Bare Minimum Lens Collection: what to look for?

OK, here's the situation. My gear is like this:

Canon EOS 500D (Rebel T1i)
EFS-18-55 IS (kit lens): rarely used
EF-50 1.8 II: heavily used
Tamron 70-300 LD-Di Macro (non stabilised version): heavily used, especially macro mode.
Vanguard Mak 233 tripod

Clearly, the last lens is the chink in the armour, since it produces poor results whenever it is not in the f/8-f/10 range (which is quite often, unless shooting in bright daylight or with tripod).

I shoot urbanscapes, landscapes, buildings, people, mostly. I have thought about this and figured I need to buy two more lenses which will (a) help me cover a longer range of focal length (b) retain image quality in most conditions (c) will be usable even when I upgrade to full-frame.:

1. EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II USM.
2. EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM.

Combined with the EF 50 1.8 II, I believe the above lenses will satisfy. Now the catch is that one must appreciate that things cost a lot more in India (or people earn a lot less in India) so buying L-glass is not easy. These two pieces of glass cost me almost 6 months salary! Buying these will need a lot of planning and saving up. Architects don't make so much money out here.

Are there are any alternatives to these lenses, without significant quality compromise?

P.S. Not having these lenses or having my el cheapo Tamron 70-300 is not stopping me from continuing to take pictures. I keep reminding myself that it is the eye that matters, not the glass, so much.

I'd consider spending 6 month salary on 2 lenses a bit over the top & I'd call you silly names for doing it but each to their own if that's what you want to do.

Personally a 70-200/4 would give you much improved IQ [Unless you need the f/2.8] & if you don't ever use your kit lens why blow so much on a 16-35L??

How much would a 70-200/4 IS cost?
& a 60/2.8 Macro [crop] or a 100/2.8 Macro [FF]?

^^^ That seems best IMO taking into account a budget & get a wide FF lens WHEN you go FF.

I'm thinking 17-40L and 70-200L f4IS

50 1.8, 24-105, 70-200 f4, 1.4 extender works for me.

How about selling the 18-55 & the 50, replacing them with a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non-VC, and also getting the 70-200 f/4? You'll end up with a wider wide for when you do want it, very good/excellent IQ from 17-50, (basically stepping up big from the 18-55, and a small step down at the 50mm mark). And you'll take a huge jump in IQ on the long lens.

The Tamron can be had for about $200-250 US, and you'd get about $160US for the 18-55 & 50, so net cost there about $100. Sell the 70-300 for about $125US, and but the 70-200 f/4 for about $550. Total investment for a better (and smaller) kit would be roughly $500US.

I have the Tammy 17-50mm, and it's awesome (the Non-VC version), and it's touted as one of the best bargain lenses for Canon out there.

Just a thought.

I agree with the suggestion to replace your Tamron with a 70-200 f4 (or f4 IS). It would be a massive improvement in quality for a fraction of the cost of the f2.8 version II.

The 16-35 seems like a strange focal length on a crop camera - neither wide nor long - making it very expensive indeed for what it will allow you to do with your current camera. It's made specifically as an ultra-wide lens for full-size sensors. If you're keeping your current camera for more than a few months, I'd suggest buying a lens accordingly. If it's an ultra-wide you want, there are plenty of excellent choices for crop cameras (10-22, 10-20, 12-24, etc.). Alternatively, there's the Canon 15-85, which is wider and longer than your kit lens and which, at least on paper, seems highly suited for what you shoot.

If or when you eventually buy a full-frame camera, you can sell your crop lens then. If you buy a full-frame lens now, you're going to be stuck with using a less-than-ideal kit for the foreseeable future. And not everyone ends up with full-frame. My suggestion would be to buy for what you have now, not for what you think you might have at some undefined point in the future.

I would go with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the Canon 70-200 F4 IS. Save your money and get high quality, sharp lenses for much less. Buy for what you have now, not for what you might some day have.

If you are an architect, I have a different proposition for you.

The Sigma 8-16 with a filed of view FF equivalent of 12-26. This is not a FF lens, but it will shoot wider than any rectilinear lens I know (the Canon EFS 10-22 is a 16-35 equivalent).

You can see the FOV in different FLs (8,10,12,14,16) shooting the same object in this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1345303

It is a remarkably low distortion lens for the range of FLs

8mm SOOC (uncorrected)

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zps55f7ea2​1.jpg.html

I would get rid of condition C, which will allow you to still get great lenses, and save a bit of money...how far down the road are you looking at full frame? if you're talking about saving and planning for these 2 lenses, i can only assume that a jump to FF is quite a ways off

Heya,

I think you're putting too much stock in the need for `L glass. I would go for really good mid-tier lenses. Based on what you shoot, on a crop, it seems to me that a few good lenses will do more for your photography for a reasonable price.

Rokinon 14mm f2.8 - Inexpensive, works on FF/crop, very wide angle, will completely take care of landscape, architecture, sky, etc. Very sharp lens. Completely manual, but you do not need aperture/AF control with this lens, you simply set it to wide open when you want it wide open and focus to infinity or hyperfocal calculation. Or you stop down if light permits, and again, focus to infinity or hyperfocal calculation.

EF 85mm f1.8 - Inexpensive very good optical lens that covers people/portrait.
EF 35mm f2 IS - Very good low light lens that is excellent for people and scenes and walk around.

Then save for a new, better zoom. Like a used 70-200mm F4, or used 200mm F2.8.

Very best,

First thing you should do is forget about going to full frame for the time being. If and when that day comes, you can simply sell off any lenses that are "crop only" and upgrade as needed.

You don't appear to have much need for a wider lens, if you are considering replacing an 18-55 with a 16-35 and state that the 18-55 is one of your lesser used lenses. If you want to learn to shoot wide, that would change things. But if it's just not something you do a lot, back off on what you'll spend for the wider end of things.

Because you have a fast prime, you can probably get by fine with some f4 or slower lenses.

So I'd suggest:

Canon EF-S 15-85mm. This is a fine "walk around lens". The widest one available. You might never need wider, unless you change your shooting styles.

Canon EF 70-200/4 IS to replace the longer tele zoom. If 200mm isn't enough reach, get a 1.4X teleconverter to use with it.

It would be a fairly versatile and simple kit:

15-85mm (USM focus and stabilized)
70-200/4 IS (USM focus and stabilized)
and your current 50/1.8 (tho you might want to upgrade that to the 50/1.4 USM eventually)

You can get both the above for less than the cost of the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II alone.

Alternatively, if you wanted to start shooting wide more often, I'd recommend the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. Those have been discounted pretty heavily lately and become fairly affordable.

If you get a wider lens like the 10-22mm, you might consider a different mid-range zoom to better complement it. For example, so many have been sold as "kit" lenses (which it really isn't), here in the U.S. the EF 28-135 IS can be easily found on the used market for bargain prices. A premium alternative (better build, but not particularly better performance) is the 24-105L.

If you shoot a lot with the 300mm end of your tele zoom, you might enjoy more reach. The most affordable longer lens is the Sigma 120-400 OS HSM. It's currently on sale, too (I suspect Sigma will be introducing a new one soon).

So you might end up with a kit that looks like:

10-22mm (yes, it's crop only)
28-135 or 24-105 (both with USM and stabilized)
120-400 (HSM, which is similar to Canon USM, and stabilized)
and your current 50/1.8

You mention using your current tele zoom a lot now for macro work. You could continue to do that with the 70-200... perhaps adding a set of Kenko macro extenson tubes to your kit so you can get a bit higher magnification. Or, you might consider a true macro lens if it's something you shoot a lot. The Canon EF-S 60mm is compact and pretty affordable. An alternative is the Tamron 60/2.0... a full stop faster makes it good for portraits (maybe replacing your 50/1.8), but it's not fast focusing so wouldn't be very useful for any sort of sports/action shooting (use the 70-200 for that).

Eventually you may want to consider a shorter focal length fast prime, too, such as a 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4.

Don't bankrupt yourself by going out and getting everything at once or buy buying for full frame usage when you may not ever need that. With good lenses, today's crop sensor cameras are very capable.

It sounds like the main issue you have is with the 70-300mm lens.
First suggestion is to upgrade to the much better Tamron 70-300mm VC. It doesn't have a wider aperture but it has VC, quiet focus motor and is sharp in the entire range up to 300mm (it's sharper in some parts of the range than others, non is soft).

Any Canon 70-200mm is also an option but the only one that is approx the same price is the f/4 without IS and it will lack the 200-300mm range too. It depends how much these two things are to you. The Canon has a bigger aperture at the same range and is somewhat (but not much) better in actual photos (IMO). It had some other advantages that depending on you might matter or not at all.

Since you often use the 50mm f/1.8, I'd just keep it for now.

Why is the 18-55 IS rarely used? Is it because of the focal range or because of the lens? If the former, I would just keep it and only change when really needed. If the latter, what exactly?

You could save half over the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II and get the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM (way too many acronyms on the end).

It's $1,099 through today (Dec. 3rd) at B&H.

IMO you need to break down what you need into other cheaper lenses. you could get a nice selection of lenses for the cost of the 70-200 alone. IMO the 70-200 is weird on crop anyways, unless you feel you really need the reach I think it's too long.

If I were you I'd be looking at 10-22, 18-35 1.8, some sort of 17-5x lens, maybe a 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 and call it good. shouldn't need more reach based on what you said you shoot.

6 month salary on 2 lenses is painful to hear. It's hard for me to recommend that.

if you are set on going full frame (i never recommend buying for future events that may not happen) then you could pick up a tamron 24-70 and 70-200 with a rokinon 14mm 2.8 and be done. you could get both tamron lenses for the price of the canon 70-200 2.8 IS ii.

Jerobean wrote in post #16498119
(i never recommend buying for future events that may not happen)

Never heard of the 7 P's??
Prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance