What to add to my kit??? Advice needed

tshaddick

Hi All,

I am planning on investing in a new camera lens and would like some input.

For camera bodies I have a Canon 7d and T2i.

Lenses:
18-55 (kit lens came with the T2i).
300L 2.8
100-400 L 4-5.6
100mm L Macro

I am looking for a lens to replace the 18-55 kit lens. If possible I would like 1 lens that would work well for both family potraits and landscapes. And I would prefer a 2.8 L series lens. As for price, I'm open but would like some "cheaper" options, and some "more expensive" options. Clearly anything that I would buy would be better than the kit lens, but there are so many options out there, I just don't know what to pick (maybe that's why I still have my kit lens after 3 years).

Any comments/experiences would be appreciated.

SimpsonBrothers

Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX

borrowlenses.com

Family portraits *and* landscapes? Based on your criteria the only options are the 24-70 L or the 16-35 L . Both are great! I'd lean towards the 24-70 f/2.8 L though.

tshaddick

I'd be willing to get two separate lenses, one for portraits and one for landscapes. The problem is carrying around all the different lenses. My bag is running out of room, and I am running out or strength to carry it all. Haha.

catspaw

Canon's 24-70 f/2.8 L is the ONLY one I'd think of, if you can swing the price

otherwise for landscapes, you could look at some of Canon's wide primes.

tkePhotography

Get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Though I have never owned it, it is a very well-regarded lens. It's an EF-S lens so if you ever go full frame you can't use it there.

cab.in.boston

I'm not a Canonite, but from what I've heard, why not the 17-55 2.8? I know it's not officially an "L," but for the crop sensors, that's a range that I prefer vs. 24-70.

ziggy53

For family/group portraits I can vouch for the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM. It is fast and accurate to focus and it has some applications for landscapes too since it can go from around twice normal FOV through a mild telephoto. The IS is real and welcome and surprisingly useful.

The optics are very much "L" territory but the build quality is prosumer.

ThatCanonGuy

I'd say the 24-105, but that's f4. Your options are the 24-70L, 16-35L (not that good FL for portraits), 17-55, or 3rd party. For portraits the 85 1.8 and 100 f2 are great.

I'd go with the 16-35 2.8 /17-40 f4 (but it's f4) and the 85 1.8/100 f2.

Edit: Oh wait, I guess I misssed the 100L part of your post.... family portraits would be pretty wide-angle, right? If they're big groups, I guess. Sounds like the 16-35 would be nice, or the 17-55 if you're not planning on going full frame. That leaves 36-99/56-99 uncovered, but it sounds like you don't use that FL much (you don't have 56-99 now).

DavidTO

The Tamron 17-50. Or for a little more the IS version (VC in their lingo).

Art Scott

SimpsonBrothers wrote: »

Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX

agree I have used this lens for a very long time on film cameras and also my Konica Minolta 7D's and it is super tack sharp and worked very well for my uses: landscape, portraits and weddings...also flower "macros" (it is not a true macro lens but rather a very close focusing lens....)......or if you do not need constant aperture save a bit of money by purchasing the the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4......

DavidTO

I wouldn't want to be stuck at 24mm as my widest focal length on a crop frame body.

Art Scott

DavidTO wrote: »

I wouldn't want to be stuck at 24mm as my widest focal length on a crop frame body.

Each to his/her own..............

I have not found it to be limiting in my 30+ yrs experience......

DavidTO

Art Scott wrote: »

Each to his/her own..............

I have not found it to be limiting in my 30+ yrs experience......

Sure. It all depends on what you're shooting.

davev

If you can live without the f2.8, a Canon 15-85is is a very nice lens.

divamum

Tamron 17-50 2.8 (either V1 or V2 with their equivalent of IS) are worth mentioning as alternatives to the more expensive Canon 17-55is. The focus isn't as fast or silent as the Canon USM AF, but it's optically terrific and a very reliable performer. The Mk 1 can be found for ~$300 used and is worth every penny.

Brett1000

tshaddick wrote: »

Hi All,

I am planning on investing in a new camera lens and would like some input.

For camera bodies I have a Canon 7d and T2i.

Lenses:
18-55 (kit lens came with the T2i).
300L 2.8
100-400 L 4-5.6
100mm L Macro

I am looking for a lens to replace the 18-55 kit lens. If possible I would like 1 lens that would work well for both family potraits and landscapes. And I would prefer a 2.8 L series lens. As for price, I'm open but would like some "cheaper" options, and some "more expensive" options. Clearly anything that I would buy would be better than the kit lens, but there are so many options out there, I just don't know what to pick (maybe that's why I still have my kit lens after 3 years).

Any comments/experiences would be appreciated.

Depending on your budget, Canon 17-55 2.8, Sigma 17-50 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8
For family events buy some lighting equipment for the best return on investment

adi_190

Why don't you go for Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS produces a shallow depth-of-field good for portraits.

Manfr3d

ziggy53 wrote: »

For family/group portraits I can vouch for the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM. It is fast and accurate to focus and it has some applications for landscapes too since it can go from around twice normal FOV through a mild telephoto. The IS is real and welcome and surprisingly useful.

The optics are very much "L" territory but the build quality is prosumer.

+1

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC should also be considered.
It's very good yet cheaper.

chrisjohnson

I would dump the cheap and cheerful kit lens in the mainstream of where most people take most photos.

I can vouch for the EF-S 17-55 f2.8. Of course if you want to build your L collection and think of moving to FF then you might prefer the L24-70 f 2.8. Given your preference for f2.8 there are not that many choices.