Hermelin wrote in post #17264522
My new idea of what lenses I should have is that they should be relatively cheap and low weight. You can invest in pretty good performing gear today that doesn't cost a lot.
I recently sold my my 18-135 STM lens as it doesn't fit the criteria of being low weight but mostly because I got bored of it (great lens however).
Anyway, here's my list of what I have and what I plan to get and what purpose each lens will have:
10-18 IS STM: UWA lens for landscape - $299
24 f/2.8 STM: General purpose / travel lens - $149
35 f/2 IS USM: Indoor / low light lens - $599
50 f/1.8: Portrait / Bokeh lens - $125
55 - 250 STM: Wildlife photography - $299
Totalt: $1471 on 5 lenses that covers 10-250 mm and all purposes
Heaviest lens being the 55-250 STM at only 375g
What do you think?
I wouldn't bother with the 24 here. In almost every situation in travel and general purpose, I'd rather have that 10-18 or the 35. The 24 STM is tiny, and that's nice, but the 35 F2 IS is simply better and does better for general purpose with IS and a wider aperture, while keeping it not too big and heavy. And for wide, well, the 10-18 does that and it's small and light. While the 24 is inexpensive, and fits in a pocket, it can still be in there just for fun. But knowing myself, at least, I know I'd never favor it over the 35 F2 IS or an ultrawide (which is why I've yet to purchase it for myself, it would collect dust, even though I think it's an interesting lens).
I would skip the 50 F1.8 II as well. While inexpensive and light weight, it's not a "for life" lens, as it's not build well, noisy, slow to focus, and just way too cheap feeling for me. I've bought two. Gave them both away. I actually do keep and use the 40 F2.8 STM though. It serves the same purpose, for near same price, and is built well enough that it will last. That said, it's not my favorite lens either. I favor the 35 F2 IS over it in every situation mostly.
If you want a bokeh/portrait lens, I would stress the 85 F1.8 as an inexpensive light (but well made) alternative. It also covers action/sports, where your other lens selections are too slow, or not fast enough aperture wise to deal with high frame rates in low light. The 85 F1.8 is lightning fast to focus, tracks great, and is sharp wide open.
55-250 is a good zoo lens or large wildlife (big animals, huge ones) lens. But to me, it's too short for wild wildlife, especially smaller varieties that are not going to let you get within 20 feet so that you can actually fill your frame. Even a big heron requires you get within like 20~30 feet to fill the frame on APS-C with ~200mm. This is where you either just deal with the shorter length. Or you pony up for a wildlife lens (which in my opinion starts at 400mm). There's no way to go inexpensive and/or light weight relative to lenses like the pancakes or other plastic lenses and EF-S flavors. The lightest, longest, least expensive wildlife lenses right now are more like $650~$1k. And to me, well worth it, if you want a wildlife lens, and not just a zoo lens. I say this as one who started with the 55-250, went to a 70-200 (for speed of focus) to a 150-600, and I am happy to spend every penny for the 600 over the 250, as I shoot lots of wildlife, and 250 was just too short, even on APS-C, to do much of anything with unless I was at the zoo.
So to me:
Camera (APS-C) of choice
EF-S 10-18 STM (landscape, group portrait, travel, general purpose)
EF 35 F2 IS (every day, general purpose, low light, travel, portrait, group, landscape)
EF 85 F1.8 (portrait, sports, action, zoo, landscape)
And then choose to get a big lens, or really think about if you need greater than 200mm or not. You can get 500mm lenses for $650 if you shop.
And this is where I add a 2nd camera. I like carrying the EOS-M as a 2nd cam. Uses the lenses. Gives you another option.