What are two must have EF-S lenses??

My got to lenses were the 10-22mm and the 17-55mm
Anything longer got little use for my shooting.

Now the newer 10-18 UWA has stm and costs much less.
And the 17-55mm made for a great portrait lens at 55mm on crop at f2.8

I agree with the previous post. If you need anything longer, get an EF lens. I have the 55-250 II. It is not worth the $68 I spent on it.

I feel like I should explain my claim. I only bought the 55-250 II because Canon had it on sale for $68. I already had the 70-200 f/4L IS. My thinking was for a lighter, slightly longer lens for carrying around. The size/weight difference is not worth worrying about. At the long end of the 55-250 II, I'd recommend f/8 for best performance. I can shoot my 70-200 at f/4 with no noticeable IQ penalty. All in all, I'd rather carry the 70-200 than the 55-250.

I will have to do more research and learn more about the extension(?) tubes. I'm very unfamiliar with those.

Bassat wrote in post #17781902
I agree with the previous post. If you need anything longer, get an EF lens. I have the 55-250 II. It is not worth the $68 I spent on it.

I feel like I should explain my claim. I only bought the 55-250 II because Canon had it on sale for $68. I already had the 70-200 f/4L IS. My thinking was for a lighter, slightly longer lens for carrying around. The size/weight difference is not worth worrying about. At the long end of the 55-250 II, I'd recommend f/8 for best performance. I can shoot my 70-200 at f/4 with no noticeable IQ penalty. All in all, I'd rather carry the 70-200 than the 55-250.

Okay.

I have the STM version and like it, never noticed a problem with it. Digital paradise recently bought one and seems to love it. While the STM version seems to be a very good lens, I think I have seen data showing that the 70-200mm lenses are sharper.

zdimages wrote in post #17781992
I will have to do more research and learn more about the extension(?) tubes. I'm very unfamiliar with those.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …A&is=REG&m=Y&A=​details&Q=

They work really good with primes but with many of my zooms, there is often too little working space or worse the focus point actually is inside the lens making impossible to focus. Mostly I use them with my macro lenses for even greater magnification. It gives you half the magnification the MPe65 1-5x macro gives at like 1/10th the price.

Archibald wrote in post #17780975
My bugs fly away if I take too long.

Me too. Always trying to find the happy medium between rushing and putzing.

you should've spent the extra $100 for the STM version...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2

DreDaze wrote in post #17782024
you should've spent the extra $100 for the STM version...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=2

Almost. I should have known better than to buy a lens I really didn't need. I already have STM out to 105, don't see the use for it past that, and already have a 70-200. My mistake. A small one, though.

Your 70-200 F4IS, one of Canon's sharpest lenses, blows a kit zoom out of the water?

I'm stunned

However, that doesn't mean the kit zoom isn't a great lens for someone who is L-less. I think it's a fantastic lens for the price.

Getting EF-S pancake saved me from wasting time and money. After adding of this lens I don't have to switch to mirorrless to have something compact.
My 500D with pancake is perfect in size, weight and handling for me.

I have 7 Canon L lenses, and the 60mm 2.8 macro is sharper than all of them.