Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 18 Dec 2012 (Tuesday) 17:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Lenses for a full range...

 
Brelly
Senior Member
331 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Nottingam, England.
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:22 |  #1

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!


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,217 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 3310
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:29 |  #2

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.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brelly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
331 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Nottingam, England.
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:32 |  #3

Scrumhalf wrote in post #15382960 (external 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?


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
booja
Goldmember
1,638 posts
Likes: 97
Joined Jan 2008
Location: houston, tx
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:35 |  #4

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LensCaps
Member
Avatar
73 posts
Joined Sep 2012
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsnɐ
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:36 as a reply to  @ Scrumhalf's post |  #5

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.


Gear List | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brelly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
331 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Nottingam, England.
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:38 |  #6

booja wrote in post #15382978 (external 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.


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oklaiss
Senior Member
471 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:39 |  #7

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


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
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,217 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 3310
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:40 |  #8

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.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brelly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
331 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Nottingam, England.
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:50 as a reply to  @ post 15383000 |  #9

oklaiss wrote in post #15382991 (external 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 #15382995 (external 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!


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oklaiss
Senior Member
471 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: San Francisco, CA
     
Dec 18, 2012 17:58 |  #10

Brelly wrote in post #15383034 (external 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.

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
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jaomul
Goldmember
Avatar
1,236 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 64
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Cork, Ireland
     
Dec 18, 2012 18:03 |  #11

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


flickr (external link)
Olympus EM5,Nikon d7200,
Olympus 12-50mm, 40-150mm,17mm f2.8,Nikon 50mm F1.8, Tamron 90mm vc, 18-105mmVR, Sigma 18-35 f1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brelly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
331 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Nottingam, England.
     
Dec 18, 2012 18:10 |  #12

oklaiss wrote in post #15383071 (external link)
Check out this group pool on flickr for the 15-85; it produces some great images
IMAGE NOT FOUND
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?


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kawi_200
Goldmember
1,409 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Everett, WA
     
Dec 18, 2012 18:10 |  #13

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


5D4 or 6D2..... Waiting to find out which I buy | 8-15L |24-70mm f/4L IS | 24L II | 40mm pancake | 100L IS | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mk2 | 400mm f/4 DO IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brelly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
331 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Nottingam, England.
     
Dec 18, 2012 18:13 |  #14

kawi_200 wrote in post #15383109 (external 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.


http://500px.com/Chris​Brelsford (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,217 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 3310
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Dec 18, 2012 18:30 |  #15

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


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,994 views & 0 likes for this thread
Lenses for a full range...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is peterohara
581 guests, 424 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.