New Rebel t4i - what lens

I recently purchased a Rebel T4i with the 85-135stm kit lens. I would like to buy a good wide angle lens, a nice telephoto lens, and anything else you think I should consider.

I currently have:
- Canon 580 EX II flash
- pop-up flash diffuser
- 70-300/1:4-5.6 quantaray lens
- 28-80/1:3.5-5.6 quantaray lens
- EFS 18-135/1:3.5-5.6 Canon kit lens
- Rebel t4i
- wired remote
- wireless remote

I like taking a variety of pictures. I like landscape and buildings, along with the typical family vacation pictures. Taking pictures of my girlfriends kids is my concern. The older one is really into track and biking. The other is into dance so she is on stage a lot where they don't allow flash pictures and of course...it's low light.

Since I just got this camera I haven't really tried a lot with it yet, but I know the lens I have are not that good. I would like to buy only canon glass if possible and stay away from EFS lenses in case I go full frame later in life. I don't mind spending the money of some of the lower priced L lens (up to $1,500) if it will let me take good pictures in these variety of conditions.

As for skill set...right now I'm a point and shoot kind of a person, but I'm trying to learn.

I wouldn like a "kit" that i can carry on vacation leaving lenses i only use once in awhile at home. Can you give me some advise how you would put together a "kit" that would fit these needs?

Thanks in advance.

Slope wrote in post #14878543
I recently purchased a Rebel T4i with the 85-135stm kit lens. I would like to buy a good wide angle lens, a nice telephoto lens, and anything else you think I should consider.

I currently have:
- Canon 580 EX II flash
- pop-up flash diffuser
- 70-300/1:4-5.6 quantaray lens
- 28-80/1:3.5-5.6 quantaray lens
- EFS 18-135/1:3.5-5.6 Canon kit lens
- Rebel t4i
- wired remote
- wireless remote

I like taking a variety of pictures. I like landscape and buildings, along with the typical family vacation pictures. Taking pictures of my girlfriends kids is my concern. The older one is really into track and biking. The other is into dance so she is on stage a lot where they don't allow flash pictures and of course...it's low light.

Since I just got this camera I haven't really tried a lot with it yet, but I know the lens I have are not that good. I would like to buy only canon glass if possible and stay away from EFS lenses in case I go full frame later in life. I don't mind spending the money of some of the lower priced L lens (up to $1,500) if it will let me take good pictures in these variety of conditions.

As for skill set...right now I'm a point and shoot kind of a person, but I'm trying to learn.

I wouldn like a "kit" that i can carry on vacation leaving lenses i only use once in awhile at home. Can you give me some advise how you would put together a "kit" that would fit these needs?

Thanks in advance.

I'll answer for the wide angle: the Canon 10-22mm. Yes there is some overlap with the 18-135, but it is L glass disguised as an EF-S lens. Some people may recommend alternative glass like the Tamron, but if you can spring for the $800 bucks it's a fantastic lens.

Landscape and buildings: Let your 18-135 indicate if you need something wider. Anything much wider will be designed for crop cameras. There might be a couple that will work on full frame but I don't know enough about them to comment.

Track and biking: A version of the 70-200 should work. Image stabilization is not necessary for action photos. The f/2.8 lenses are one stop better in lower light conditions than the f/4.0 lenses. I use mine at f/2.8 more to blur the background than because of dim light. When conditions are too dark for f/4.0 they are usually too dark for f/2.8 (or soon will be if outside.) The f/2.8 lenses are better if you want to use an extender.

Stage without flash: Canon 85mm f/1.8 if 85mm works for you. A 50mm f/1.4 is also a good possibility. You will almost certainly need something faster than an f/2.8 lens. That means a prime. I really like my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 for stage photos. I use it at f/1.8 instead of f/1.4 to get more depth of field.

General purpose and travel: Use the 18-135 kit lens before buying something different. It has a nice focal length for a variety of uses.

Budget busting kit:
Canon EFS 18-135/1:3.5-5.6 you have it.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L $1,339.00 It is $860.00 cheaper than the new IS version.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 $359.00
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 $369.00
Canon Extender EF 1.4x III $449.00 Canon Extender EF 1.4x II is $299.00
Total $2,516.00

Realistic purchases:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L $1,339.00
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 $369.00
Total $1,708.00

Going to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L or third party could provide significant savings.

Prices for new lens from Adorama. Buying refurbished lenses can sometimes save a significant amount of money.

50 1.8, 85 1.8, and 55-250; all decent lenses with great prices. Should cover what you need 'til you get a better idea of what you might be lacking. Easily less than $1,000.00, especially if you go used.

Track and biking: A version of the 70-200 should work. Image stabilization is not necessary for action photos. The f/2.8 lenses are one stop better in lower light conditions than the f/4.0 lenses. I use mine at f/2.8 more to blur the background than because of dim light. When conditions are too dark for f/4.0 they are usually too dark for f/2.8 (or soon will be if outside.) The f/2.8 lenses are better if you want to use an extender

Going to the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L or third party could provide significant savings.

Prices for new lens from Adorama. Buying refurbished lenses can sometimes save a significant amount of money.[/QUOTE]

What would be the downside of the 70-200 f/4 L lens? I like the size and weight much better. Could I still use an extender with the 4L? Please forgive the newbie questions.

I like the idea of the prime lenses you suggested. If I were further from the stage...could I use a longer prime lens?

Thanks for all the advise. This really is a great forum!

interesting.

Slope wrote in post #14879174
What would be the downside of the 70-200 f/4 L lens? I like the size and weight much better. Could I still use an extender with the 4L? Please forgive the newbie questions.

I like the idea of the prime lenses you suggested. If I were further from the stage...could I use a longer prime lens?

Thanks for all the advise. This really is a great forum!

The 70-200mm f/4 lens is great and you would probably love using it. The lens looses one stop when adding a 1.4X extender - an f/4 lens becomes an f/5.6 lens. Adding a 2X extender results in the loss of two stops and loss of auto focus on an f/4.0 lens - not good for most of us.

The focal length for stage photography depends on the layout of the venue. I would be hesitant to consider anything longer than 85mm without knowing the venue.

Thanks for the info.

Can you help me understand The difference between the 70-200/4L and the 70-300/4-5.6l? I understand the 200 versus 300 part, but if I use the 70-300 and say 200mm, it would be using the same f4 as the other lens, right? Then if I use the 1.4 extender on the 70-200 lens, it would behave as the 70-300 at full range, right? If so, why would one configuration over the other? For what I'm using it for, would I really notice?

Thanks for helping me understand.

No and no to the first two questions.

First question: The 70-200 f/4 is f/4 from 70-200mm. The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L varies and is f/5.0 at 200mm. This is a good review of the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

There is a chart about 1/4 down the page that gives the aperture changes for various lenses.

Second question: The 70-200 will become 98-280 with a 1.4X extender. You will not have a 70-280mm lens with the extender attached.

Third question: Constant aperture through the entire focal range is a little easier to maintain correct exposure. All of my zoom lenses have constant aperture through their entire range. There are times when I can "get by" with f/4.0 but anything slower would become a problem.

Fourth question: I started to recommend the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L in my first comment but didn't because of the price. It should be a fantastic lens when outside in good light. It would almost certainly be too slow for action photography inside or outside at night. Wild guess: You would love it.

Hi Slope
i had the 70-300L
its a great lens and a sharp lens from the 70 to 300
its great on the 60D , 7D and FF bodies
but on Rebels it will be heavy on the compact bodies
you can use it but you must hold the lens not only the body
i think i will sell it and stay with the 70-200 f/4
this lens look nice on the compact bodies and gives you a very sharp images too

Slope wrote in post #14878543
I recently purchased a Rebel T4i with the 85-135stm kit lens. I would like to buy a good wide angle lens, a nice telephoto lens, and anything else you think I should consider.

I currently have:
- Canon 580 EX II flash
- pop-up flash diffuser
- 70-300/1:4-5.6 quantaray lens
- 28-80/1:3.5-5.6 quantaray lens
- EFS 18-135/1:3.5-5.6 Canon kit lens
- Rebel t4i
- wired remote
- wireless remote

I like taking a variety of pictures. I like landscape and buildings, along with the typical family vacation pictures. Taking pictures of my girlfriends kids is my concern. The older one is really into track and biking. The other is into dance so she is on stage a lot where they don't allow flash pictures and of course...it's low light.

Since I just got this camera I haven't really tried a lot with it yet, but I know the lens I have are not that good. I would like to buy only canon glass if possible and stay away from EFS lenses in case I go full frame later in life. I don't mind spending the money of some of the lower priced L lens (up to $1,500) if it will let me take good pictures in these variety of conditions.

As for skill set...right now I'm a point and shoot kind of a person, but I'm trying to learn.

I wouldn like a "kit" that i can carry on vacation leaving lenses i only use once in awhile at home. Can you give me some advise how you would put together a "kit" that would fit these needs?

Thanks in advance.

Dump the 28-80 - you have no need for it. I'd almost dump the other quantaray - just because of the name. ugh...

That 18-135 should serve you very well as a one lens solution for traveling,etc. I am not sure about the quantaray 70-300- i'd probably swap that out with a 55-250 or a 70-200 - if you want lightweight lenses-55-250 and that should take care of most circumstances. Now if your budget is larger- then I might move up to a 70-200 - but it depends upon how large of a budget.

I would suggest taking your 70-300 and your 18-135 to your stage shots- and giving it a whack- with those lenses.. More critical though- would be for you to possibly determine which focal lengths would be better for you as far as framing- and then maybe get a prime or two - for low light and where you can't use flash.


Out of your kit- I'd guess that the 18-135 STM lens is by and far the best lens you have. It's only weakness would be is that it's slow [aperture]- and might be short for some types of events. The best general lens to add to your collection would be a 70-200 f/2.8 and maybe a 1.4x TC. Choices - as I see it- Sigma 70-200 OS ( $1200) or the Canon 70-200 mk1 ( IDK ), or a Canon 70-200 IS II USM ( $2200 )- all depends upon your budget. Other than that- primes are probably the cheaper option. The t4i should handle it well- and should handle higher iso's quite well- - it should be a good combination.

Now why? 18-135 should excel outside in good light. The only thing I see you need a wider aperture (faster) for is perhaps stage shots- and for those- you will probably need the longer focal lengths. A couple of well placed primes would be the best- but not the most convenient. A 70-200 f/2.8 should be more convenient- and with the ISO capabilities of the t4i- more than enough. To go wider with your setup- you are looking at ef-s glass. OR learn to take panoramics (no $$$ ). Or step back. It all depends upon how wide you go and how fast you want as far as aperture is concerned.

I have been reading several reviews on the different 50mm lenses and am becoming more unsure which to get. The 1.2 lens is very expensive, so I'd prefer to stay away from that as I rather spend the money on other lenses. From what I have read, the 1.4 lens seems to have problems with the autofocus motor. Is it as bad as I've read about or is that only the people experiencing the issue? The 1.8 lens seems to be the best bet other than it's all plastic. Would you guys agree this is probably my best bet? Is this still considered a good low light lens?

Thanks again for all the advise.

Just get the 50mm 1.8 Its currently $103 on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com …Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU

Do you really need a 50mm lens? I seldom use the 40-60mm range. I have found 50mm on a crop (80mm on my old 35mm camera) to a special needs range. A 50mm prime might be a useless focal range for your needs.

I mentioned a 50mm f/1.4 in a previous comment as a good possibility for stage photography without a flash because it might be the correct focal length. The best lens could be 30mm, 50mm, 85mm or something else. You can't move very much in such situations. Be sure of the correct focal length needed before purchasing just one fast prime.

A 50mm lens will never be in my bag regardless of cost. Don't purchase something that will seldom be used even if it is relatively cheap.

I would recommend two things (along the line of wayne.robins' post):
1) don't buy anything, and go shoot with what you have. After a few outings, your list of frustrations will guide your purchase decsions
2) buy only used. If you make a bad decision you will not lose any significant money by trading to something else

Some notes on my non-IS 70-200 f2.8: I love this lens it's awesome. Very sharp, great focus speed and results. The weight doesn't bother me (skiing, hiking, riding up major mountain passes, etc.). At constant f2.8 aperture (vs. your variable STM), post processing is much simpler. I can shoot manual wide open, and can paste the same processing to huge groups of images because nothing has changed. Vs. an f4.0, the subject isolation is twice as strong -- much preferred look for my style in sports.