Lenses for a full range...

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!

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.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #15382960
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?

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

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.

booja wrote in post #15382978
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.

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

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.

oklaiss wrote in post #15382991
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
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!

Brelly wrote in post #15383034
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

Content warning: script

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

oklaiss wrote in post #15383071
Check out this group pool on flickr for the 15-85; it produces some great images

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?

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

kawi_200 wrote in post #15383109
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.

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