What are two must have EF-S lenses??

I was curious to see what would be recommended for two must have EF-S lenses. I chose to stick with EF-S since I am currently using a crop sensor camera (T5i) and I would like to keep my lenses under $1k a piece for now as this is only a hobby. Ive done some searching but cant seem to make up my mind exactly. I'm not stuck on using Canon lenses necessarily so I am open to other options. I do mostly landscape, automotive, pet and occasionally people. I was looking into the 10-22m and the 17-55 2.8. Ive done quite a bit of searching that has led me to the lenses listed above but I am just wondering if there are any better options for the price/use from people a little more experienced than myself. This is my first post so go easy on me. I appreciate all the feedback.

No reason to stick solely to EF-s, regular EF will work equally as well

But in the EF-s flavour, I would heartedly recomend the 10-18mm
Stunning UWA at the cheaper end of the scale

But again its all down to what you intend to use them for

It very much depends on what you want to do with your lenses.

To my mind, you've chosen two "specialist" lenses - ultra wide angle and low light. (and expensive ones too!).

I'd suggest a walk around such as the 18-135 STM or the Sigma 17-70C.
For your second lens I'd suggest a specialist such as the 10-18(ultra wide angle), 55-255(tele zoom) or 50 1.8(low kight/artistic). All the STM versions.

Hope this give you more food for thought.

Opinions will certainly vary on this question. It surely does depend on what you want to accomplish with the lenses, also.

First off, I'd forget the 10-22, and question the 17-55.

The 10-18 is optically superior, has STM focusing for video, includes IS (image stabilization), and is 1/2 the price of the 10-22. Its limitation is slightly slower aperture at all focal lengths.

The 17-55 has always suffered from Residual Spherical Abberations, which simply stated means it will miss focus, at close distances, when stopped down. To be fair, you have to really stop down AND be really close for it to be an issue. Using f/4 at 5' is not going to be a problem. Using f/11 at minimum focus distance will be a big problem. Better glass is available, if you are willing to pay for it.

The 18-55 STM is a very good lens, optically. It is a tad slow to focus, and slow of aperture. It is also capable of 1:1 macro with an extension tube, which is 1/4 the price of a dedicated macro lens.

Full disclosure, I own the 10-18 and 18-55 STM lenses. I intend to keep both of them.

If you are willing to spend a bit more money, pass on the 18-55 STM and get the 18-135 STM. I got the 18-55 STM for 2 reasons: it is cheap, and I already have the 24-105 STM for use on my 6D. The 24-105 STM is also an option for you, but it doesn't have the focal-length range of the 18-135 STM.

The 15-85 covers a nice useful range, and you may be able to pass on the 10-18/10-22, if 15mm is wide enough for you. Honestly, 10mm on crop isn't wide enough, frequently. That is me, though.

Back to the 17-55. It really is your only choice if you want an almost-wide enough, almost fast enough zoom. I don't think f/2.8 is fast enough to justify the expense of this lens. But there are few choices for wide, fast glass for apsc cameras. The Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is huge, heavy, and expensive. I think the only other options are even more expensive: 20 f/1.4A, 24A, 24L II, 35 IS (or 35L or 35A). At this point it is cheaper to buy a 5Dc and 28 1.8 if you want wide and fast.

At this point, I recommend the 10-18 and 18-55 STM efs lenses. They are extremely good bargains for the IQ and features you get. After that, choose the appropriate EF lens for whatever application you have in mind.

10-18 - Landscapes
18-135 STM - Walkaround
50 ART - Portraits

Based on your goal of keeping each lens under $1000.00, I'll tell you what I did starting out.

I bought a 15-85 and love it. I only recently purchased a 10-22 for some interior work I do for my wife. I got both these lenses used.

I also purchased a 70-300L. It's an amazing lens and right now because of the release of the new 100-400L ii, the 70-300L can be quite the bargain used. I've seen it near $800 recently, in pristine condition. I paid $1500 for mine several years ago though the list price has dropped down to $1250 at present.

The above recommendations are just as valid as mine, but I was very content with those two lenses until I started photographing birds. I still have my 70-300L. I can't seem to part with it, even though I no longer use it since getting my 100-400L ii.

What are two must have EF-S lenses??

Just about any one that says "STM". Ideally you should have 3 or 4 STM lenses. If you buy used you can get a whole bunch without spending too much money.

If I could have ONLY two EF-S lenses it would be:

10-18 STM and 18-135 STM

or

18-55 STM and 55-250 STM

or

18-135 STM and 55-250 STM

msowsun wrote in post #17775270
...
If I could have ONLY two EF-S lenses it would be:

10-18 STM and 18-135 STM

or

18-55 STM and 55-250 STM

or

18-135 STM and 55-250 STM

I agree with the first two choices, though I question the usefulness of STM in the 150mm+ range. The third suggestion seems a bit odd to me. There isn't a huge difference between 135 and 250. I have the 55-250 II ($68 at a recent Canon refurb sale) and don't think I'll ever use it, let alone use it for video, where the STM comes into play. For stills, I have to stop down the II to f/8 to get IQ equal to my 70-200 f/4L at f/4. The slow AF is a killer for me. If the 55-250 STM is on par with the II for IQ and focus speed, it wouldn't be high on my priority list.

Thanks for the replies. I will definitely take all of these into consideration. Mostly what I am doing at the moment though are landscapes and car shows.

You might consider the 35 f/2 IS. It can be had for well under 1K.

However, great lenses that are cheap are as follows, most are under 200$.

24mm f/2.8

40mm f/2.8

10-18 STM
18-55 STM
18-135 STM
55-250 STM

one lens i haven't seen mentioned is the sigma 18-35mm f1.8...if you can live with the range, it's a good lens

what lenses do you currently have now?

Bassat wrote in post #17775284
I agree with the first two choices, though I question the usefulness of STM in the 150mm+ range. The third suggestion seems a bit odd to me. There isn't a huge difference between 135 and 250. I have the 55-250 II ($68 at a recent Canon refurb sale) and don't think I'll ever use it, let alone use it for video, where the STM comes into play. For stills, I have to stop down the II to f/8 to get IQ equal to my 70-200 f/4L at f/4. The slow AF is a killer for me. If the 55-250 STM is on par with the II for IQ and focus speed, it wouldn't be high on my priority list.

The 55-250 STM is a whole lot faster AF than the older versions. Here is an AF speed comparison to the very fast focusing 70-210 USM: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=pmrvBcXYcwU

It depends on what lens(es) you already have with your camera, but for much of your stated work I would consider the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 Art to be ideal. Yes it is a physically big lens, but it is effectively equal to three good primes in what used to be considered the ideal range. I looked at the UK pricing, which includes 20% sales tax (VAT) and converting that to USD it is still just under $1000. So is comfortably in your price range. As you are going to be hard pressed to go wider apertures even with primes that lens is going to provide you with the best DoF control you will get on the APS-C format.

I think the 18-35 would probably be wide enough for most of your shooting, and the ultra wides like the 1018/22's are are really very specialist lenses. I would tend to favour going for a 50mm ish lens to complement the 18-35. There are now quite a few choices. High end I guess the Sigma f/1.4 Art and coming down from there there is the Sigma non art, and also the new Tamron (I think it is) 45mm f/1.8 with VC. Or of course there is the newish Canon 50 1.8 STM. These would be good for your people pictures.

Personally I think what ever lenses you go for after the kit lens(es) that came with the body should offer something more. Either useful focal length you don't already have, or wider/constant (maximum for a zoom) aperture for both lower light and crucially better DoF control. Simply repacing one slow variable aperture kit lens with another slow variable aperture kit lens, but with an STM autofocus motor seems a little pointless.

Alan.

DreDaze wrote in post #17775351
one lens i haven't seen mentioned is the sigma 18-35mm f1.8...if you can live with the range, it's a good lens

what lenses do you currently have now?

Ahem. *cough* Post #4 *cough*

msowsun wrote in post #17775367
The 55-250 STM is a whole lot faster AF than the older versions. Here is an AF speed comparison to the very fast focusing 70-210 USM: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=pmrvBcXYcwU

Thanks. I've never used the 55-250 STM. The version II model is quite unimpressive.