Bare Minimum Lens Collection: what to look for?

Many people, much good advice. Cheapest solution for right now, 70-200mm f4 L IS and a 1.4x TC III. You will be amazed at how good the 70-200 is and well it works with the extender when you need a little extra reach. I can also vouch for the 14mm Samyang and the 15-85mm IS.

At the outset, thanks for the good advice, guys.

LeeRatters wrote in post #16495818
I'd consider spending 6 month salary on 2 lenses a bit over the top & I'd call you silly names for doing it

It is over the top and definitely not what I intended to do, hence this thread. Also, I try and not spend any money out of my salary on photography. I do occasional assignments like career counselling or advisory work and put that money into photography if I have to.

LeeRatters wrote in post #16495818
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??

Same question was asked by clarnibass.
I don't use my kit lens because anything which is close to 50 mm I shoot with the fixed 50 and anything where I need 18-24 mm focal length, the kit lens distorts like crazy when its at the wide end. That makes me do too much work in Photoshop to straighten them (though Canon Digital Professional straightens them out somewhat). I am not shooting much in the 24-40 range.

LeeRatters wrote in post #16495818
How much would a 70-200/4 IS cost?
& a 60/2.8 Macro [crop] or a 100/2.8 Macro [FF]?

70-200 Canon Range goes for the following prices in India (+/- 10% depending on where you buy)
EF 70-200 F/4L USM (non IS): INR 57,000 say US$ 950
EF 70-200 F/4L USM IS: INR 87,000 say US$ 1,450
EF 70-200 F/2.8L USM: INR 105,000 say US$ 1,750
EF 70-200 F/2.8L USM IS II: INR 170,000 say US$ 2,800

Are you suggesting the 60/2.8 Macro as a replacement for the Tamron for Macros? It costs INR 34,000 in India, say US$ 570. 100/2.8 costs about INR 63,000, say US$ 1,000.

So by spending about INR 100,000, US$ 1,670 I can buy the 60/2.8 and the non-IS 70-200 F/4. That's about two months salary, BTW. It might make sense to upgrade the 70-200 F/4 to an IS by adding the US$500 on it.

Digital Panda wrote in post #16495838
I'm thinking 17-40L

KirkS518 wrote in post #16495904
How about selling the 18-55 & the 50, replacing them with a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non-VC....
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.

ceegee wrote in post #16495950
The 16-35 seems like a strange focal length on a crop camera ....... 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.

troehr wrote in post #16496586
I would go with a Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the Canon 70-200 F4 IS.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16496853
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)..... It is a remarkably low distortion lens for the range of FLs.... The Tamron 17-50 or the Canon EFS 17-55 would be a good complement to this lens.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16497101
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.

Quote a few recommendations for a good wide angle. Rokinon 14 mm goes for about INR 42,000 or US$700 in India.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16497101
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.

You are suggesting that I can simply buy another prime (EF 35 mm f/2 for about US$ 500) and then buy the Rokinon for really wide work like landscapes and architecture, right?

ceegee wrote in post #16495950
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.

LeeRatters wrote in post #16495818
That seems best IMO taking into account a budget & get a wide FF lens WHEN you go FF.

troehr wrote in post #16496586
Buy for what you have now, not for what you might some day have.

DreDaze wrote in post #16496874
I would get rid of condition C .... 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

That's four solid votes for NOT going full-frame anytime soon. I have only 8,000 shots on the Rebel T1i, so probably makes sense to continue with it for longer, or just buy a better crop sensor body (if and when).

I recommend you strongly consider the 17-55/2.8 IS. It's an amazing lens and the one I've had the longest. In fact, I was delighted to run this combination of lenses for a couple of years:

17-55/2.8 IS
50/1.8
70-200/4 IS

Hope this helps...

I'm seeing a lot of really great glass being recommended to the OP. But I think we need to get a grip on his reality. Him buying those two lenses, are like us US based members spending $10,000 on a lens, twice. I'm using a very conservative average annual income in the US of $40,000/yr.

How many of us own $10,000 lenses? Uh-huh. Thought so.

Here are some of the lenses that have been recommended so far, and what they cost at B&H, and what it would cost a US buyer to buy, if the incomes were proportionate to the OP's;

EF-s 10-22mm $600 = 1.44 months, or $4,800
EF-s 15-85mm $650 = 1.56 months, or $5,200
EF 16-35mm f/2 - $1699 = 4.08 months, or $13,590
EF 17-40L - $839 = 2.01 months, or $6,700
EF 24-105L (used) - $650 = 1.56 Months, or $5,200
EF 28-135mm - $479 = 1.15 months, or $3,825

And that's not even talking about the long lenses.

So what I'm getting at it this - how many of you US members have spent $3800 or more on ONE lens? I really think we need to keep things in perspective when we're recommending lenses to folks. And for those that said "I have spent that much on a lens" - you're the minority.

Does anyone want to recommend a kit for the OP that is <$1000 US? That's still 2.5 months of his salary.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16499049
I'm seeing a lot of really great glass being recommended to the OP. But I think we need to get a grip on his reality. Him buying those two lenses, are like us US based members spending $10,000 on a lens, twice. I'm using a very conservative average annual income in the US of $40,000/yr.

How many of us own $10,000 lenses? Uh-huh. Thought so.

Here are some of the lenses that have been recommended so far, and what they cost at B&H, and what it would cost a US buyer to buy, if the incomes were proportionate to the OP's;

EF-s 10-22mm $600 = 1.44 months, or $4,800
EF-s 15-85mm $650 = 1.56 months, or $5,200
EF 16-35mm f/2 - $1699 = 4.08 months, or $13,590
EF 17-40L - $839 = 2.01 months, or $6,700
EF 24-105L (used) - $650 = 1.56 Months, or $5,200
EF 28-135mm - $479 = 1.15 months, or $3,825

And that's not even talking about the long lenses.

So what I'm getting at it this - how many of you US members have spent $3800 or more on ONE lens? I really think we need to keep things in perspective when we're recommending lenses to folks. And for those that said "I have spent that much on a lens" - you're the minority.

Does anyone want to recommend a kit for the OP that is <$1000 US? That's still 2.5 months of his salary.

then the OP should buy a powershot and call it good.

as it stands he's asking about dSLR gear, not financial advice.

multiple people have said it's a terrible idea to spend 6 months income on camera gear already, myself included.

still a better investment than a diamond engagement ring though.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16499049
Does anyone want to recommend a kit for the OP that is <$1000 US? That's still 2.5 months of his salary.

I did in my first post. A 70-200/4 to replace the Tamron zoom & possibly a dedicated macro lens - Macro was one thing he said he shoots a lot of

You are correct though. many people just recommend the best/most expensive & more often than not it isn't the case.......

LeeRatters wrote in post #16499100
I did in my first post. A 70-200/4 to replace the Tamron zoom & possibly a dedicated macro lens - Macro was one thing he said he shoots a lot of

You are correct though. many people just recommend the best/most expensive & more often than not it isn't the case.......

That's really the point I was trying to make. It seems anytime someone asks for a recommendation of a lens, it's almost always the most expensive lens out there, and most certainly an L lens (a lot of the time). It makes me wonder if people actually read the question sometimes.

And yes, jerobean, you did, and did I, and others. It wasn't really directed at any one poster per se. I don't get why people can't look at a suggestion like yours, or mine, or others that kept budget in mind, and say - "that'll work". Instead, it seems like they say - "Yeah, but he/she won't have an L lens, and budget be damned!"

Going back to your original post, you were looking at a wide angle zoom, 16-35mm L II, and 70-200mm L IS f2.8 II zoom. I based my recommendation to consider the 70-200mm f4 L IS because I have both and I know the faster lens is handy in sports, some indoor events and for wildlife. But the f4 version is more than adequate. The IQ is superb and it is lighter and costs less. A used 1.4 TC of any generation will work well with the lens, saving money and extending the versatility of the lens.
Now, the 16-35 is more problematical unless you plan to go full frame. Recently I started using a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on my crop cameras. For architectural usage, this appears to be a very useful lens. At $565 here new, it is reasonable in cost. I don't know about the cost or availability in India.
Here are two shots from South Africa using a 7D and the 70-200 f4 L IS, the elephant shot with 1.4 X TC.
I'll be in your area 9 and 10 January if you'd like to talk cameras and lenses or do a little shooting.

I really appreciate the fact that people here are looking at it from my point of view, but am a little lost here:

KirkS518 wrote in post #16499049
Here are some of the lenses that have been recommended so far, and what they cost at B&H, and what it would cost a US buyer to buy, if the incomes were proportionate to the OP's;
EF-s 10-22mm $600 = 1.44 months, or $4,800 / EF-s 15-85mm $650 = 1.56 months, or $5,200 / EF 16-35mm f/2 - $1699 = 4.08 months, or $13,590 / EF 17-40L - $839 = 2.01 months, or $6,700 / EF 24-105L (used) - $650 = 1.56 Months, or $5,200 / EF 28-135mm - $479 = 1.15 months, or $3,825

Just to re-iterate / clarify some facts:

• I earn about US$ 1,000 a month (about INR 60,000) after taxes.
  
  
• I earn another US$ 400 a month on other assignments besides my day job. This includes consulting, advisory and career counselling for students in my field. I try and put some of that money into photography, all my gear has come out of that money. Needless to say this "additional" income is neither regular nor planned. It is just a figure I manage at the end of the year.
  
  
• Obviously I have rent, EMI (mortgage in the US), expenses on a high-mileage Italian mistress of a car etc etc.
  
  
• My original idea of 6 months salary, which is sparking some controversy , comes from this figure:
  16-35mm L II: INR 120,000 or US$ 2,000.
  70-200mm L IS f2.8 II: INR 170,000 or US$ 2,850.
  filters, flashes etc for another month's salary and adjusting for the rate at which lens prices have been increasing over the past year (up 40% in the last one year in India).
  
  
• The fact that these were one of the best lenses in the business (and most expensive) and that I didn't intend to buy them made me start this thread to look for alternatives.
  
  
• I would be happy if I can upgrade by spending about 2 months salary (say US$ 2,000) on the kit which I can manage over the next one year.
  
  
• All prices mentioned are new. I can always start looking for used, but with my limited knowledge and contacts in the photography circle, I do not want to walk into a shop frequented by photographers (there are quite a few out here) and get duped into buying a defective used lens. Many of my experienced photographer friends, including my first teachers in photography my wife and father-in-law, are Nikon shooters, with limited familiarity with the Canon system.
  

KirkS518 wrote in post #16499121
That's really the point I was trying to make. It seems anytime someone asks for a recommendation of a lens, it's almost always the most expensive lens out there, and most certainly an L lens (a lot of the time). It makes me wonder if people actually read the question sometimes.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16499121
And yes, jerobean, you did, and did I, and others. It wasn't really directed at any one poster per se. I don't get why people can't look at a suggestion like yours, or mine, or others that kept budget in mind, and say - "that'll work". Instead, it seems like they say - "Yeah, but he/she won't have an L lens, and budget be damned!"

Since I can't afford the most expensive lenses out there, I was thinking of what people thought of which affordable ones would work. The used lens market in Indian is neither very reliable nor very fast-moving, especially for relative newbies like me.

Jerobean wrote in post #16499097
then the OP should buy a powershot and call it good.

Spent four years with a PowerShot A520, then moved to the Rebel.

LeeRatters wrote in post #16499100
I did in my first post. A 70-200/4 to replace the Tamron zoom & possibly a dedicated macro lens - Macro was one thing he said he shoots a lot of .

Yes, I don't mind retaining the Tamron 70-300 just to shoot macros. It is not going to sell for more than US$ 100 in the market, since I bought it for US$ 133 about a year ago. It shoots decent macros for my standard.

Jerobean wrote in post #16499097
still a better investment than a diamond engagement ring though.

Never had an engagement ring, but don't get me started on how much gear I could have bought for my wedding expenses (if you have any idea of how big fat Indian weddings are).

KirkS518 wrote in post #16499049
I'm seeing a lot of really great glass being recommended to the OP. But I think we need to get a grip on his reality.
And that's not even talking about the long lenses.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16499049
Does anyone want to recommend a kit for the OP that is <$1000 US? That's still 2.5 months of his salary.

US$ 1,000 would be a great idea (that's about what I earn a month) but I doubt if I get some good stuff for this price (talking new).

Gimpy00Wang wrote in post #16498359
17-55/2.8 IS, 50/1.8, 70-200/4 IS

That seems like a good idea, but the 17-55 at f/4 to f/5.6 will be enough aperture for low-light? It retails for around INR 47,500, US$800.

advaitin wrote in post #16499296
I based my recommendation to consider the 70-200mm f4 L IS because I have both and I know the faster lens is handy in sports, some indoor events and for wildlife. But the f4 version is more than adequate. The IQ is superb and it is lighter and costs less. A used 1.4 TC of any generation will work well with the lens

advaitin wrote in post #16499296
Now, the 16-35 is more problematical unless you plan to go full frame. Recently I started using a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on my crop cameras. For architectural usage, this appears to be a very useful lens. At $565 here new, it is reasonable in cost. I don't know about the cost or availability in India.
Here are two shots from South Africa using a 7D and the 70-200 f4 L IS, the elephant shot with 1.4 X TC.

It seems that there is more or less universal consensus on the 70-200 F4 L IS. How does it compare with the non IS version? That ones relatively affordable.
Regarding the wide, there's still a lot of recommendation.

advaitin wrote in post #16499296
I'll be in your area 9 and 10 January if you'd like to talk cameras and lenses or do a little shooting.

Do let me know your itinerary in a little more detail. I wish it was Jan 11 instead of 10. We could have met and done some shooting in a totally fog-infested city, being a Saturday. I will try to meet you nevertheless.

Since your current long lens is the older non-VC Tamron 70-300mm then I have to recommend (again) the new Tamron 70-300mm VC or the Canon 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. Depends if you prefer to have the 200mm-300mm range and IS/VC or the more solid build and somewhat faster focus, etc. of the Canon. I would go with the new Tamron, actually I have it and it's very good and for its price IMO there is nothing even close in this focal range.

If distortion is the main issue with the kit lens then I'd consider the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Canon 17-40mm or possibly the Canon 10-22mm. Since as you say you rarely need the 24mm+ range until the 50mm where you use your prime, these are much less expensive but excellent options at approx half or less than the Canon 16-35mm.

Since I am an old man, the IS is essential. But if you are steady, know the principles of shooting with a tele, the non-IS version of the 70-200 is excellent. I had a copy a few years back and it became a birthday gift for my daughter.

Any of the older versions of the 70-200, f4 or f2.8 are sharp lenses. Many lenses I've owned over the years have been used. Unless something is wrong with the focusing motor, it is difficult to go wrong. Even scratches on the lens or specks of dust that you can see trapped inside don't effect the image (except a scratch deep enough to create a prism flare). Sometimes the mount may have worn or become loose. Those can be fixed.

Looking at my schedule, I arrive on the 9th at zero dark 30 as many flights from Europe do. I'll be met and taken to a lodging where I probably will sleep through the morning. If I'm up for it I might try to do a little sight-seeing in the afternoon. The one thing I didn't visit on my last trip was the Gandhi museum. I have all day on the 10th, which is probably when I'll hit the museum. I have to be up early on the 11th to make a train to Bharatpur. When I travel I try to build in rest days and I usually stop a night or two where I have to change planes. I'm sure your work will occupy your day-time. I do wonder how late those camera shops you mentioned stay open--perhaps I could accompany you for a little browsing and see what kind of quality is on the shelves. In India, the one thing I would expect is the possibility of mold inside the lens.
I know the Delhi fog/smog. Oh yes.

I understand the OP's situation since I too am from India. A few facts from Indian perspective:

1. It is not very easy to resell lenses and gear in India for a good price.
2. Buying a used item is not very reliable either as he has mentioned.
3. India imposes duty on photography goods which make it very expensive in India.

Having said that, I will relate about how I went through this process which might give some clue to the OP. I started with a crop body - 20D. Got a 28-135 IS lens with it. (I still have that lens). Next was the decision to expand my lens collection by getting a good glass I CAN afford. And all the time thinking that I WILL in future move to FF. So get the glass I don't have to sell. Next I got a 17-40L instead of 10-22 for that reason. Though on a crop it approximated to 28mm at wide angle, I was happy using it as a walk-around lens on a 20D. I had bought a cheap 70-300 USM which I gave to my son and bought a 70-200 f/4 L IS. Have been very happy with that lens. After a year I added the 100/2.8 macro and a 50/1.8 I am satisfied with my setup and now intend to add the 300/4 L IS in near future with 1.4x TC

What I am trying to stress here is that carefully think about future upgrades and invest accordingly. Slowly over a time. For starters I would suggest you get the 17-40. You'll love the lens on the crop body.

Hope that helps.

That's hugely different then what I calculated with. When you said the two lenses would be 6 months salary, I took the cost of the two lenses combined, and divided by 6 to approximate your monthly salary ($2500/6=$416.67).

In my eyes, it just seemed that most folks weren't considering how much a lens would cost them if it came to x number of months salary for them. (Of course, single guys have it a bit easier, nobody to put the hammer on them, and they still get to sleep in the house).

Thanks for clearing up the cost:salary, it makes a difference. $1400 vs $415 is huge.

Buy what you like then! You can afford it.

KirkS518 wrote in post #16500694
That's hugely different then what I calculated with. When you said the two lenses would be 6 months salary, I took the cost of the two lenses combined, and divided by 6 to approximate your monthly salary ($2500/6=$416.67).

You were not exactly wrong. Just that in India the two lenses together cost INR 300,000 or about US$ 5000 (US$ 2850 for 70-200 f/2.8 L and US$ 2200 for the 16-35 L). That, plus adjusting for the mad rate at which Canon has been increasing lens prices in India, easily makes it to 6 months salary (US $ 6,000 for me).

herculeorama wrote in post #16500561
1. It is not very easy to resell lenses and gear in India for a good price.
2. Buying a used item is not very reliable either as he has mentioned.
3. India imposes duty on photography goods which make it very expensive in India.
Next was the decision to expand my lens collection by getting a good glass I CAN afford. And all the time thinking that I WILL in future move to FF. So get the glass I don't have to sell.

You are quite right in each and every statement out there. The Indian situation demands careful thought and future planning for every purchase. You are always 'building up' your kit, rather than 'having' a kit at that time. Resale and Used purchases are not easy.

clarnibass wrote in post #16500093
Since your current long lens is the older non-VC Tamron 70-300mm then I have to recommend (again) the new Tamron 70-300mm VC or the Canon 70-200mm f/4 non-IS. Depends if you prefer to have the 200mm-300mm range and IS/VC or the more solid build and somewhat faster focus, etc. of the Canon. I would go with the new Tamron, actually I have it and it's very good and for its price IMO there is nothing even close in this focal range.

Well, if the Tamron 70-300 VC is like the current one I have with only VC added, I am not interested. However I will read the reviews first.

advaitin wrote in post #16500396
Since I am an old man, the IS is essential. But if you are steady, know the principles of shooting with a tele, the non-IS version of the 70-200 is excellent.

I am 33 but my hands are not steady. However, I am currently using only non-IS lenses, as the 18-55 IS is hardly used. For telephoto, IS is a big help, though.

advaitin wrote in post #16500396
I have all day on the 10th, which is probably when I'll hit the museum. I have to be up early on the 11th to make a train to Bharatpur... I do wonder how late those camera shops you mentioned stay open--perhaps I could accompany you for a little browsing and see what kind of quality is on the shelves.

Where is your lodging in Delhi, any idea? Regarding camera shops, there is an area which has many camera shops lined up and they are usually open till 7 PM (this is the Chandni Chowk area right opposite the Red Fort and Jama Masjid. A lot of purchase is done online nowadays. Fungus is a problem out here.