Looking for some lens advice for Canon
LeVeL
Registered Users Posts: 23 Big grins
I apologize in advance for making a long post basically due to my inability to make up my own mind :rofl
First, some background. Most of the time my camera is pointed at cars - its the only thing I know how to shoot somewhat decently and its also something that I find the most interesting to shoot; this includes some car shows, group drives, and photoshoots where I have more control. I'm a useless landscape photographer, not very good at architecture, and, quite frankly, I don't even have any fun shooting those. I do sort of like macro shots but a macro lens is for another day - really not a pressing issue by any means. I haven't done much people photography but I'd like to try it out and, in fact, I will do just that in the near future. All that said, my main interest is still automobiles - mostly stills but sometimes at a race. If you'd like an insight into the sort of photography I'm on about, click here. My current gear is listed here.
Now, without going into too much detail, I am faced with a $1500 budget that I'd like to spend on a new lens or lenses. Herein lies my dilemma. While looking at my choices, keep in mind that I'm not too worried about a lens being incompatible with full frame bodies because I'm not planning on going full frame any time soon.
I'd like to upgrade my 18-55mm general-use lens as its the one that I have been using the most by far. I like the focal length range and that it has IS. I dislike the fact that its rather slow at f/3.5-5.6. IQ and sharpness are simply adequate, in my opinion - not bad but I sometimes find myself wishing for more.
-The 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens but its expensive at $1300 (although I can afford it) and the fact that its only 24mm at its widest is slightly off-putting. It also lacks IS but I'm not too concerned about that.
-The $1050 24-105mm f/4L has IS but there is still that wide-end limitation and its also not as fast and I do want to upgrade to fast glass.
-The 17-40mm f/4L ($729) is also on the slower side, 40mm is not that great, and reviews aren't spectacular.
-The 16-35mm f/2.8L lens is the most expensive at over $1400 and the widest of the day-to-day lenses but I'd like more reach than 35mm.
-The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens seems to be right along the lines of what I'm looking for: fast, good range, sharp. However, at $1000, I question its value.
-Last but not least we have the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 ($500) and the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 ($740). Both have wonderful ranges, especially the latter, but I see very mixed reviews in terms of performance.
At the same time, I'd almost love to get my hands on an ultra-wide angle lens. There are various offerings out there and I haven't looked into it that much yet but they range from $420 to $650, with the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 being the outlier at $800. FYI, the third-party ones I also found are:
-Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6
-Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
-Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
-Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
-Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5
-Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Depending on which general-use day-to-day glass from the first group I go with, I might be able to get an UWA as well.
I'm also looking at a few fast primes simply because I love my 50mm f/1.8 (fast and sharp) but 50mm on a 1.6 crop body is a tad much in many situations. I considered the following Canon glass:
-20mm f/2.8
-24mm f/2.8
-28mm f/1.8
-28mm f/2.8
-35mm f/2 <- seems to be the best of the lot and also one of the cheapest, at $300 (overall the group ranges from $250 to $500).
Thoughts? Opinions? Recommendations? Like I said, my main issue is choosing from the first group - the general-use day-to-day lenses that will certainly be used for photoshoots as well.
Thanks :thumb
First, some background. Most of the time my camera is pointed at cars - its the only thing I know how to shoot somewhat decently and its also something that I find the most interesting to shoot; this includes some car shows, group drives, and photoshoots where I have more control. I'm a useless landscape photographer, not very good at architecture, and, quite frankly, I don't even have any fun shooting those. I do sort of like macro shots but a macro lens is for another day - really not a pressing issue by any means. I haven't done much people photography but I'd like to try it out and, in fact, I will do just that in the near future. All that said, my main interest is still automobiles - mostly stills but sometimes at a race. If you'd like an insight into the sort of photography I'm on about, click here. My current gear is listed here.
Now, without going into too much detail, I am faced with a $1500 budget that I'd like to spend on a new lens or lenses. Herein lies my dilemma. While looking at my choices, keep in mind that I'm not too worried about a lens being incompatible with full frame bodies because I'm not planning on going full frame any time soon.
I'd like to upgrade my 18-55mm general-use lens as its the one that I have been using the most by far. I like the focal length range and that it has IS. I dislike the fact that its rather slow at f/3.5-5.6. IQ and sharpness are simply adequate, in my opinion - not bad but I sometimes find myself wishing for more.
-The 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens but its expensive at $1300 (although I can afford it) and the fact that its only 24mm at its widest is slightly off-putting. It also lacks IS but I'm not too concerned about that.
-The $1050 24-105mm f/4L has IS but there is still that wide-end limitation and its also not as fast and I do want to upgrade to fast glass.
-The 17-40mm f/4L ($729) is also on the slower side, 40mm is not that great, and reviews aren't spectacular.
-The 16-35mm f/2.8L lens is the most expensive at over $1400 and the widest of the day-to-day lenses but I'd like more reach than 35mm.
-The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens seems to be right along the lines of what I'm looking for: fast, good range, sharp. However, at $1000, I question its value.
-Last but not least we have the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 ($500) and the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 ($740). Both have wonderful ranges, especially the latter, but I see very mixed reviews in terms of performance.
At the same time, I'd almost love to get my hands on an ultra-wide angle lens. There are various offerings out there and I haven't looked into it that much yet but they range from $420 to $650, with the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 being the outlier at $800. FYI, the third-party ones I also found are:
-Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6
-Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
-Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
-Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
-Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5
-Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Depending on which general-use day-to-day glass from the first group I go with, I might be able to get an UWA as well.
I'm also looking at a few fast primes simply because I love my 50mm f/1.8 (fast and sharp) but 50mm on a 1.6 crop body is a tad much in many situations. I considered the following Canon glass:
-20mm f/2.8
-24mm f/2.8
-28mm f/1.8
-28mm f/2.8
-35mm f/2 <- seems to be the best of the lot and also one of the cheapest, at $300 (overall the group ranges from $250 to $500).
Thoughts? Opinions? Recommendations? Like I said, my main issue is choosing from the first group - the general-use day-to-day lenses that will certainly be used for photoshoots as well.
Thanks :thumb
0
Comments
The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is an "L" lens in everything except build quality and the name. The optics are first-rate and the AF fast and sure. The IS is also very competent and extremely useful. It is simply a lens without peers.
Sure, some folks have a dust problem (which is apparently easily cleared when you wish) and sure, the price is a bit much for the lens construction. The bottom line is, "Does it perform the task of sharp and accurate imaging?" The answer, of course, is a resounding "yes" and it is a lens I would replace ASAP if anything happened to it.
A fair alternative, and one that would leave more money available for another lens, is the Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF). Center sharpness is very nice, even wide open, but edge and corner sharpness not as good as the Canon 17-55mm above. Stop it down a bit and it will reward you with a more even performance. The AF is also slower and noisier (not a concern IMO) and no stabilization in that version. There is a "VC" version of the lens but sharpness overall seems a bit less than the non-VC version.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Interesting...
Canon 14mm is $2200; 15mm is a fisheye; 17mm is TS; 20mm isn't very good. Basically there are no primes suitable for my needs except the expensive 14mm.
That said, I have my tripod during most shoots.
Canon 50D, 350D, 18-55mm IS, 50mm f/1.8, 55-250mm IS
As to the primes: I own the 35mm f/2 and the 28mm f/1.8 with the 35mm f/2 being the winner hands down. It is much sharper and a better performer in low light than the 28mm f/1.8. I've seen a lot of good reviews on the 20mm f/2.8 but have never tried one. I also love my 50mm f/1.4 lens it's not always wide enough but it's a great performer in low light.
Smugmug site
Blog Portfolio
Facebook
and maybe this? http://www.syopt.co.kr/eng/product/8mm.asp
Nah, I don't really want fisheye-level of distortion.
It seems like everyone that owns the 17-55mm swears by it so I'm sure I'd be happy with it. However, I'm interested in seeing if anyone has any complaints about the 15-85mm...
Canon 50D, 350D, 18-55mm IS, 50mm f/1.8, 55-250mm IS
I don't think you'll hear too many complaints about the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM UD. For one it's a very new lens and secondly it's a very capable lens too. It's designed for use in very good light, or for subjects that don't move in less light. It will not trigger the high-precision AF sensor of the camera and the narrower apertures will cause a bit more focus hunting in very low light. At the long end it is 2 stops slower than the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM (1/4 the light transmission) and you need to compensate with a longer exposure or use higher ISOs, or both. Bokeh is another thing that is not as diffuse wide open as the f2.8.
Both are really nice lenses for their intended use but they are very different lenses.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'd say Tammy 17-50 and some primes. Don't forget, if you want more reach there are the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 f2, etc.
Yeah, you know Canon's new 10-500 2.8? It has just as good sharpness/contrast as the 24-70 2.8 IS. Slap it on my 1Ds Mark V and the 100mp really show up! I mean, this lens is amazing. I kinda wish it were 600mm so I could do birding, but how can I complain. Just buy a 600mm f4. Yeah, but I don't have any money after getting the 7D Mark II:cry (But I had to have 25fps for sports shooting). I do wish someone would come out with a Canon to Nikon adapter with AF so I could use it on my old D4<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif" border="0" alt="" >
So yes, it does exist, and it's great if you want to take full advantage of the 4K video on the 1Ds5<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/clap.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Canon 50D, 350D, 18-55mm IS, 50mm f/1.8, 55-250mm IS