for special circumstances. With the 10-22 and the 24-105, I may be switching back and forth a lot more.

Yeah, for general use I find myself in or around about that range too, actually. How is the 85mm for landscapes? I know you says it's 'pretty wide', but is it wide enough I wonder? yeah coming to think of it I can't actually see myself using the 22mm THAT much now...I think I just got a bit wrapped up in getting a full range, when actually I probably don't need it!

Post #9, Dec 18, 2012 17:50:49 as a reply to post 15383000


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsfordexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
oklaiss
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2011
471 posts
San Francisco, CA
[MORE/SHARE]

Brelly wrote in post #15383034external link
Yeah, for general use I find myself in or around about that range too, actually. How is the 85mm for landscapes? I know you says it's 'pretty wide', but is it wide enough I wonder? yeah coming to think of it I can't actually see myself using the 22mm THAT much now...I think I just got a bit wrapped up in getting a full range, when actually I probably don't need it!

Check out this group pool on flickr for the 15-85; it produces some great images

IMAGE NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
Content warning: script
. 15 is fairly wide on crop, noticeably wider than your 18-55. I also think that having the 15-85 would be better than the 10-22 because anything under 15 usually causes distortion issues anyway, and you won't have to carry multiple lenses.

Also you should consider a prime or two for low light situations. Your 40mm isn't all that fast at f2.8, so I would take a look at something like the 28 1.8 or 35 f2, both of which are similar to a 50mm FoV on full frame.

Post #10, Dec 18, 2012 17:58:32


5D Mark II Gripped, 60D Gripped, 450D, 24-105 f/4L, 85 1.8, 70-200 f/4L IS, Nifty Fifty, 28 1.8, B+W/Lee/Cokin/Hitech filters, 430ex II x2
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
jaomul
Goldmember
jaomul's Avatar
Joined Apr 2011
1,166 posts
Cork, Ireland
[MORE/SHARE]

Nice set, also for similar money- sigma 10-20 f3.5/ Tamron 17-50 f2.8/ tokina 50-135 f2.8 or siggy 50-150 os f2.8/ canon 100-400l is usm, less L's but more range

Post #11, Dec 18, 2012 18:03:23


flickrexternal link
Olympus EM5,Nikon d7100,
Olympus 12-50mm, 40-150mm, 17mm F2.8. Nikon 50mm F1.8, 35mm F1.8, 18-105mmVR, Tamron 17-50mm F2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Brelly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
331 posts
Nottingam, England.
[MORE/SHARE]

oklaiss wrote in post #15383071external link
Check out this group pool on flickr for the 15-85; it produces some great images
NOT FOUND IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | Content warning: script
. 15 is fairly wide on crop, noticeably wider than your 18-55. I also think that having the 15-85 would be better than the 10-22 because anything under 15 usually causes distortion issues anyway, and you won't have to carry multiple lenses.

Also you should consider a prime or two for low light situations. Your 40mm isn't all that fast at f2.8, so I would take a look at something like the 28 1.8 or 35 f2, both of which are similar to a 50mm FoV on full frame.

Ah thanks, just had a quick look and they are fairly impressive actually! Yeah seems like a sensible idea, like I said, I don't think I'd actually use the 10 - 22 that much now I've actually thought it all through again. Yeah, the only reason I bought the 40mm was because I needed something that was 'pocket size' to carry about on a day to day basis, it's an okay lens but nothing great. So going for a faster prime, what exactly are you recommending it for then?

Post #12, Dec 18, 2012 18:10:05


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsfordexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
kawi_200
Goldmember
Joined Jul 2011
1,305 posts
Everett, WA
[MORE/SHARE]

If your main shooting is sports you might want to consider a faster lens. f/5.6 is going to give you a rather slow shutter speed and be harder to use in lower lighting. You might want to consider one of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses

Post #13, Dec 18, 2012 18:10:13


5D2 | 8-15L |24-70mm f/4L IS | 24L II | 40mm pancake | 100L | 70-200mm f/4L IS | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mk2 | 400mm f/4 DO IS

LOG IN TO REPLY
Brelly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
331 posts
Nottingam, England.
[MORE/SHARE]

kawi_200 wrote in post #15383109external link
If your main shooting is sports you might want to consider a faster lens. f/5.6 is going to give you a rather slow shutter speed and be harder to use in lower lighting. You might want to consider one of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses

I'm mainly shooting in daylight and had no problems with the f4 - 5.6 so far. As I said above somewhere, the 200mm f2.8 is just way out of my range at the moment to spend on one lens. But thanks anyway.

Post #14, Dec 18, 2012 18:13:30


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsfordexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Goldmember
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
4,055 posts
Portland OR USA
[MORE/SHARE]

I think the Sigma 30/1.4 is universally regarded as a very fine prime lens for crops.

Post #15, Dec 18, 2012 18:30:52


6D | 7D | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
1,240 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lenses for a full range...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00078 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
981 guests, 824 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is clippingpathadept

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.