New guy lens help

Hello all,
I'm sure you are all over the "What lens should I get?" question, but if you'll indulge me for a moment, I'd appreciate it.

I am on the newer side of photography, Canon owner for about a year and a half, and have only been 'serious' for about 6 months or so.

I have 2 crop bodies, a Rebel 2Ti and a 40D. So far my lens corral consists of 18-55 kit, 50mm 1.8, 28-135mm USM, 75-300mm 3.5-5.6.

I would like to step up to a fast lens. Currently I don't have a specific style, I enjoy street photography, some cityscape stuff, some people/candid, some low light areas, and I shoot my sister's running team races.

I have a friend who has a 24-70L 2.8 and a 70-200L 2.8 IS that are for sale. I know I don't NEED a new lens, but I have the opportunity to upgrade with glass that I personally know and I don't know how long that will be around.

Any input on a direction? Am I just falling into the GAS trap? I love the ability of the 50 at 1.8 in low light and my other lenses can't hang in that respect.

Thanks in advance for any input.

If you're looking for a f/2.8 zoom I would go for the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 instead; that was my main lens back when I was a Canon crop DSLR shooter.

But...
Focal length is kind of a personal thing; I find 24-70mm zooms very awkward on crop sensors, I much prefer the 17-55mm range. Other people don't use wide angle very often, and like the extra reach at the long end.
With your 18-55, which end do you end up using most often? Would you miss the 18-24mm range if it wasn't there? How good a friend is this person? Could you maybe borrow the lenses for a week to try them out?

Another thought would be to get more primes. Your 50 f/1.8 is still over a stop faster than those f/2.8 zooms. I really like the 35mm f/2 IS (if you think your 50mm f/1.8 is good in low light, try a fast prime with image stabilization!), and the 85mm f/1.8 is a good lens at a good price also.

I never really use the 18-55 anymore, so I can't say I would miss it at all. I have borrowed both lenses, and loved both. The 24-70 ($700) and the 70-200 ($1,000) seemed to work fine on my camera, at least there was nothing that my 'new guy' eye caught as being weird.

I thought about going the prime route, but didn't want to deal with lots of changes. I live in North Florida and we head to Walt Disney World several times a year. I love being able to snap as I go and haven't done well with multiple lens changes so far. That being said, I am open to other thoughts so thank you for your input. I really hadn't considered looking for new, or other used lenses.

Lastly, while it wont happen anytime soon, I may upgrade to full frame one day. At that point, I'd already have good glass.

Bardi wrote in post #18651706
Hello all,
I'm sure you are all over the "What lens should I get?" question, but if you'll indulge me for a moment, I'd appreciate it.

I am on the newer side of photography, Canon owner for about a year and a half, and have only been 'serious' for about 6 months or so.

I have 2 crop bodies, a Rebel 2Ti and a 40D. So far my lens corral consists of 18-55 kit, 50mm 1.8, 28-135mm USM, 75-300mm 3.5-5.6.

I would like to step up to a fast lens. Currently I don't have a specific style, I enjoy street photography, some cityscape stuff, some people/candid, some low light areas, and I shoot my sister's running team races.

I have a friend who has a 24-70L 2.8 and a 70-200L 2.8 IS that are for sale. I know I don't NEED a new lens, but I have the opportunity to upgrade with glass that I personally know and I don't know how long that will be around.

Any input on a direction? Am I just falling into the GAS trap? I love the ability of the 50 at 1.8 in low light and my other lenses can't hang in that respect.

Thanks in advance for any input.

Given your current lenses and the styles you listed, I would jump on the 24-70; just keep in mind that 2.8 really isn't all that fast, either. It's just as fast as most zooms can go. If you want something different for lower light stuff, I'd say look into another prime or two; one wider and one longer than the 50...like, a 24 and 85. Those should be able to be had at f/1.4 or f/1.8 for reasonable amounts.

You'll want to bump up your 75-300 sooner than later, most likely, also; but, I'm not sure you'd find the size/weight of the 70-200 2.8 to be worth it. Either a better 70-300 or a flavor of the 70-200 f/4 would not be amiss there, however.

Snydremark wrote in post #18651734
Given your current lenses and the styles you listed, I would jump on the 24-70; just keep in mind that 2.8 really isn't all that fast, either. It's just as fast as most zooms can go. If you want something different for lower light stuff, I'd say look into another prime or two; one wider and one longer than the 50...like, a 24 and 85. Those should be able to be had at f/1.4 or f/1.8 for reasonable amounts.

You'll want to bump up your 75-300 sooner than later, most likely, also; but, I'm not sure you'd find the size/weight of the 70-200 2.8 to be worth it. Either a better 70-300 or a flavor of the 70-200 f/4 would not be amiss there, however.

I agree with all of this.


Again, the 24-70mm range is not my cup of tea (on crop), and the 70-200 f/2.8 is too big/heavy for me (I tried it and ended up selling it; stayed with my 70-300 IS instead), but that is a personal thing

If you've tried the lenses and like them you can't go wrong; they're both great lenses, and have proven themselves to countless photographers over the years

Also - keep in mind that used lenses hold their value pretty well; if you buy them, then change your mind 6 months from now, you'll be able to resell them for close to what you paid.

If you have used them and you like them and the price is acceptable to you then buy them and enjoy them.

chuckmiller wrote in post #18651792
If you have used them and you like them and the price is acceptable to you then buy them and enjoy them.

I think that's what gave me pause. I can rationalize anything if I think i need it. Here I'm trying to lean on some others knowledge. I have gone down the road of gear gathering in a few other hobbies and didn't want a repeat performance of that with this one.

I think perhaps I'll learn a bit more about the primes available after the post up top.

I probably wouldn't invest in FF zoom lenses if I owned 2 crop cameras.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx

This ^ is an interesting option made for crop. 24mm at 2.8 on crop is snapshot territory, not that you can't be creative, but a truly fast zoom lens or prime is what I would be considering. Sigma 35 or 50mm Art lens might also appeal to you

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18651823
I probably wouldn't invest in FF zoom lenses if I owned 2 crop cameras.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx

This ^ is an interesting option made for crop. 24mm at 2.8 on crop is snapshot territory, not that you can't be creative, but a truly fast zoom lens or prime is what I would be considering. Sigma 35 or 50mm Art lens might also appeal to you

Thank you for the recommendation. I also hadn't thought about branching out to other brands. I like that 1.8.

You will find as many suggestions here as you find people. That being said, you can't go wrong with either the 24-70 or 70-200. Personally, of those two I'd pick the 70-200. It's a great portrait lens and would also work very well for your sister's running team races.

Another option that nobody has brought up yet is Canon's 10-22. I love wide angle portraits. They're a lot of fun to play with and definitely have a unique feel. I've got the 16-35 on my full frame body (equivalent to the 10-22) and it is by far my most used lens. Great for fun portraits, landscapes, cityscapes, pet photography, etc. But it does make you think a bit differently than the other lenses. https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …0_22mm_f_3_5_4_​5_USM.html

Note the 10-22 also has a great reputation. Here's the photo sample thread for that lens: https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=31225​5&page=442

For other wide angle work, you can also check out the 16-35 threads:
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18650822
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1468822
https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=41115​6&page=266

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18651823
I probably wouldn't invest in FF zoom lenses if I owned 2 crop cameras.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx

This ^ is an interesting option made for crop. 24mm at 2.8 on crop is snapshot territory, not that you can't be creative, but a truly fast zoom lens or prime is what I would be considering. Sigma 35 or 50mm Art lens might also appeal to you

I'll weigh in as a happy owner of that particular zoom. If the 18-35 range works for your shooting, that sucker is awesome; when I went to Paris, it allowed me to get shots in the museums/catacombs/cath​edrals that I would not have been able to get with any of my other gear. It's a bit "tanky" in size/weight, for what it is...but, I love having it in my arsenal if I know I'll be shooting in the dark ahead of time. If you find yourself shooting in darker settings where flash isn't an option, this is a good lens to consider if wanting a crop zoom.

The only reason I didn't throw it in the original post was that 18-35 is pretty short/wide; so you have to be standing very close to your subject if you're shooting portraits (and deal with the resulting perspective distortions) or be standing back and trying to include a fair amount of the surrounding environment. It is, also, ONLY for crop bodies.

s1a1om wrote in post #18651954
You will find as many suggestions here as you find people. That being said, you can't go wrong with either the 24-70 or 70-200. Personally, of those two I'd pick the 70-200. It's a great portrait lens and would also work very well for your sister's running team races.

Another option that nobody has brought up yet is Canon's 10-22. I love wide angle portraits. They're a lot of fun to play with and definitely have a unique feel. I've got the 16-35 on my full frame body (equivalent to the 10-22) and it is by far my most used lens. Great for fun portraits, landscapes, cityscapes, pet photography, etc. But it does make you think a bit differently than the other lenses. https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …0_22mm_f_3_5_4_​5_USM.html

Note the 10-22 also has a great reputation. Here's the photo sample thread for that lens: https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=31225​5&page=442

For other wide angle work, you can also check out the 16-35 threads:
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18650822
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1468822
https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=41115​6&page=266

The 10-22 is also a great, crop body lens for when you need/want to get truly wide (UWA). Also a happy owner of that particular lens for a number of years now. Again, if it fits the/a style of shooting that you're interested in, it's tough to go wrong with this one.

However, it's going to be very short for most of the types of shooting listed in the OP. It can be nice for the cityscape type shoots, but you would have (practically) to stand on the top of someone's shoes for most portrait framings/candids/stree​t shots; it's reasonably slow of aperture (3.5 at the widest), thus not great in low light unless you can do long shutter speeds; and your runners are going to be dots in the background for most sporting events due to how far back you generally have to be from the actual participants.

Snydremark wrote in post #18651964
but you would have (practically) to stand on the top of someone's shoes for most portrait framings/candids/stree​t shots

Yes, you do have to get close, but it isn't uncomfortably close depending on what type of shot you're going for. Head do make you get really close, but the OP already has a 50 1.8 that's good for that. Below are from my 16-35 on my 6D (same field of view as the 10-22 on a crop body). And there are many people that are much better photographers than me making good use of this focal length for portraits. That being said, you are right. It is definitely a different style of shot than most people are used to. That's probably why I have so much fun with it.

Photo from s1a1om's gallery.

Photo from s1a1om's gallery.

Photo from s1a1om's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (919934)

I am very grateful of all the responses so far. Thank you all for your honest opinions. I realize asking questions like this is akin to asking 'What's the best flavor ice cream' etc.

I should have perhaps clarified in the OP that I'm not looking for a single lens to fill any and all rolls possible, but something to compliment/ enhance what I already have going.

The 18-55 is a paperweight really at this point. I know some folks have been able to create some nice images with it, but it's not for me.

I still like the 50mm and use it. The 75-300 is really only used for the races and the occasional (I need to shoot that and it is far away).

The 28-135 is my all around lens currently and for the most part it does what I need, with the exception of low light.

I like the look of the 10-22 and while I don't do much of that style, I could potentially get into that.

If I go primes, what distance would YOU choose? 24? 35? 85? Some of these can be had for less than half of my other avenues.

Bardi wrote in post #18651982
I am very grateful of all the responses so far. Thank you all for your honest opinions. I realize asking questions like this is akin to asking 'What's the best flavor ice cream' etc.

I should have perhaps clarified in the OP that I'm not looking for a single lens to fill any and all rolls possible, but something to compliment/ enhance what I already have going.

The 18-55 is a paperweight really at this point. I know some folks have been able to create some nice images with it, but it's not for me.

I still like the 50mm and use it. The 75-300 is really only used for the races and the occasional (I need to shoot that and it is far away).

The 28-135 is my all around lens currently and for the most part it does what I need, with the exception of low light.

I like the look of the 10-22 and while I don't do much of that style, I could potentially get into that.

If I go primes, what distance would YOU choose? 24? 35? 85? Some of these can be had for less than half of my other avenues.

I can't say if it's just situational, particular to my movements/travels, but I've found that I *really* like 24mm on the crops over the years, as a mid range focal length. I've shot that for landscapes, environmental portraits, closeups of exceptionally cooperative (non-predatory) wildlife, baby/kid portraits, cityscapes, static car/plane displays, etc. I've long had 85 on my 'to do' list, to have a slightly longer reach for single subjects.

While 35mm is quite coveted and commonly used focal length, I have never been able to utilize that one well. It always feels like "I'm seeing and recording exactly what everyone else sees when they look at this thing." I would certainly choose one or the other of those two and supplement with an 85 if looking down the 'primes' route.

The nice thing is that with your current set, you can at least try out 24 and 35 for framings and see which works better with your eye/vision.

Of the options presented through this thread so far, I think 2 of the nicest combos you could come up with would the 18-35 1.8 + an 85mm prime or the 10-22 + 85 prime; depending on *how* wide you want to get.

And *all* of this is predicated on sticking with a crop body for the foreseeable future.