Lens Discussion

[divmedic4]

I got a great deal on a 60D/18-135 Kit and used my lens savings on the upgraded body (from XSI). Been doing a lot of research on lenses to add and it seems like the standard/"recommended" setup is

EF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-55
EF 70-200 2.8 L (IS min)
EF 50 1.8 or better

The least expensive I found any of these lenses, other than the 50, is $800. Obviously some savings are in order to complete the collection.

Unfortunately, patience is not one of my best virtues so have been looking at off brand lenses and/or slower lenses to bridge the gap. I am hoping to start a discussion about which lense would be the first choice for general use (mostly landscape/candid portraits) out of the standard set up. I also am hoping to get opinions on whether my filling the gap - Sigma/Tamron/Canon USM not L series - idea is worth it or better to just save and get the best rated as the funds become available.

I hope this makes sense and starts a good discussion.

Thanks!

[celsmk]

You should also consider Tokina 11-16 F/2.8. It does not give the breadth of EF-S 10-22, but it is brighter.

I have one and it is awesome.

[TCav]

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC, unstabilized version) is a very good, less expensive substitute for the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. IF you need the stabilization, look at the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS.

Both Sigma and Tamron make unstabilized 70-200/2.8 lenses that are less expensive than Canon's. The Tamron is slightly better, optically, but the Sigma focuses faster. Sigma also makes a stabilized one, if you need it.

[divmedic4]

Originally Posted by celsmk

You should also consider Tokina 11-16 F/2.8. It does not give the breadth of EF-S 10-22, but it is brighter.

I have one and it is awesome.

Thanks celsmk. I have seen a lot written about that lens but thought it was actually more expensive than the Canon.

Originally Posted by TCav

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC, unstabilized version) is a very good, less expensive substitute for the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. IF you need the stabilization, look at the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS.

Both Sigma and Tamron make unstabilized 70-200/2.8 lenses that are less expensive than Canon's. The Tamron is slightly better, optically, but the Sigma focuses faster. Sigma also makes a stabilized one, if you need it.

Thank you TCav. Reading a review on the Tamron you mention is what really got me thinking about investing in something better than the kit. I just keep going back and forth on if the difference in lenses like the Tamron and Sigma would be enough over the kit or if I should just wait to go the Canon route.

Tom

[shoturtle]

the wide angle and fast short zooms are covered.

I will move onto the telephoto. Do you need 2.8 is the question. If you do not shoot a ton of action or shoot indoor action. You may not need a 70-200 2.8L, the 70-200 F4L (non IS) is a very capable lens, and fast focusing. Or if you do not need as much range, and want 2.8, the sigma 50-150(non os) is another good option around the same price as the 70-200 F4. Also both these lenses are much lighter to carry around then the boat anchor aka 70-200 2.8 either canon or the sigma.

The 50 1.8 is a very good lens at a good value. It is very sharp and give you a nice dof effect. It also can work well in low light when you can not use a flash. There are better but they are more expensive like the 50 1.4 from canon and the even more expensive 50 1.4 form sigma. I would go with the 1.8 as it is not to expensive and see weather shooting a fix focal length lens is something you like. It is not for everyone.

[divmedic4]

Thank you shoturtle. Presently, I am not shooting a lot of indoor or action in general shots so I think some of the options you posted may be plausible. I already have the 50 1.8 and love it when I am able to position myself appropriately.

From the few responses, it seems that you all feel the intermediate lenses would be a worth while improvement over the kit lens. Then if the money is there as well as the "need" then go top of the line.

[PeterP]

You can rarely go wrong with upgrading your lenses and they will usually outlast many bodies.

You are currently using a mid-range prosumer body, will you continue to use those or do you ever plan to head into the higher end pro bodies?
If you have any aspersions to do so just be aware that the Canon ef-s lenses (and their equivalents from tokina/tamron/sigma) cannot be used with any of the upper end bodies like the 5d,1d,1ds.

Just something to keep in mind when selecting lenses.

[jdnan]

Originally Posted by PeterP

You can rarely go wrong with upgrading your lenses and they will usually outlast many bodies.

This should also be taken into consideration when deciding on an f/4 or an f/2.8, i.e. the 70-200mm telephoto lens. You may not shoot indoor action, but may want to shoot a concert, play, etc. where you will very happy that you have the wider aperture. If you're not going to go with IS, the 70-200mm f/2.8 USM non-IS version isn't much more expensive than the f/4 version. Even in IS, I picked one p for $1,500 versus the $1,200 that I received when I sold my non-IS version. This brings up another point: Canon L glass holds it's value better than anything else you'll ever purchase (camera gear, that is). I paid exactly $1,200 to Abe's of Maine for the non-IS 70-200 in February of 2010.

[jdnan]

Another lens that I absolutely love is the 85mm f1.8 USM. It's a very affordable lens and takes great pictures, sharp at all apertures with fantastic bokeh. It's quickly becoming one of my favorite lenses & is also excellent for indoor sports if you can get close to the action, like baseline at a basketball game.

[divmedic4]

Originally Posted by PeterP

You can rarely go wrong with upgrading your lenses and they will usually outlast many bodies.

You are currently using a mid-range prosumer body, will you continue to use those or do you ever plan to head into the higher end pro bodies?
If you have any aspersions to do so just be aware that the Canon ef-s lenses (and their equivalents from tokina/tamron/sigma) cannot be used with any of the upper end bodies like the 5d,1d,1ds.

Just something to keep in mind when selecting lenses.

Peterp, thank you for mentioning the lenses lasting longer than the bodies. I don't think I will be moving to a full frame within the next 3-5 years. Even if I do, I am sure my wife will be happy to take over the crop camera.

Originally Posted by jdnan

This should also be taken into consideration when deciding on an f/4 or an f/2.8, i.e. the 70-200mm telephoto lens. You may not shoot indoor action, but may want to shoot a concert, play, etc. where you will very happy that you have the wider aperture. If you're not going to go with IS, the 70-200mm f/2.8 USM non-IS version isn't much more expensive than the f/4 version. Even in IS, I picked one p for $1,500 versus the $1,200 that I received when I sold my non-IS version. This brings up another point: Canon L glass holds it's value better than anything else you'll ever purchase (camera gear, that is). I paid exactly $1,200 to Abe's of Maine for the non-IS 70-200 in February of 2010

Another lens that I absolutely love is the 85mm f1.8 USM. It's a very affordable lens and takes great pictures, sharp at all apertures with fantastic bokeh. It's quickly becoming one of my favorite lenses & is also excellent for indoor sports if you can get close to the action, like baseline at a basketball game.

Jdnan, I understand what you are saying and I can see that happening with my daughter's band concerts and graduation. Seeing that the L glass does hold it's value well is great news and I don't mind spending the money on it when I save up. I noticed that you are shooting full frame, so would the 85mm be as useful on the cropped body?

With the comments so far, I am leaning toward purchasing either the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 HSM OS or the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 HSM OS to take the place of and step up from the kit lens. Then save for the 70-200 2.8 IS as the next step.

I really appreciate all the advice and welcome any other that is offered.