Lenses?! 'sea of lenses' is an UNDERSTATEMENT!

rosselliot · July 6, 2006

I'm really sorry to post this, but I've done hours of research and came to absolutely NO conclusions. It's mainly because I'm on a budget - I'm going to get a Canon EOS 30D...and I'm thinking about not getting the lens that comes with it and only getting the body. of course, I'll need lenses, so I that's where I hope someone can help me.
I would like about two lenses for now, one that does well with wide angles, like 18mm or so. then one that will be able to zoom to about 200-300mm or so. I would like them to be versitale.
Mainly I'll be taking pictures on vacation and stuff, I enjoy taking macros, and I'm somewhat of a professional portrait photographer, so taking portraits is a MUST. Events are also important, so low light situations might be a must in some instances...have I narrowed it down to...everything, yet?

Now this is the killer point - I'm hopeing to only have to spend about $500-$600....for both of them....as in...together.

While reading, these things worry me - build, I'd prefer...not plastic, also, some people say that AF is slow. If I'm going to buy a 30D, I don't want to ruin it's potential with bad lenses, but budget is important, and I'd REALLY REALLY REALLY appreciate ANY comments on this and ANY help that y'all could possibliy give...

Thank you SO much!

Sincerely,

Ross Elliot

Red Bull · July 6, 2006

Suggestion #1: Wait a little while longer and save up to get better lenses! If that's not possible at the moment, go on to suggestion #2

Suggestion #2: Look into some Sigma lenses. There are a lot of Sigmas that have just as good quality as Canon lenses, for less! Unfortunately there is no single "do-it-all" magical lens. And since it looks like you do quite a bit of everything, so try and narrow it down.

I'll try and help! So you mainly want (starting with the most important):

Good portrait lens
Good low-light lens
$500-$600
Wide angle and telephoto
Maybe a good macro focus

Here are my suggestions:

-Canon 85mm f/1.8: Great quality glass, sharp, good for low light, great portrait lens. Price: ~$300

-Canon 28-135mm IS f/3.5-5.6: This lens would be a great lens for all your other needs, especially for traveling with. It's light weight, pretty good zoom range, and affordable! Not to mention it has Image Stabilization. Price: ~$400

If you want to get a good telephoto lens, you may have to wait and save up a while. A good telephoto lens will cost much more than most lense if you want really good quality. I would suggest a Canon 70-300mm IS, the newest one. From what I hear it gives suprisingly good results. It costs about $600, though.

Nikolai · July 7, 2006

-re-
I was in your shoes about a year ago... I got enough funds to get a new 20D, but not nearly enough to get anything else besides 18-55 "kit" lens. Since there was absolutely no point to get a body without any lens, I went with it.

Well, to say that I was frustrated with it would be an understatement of the millennium. I still owned Sony 828 at the time, and my Sony shots were waaaaaay better than Canon ones..

I tried really hard, but nothing has changed. I started to become suspicious: maybe it's a glass. Little by little, I got additional funds and started to buy a better glass (and sell the one I didn't need). Situation started to improve drastically. Of course, I also learned the camera more (and, in the end, upgraded it to 30D when the latter became available), but I reckoned the glass was the reason, so I kept on purchasing a better glass...
My latest addition was 70-200 f/2.8 IS:-). It's not a cheap lens, by all means. And thus far it's the only L I own. But I'm working on it:-). I'm OK with the lenses I have for now (EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-85, EF 70-200L f/2.8 IS, EF 50 f/1.8, TC 1.4x) and will keep upgrading this collection.

There is no way I would have been able to get this set for the $500-$600. It took me about 9 months (and considerably larger amount of $$$). It does take time and/or money.

I had my priorities, I presume you have yours. I really like 17-85 as a universal one. I like it much better than 28-135 (which I had and then sold). I also like 50 f/1.8 as an "el cheapo portrait lens", you can't beat the price. These two probably can fit your bill.

So, I'd say: start getting what you can, and later upgrade to what you want.
It gives you an opportunity to experiment and actually realize what is it that you want/need most. No one else has the same needs as you do. And the only way to find out is to play with them. The good thing - glass keeps its value. It's not uncommon to get a $1000 lens and sell it for $995 6 months later, provided you took a good care of it. Hence - no fear! Go have a ball:-)

HTH

Artur C. · July 7, 2006

Hmm
Ross,

That is a bit of a quandry, partially because any lens that's considered low light sits at around f2.8 or something higher with IS, and they don't come cheap.

My recommendation is the Canon EF 28-135 USM IS. The quality of this lens is quite good, it's a great walkaround lens and it will "strech" considering the crop factor of the camera.

While I love my L glass, there is a fairly cheap wide angle lens that works beautifully. It's the Tamron 19-35. 2mm is taking away a bit from the wide part of 17mm, but as I've replaced my lenses over the years, this one is always in my bag. Well built, small, image quality is excellent, great autofocus, comes with a lens hood and it's priced around $200. It's worth taking a look at.

As far as portraits go... well ulitmately you will need to dump some cash on this if you are serious about it. The key here is something that is fast, and as we know fast=$$$, but at 135mm the Canon IS is quite capable as a portrait lens wide open.

Just my humble suggestions...

-Art

http://www.north-scapes.com

ziggy53 · July 7, 2006

Ross,

If you haven't purchased the 30D, I would like you to seriously reconsider.

Right now, the dRebel 350/XT is available from B and H, with the "kit" lens, for $650 after rebate. This is a great body, capable of producing similar images to the 30D.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=371191&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

The 30D is a great camera, to be sure, but it is not so much better than the XT, certainly not twice the camera.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos350d%2Ccanon_eos30d&show=all

Couple this to two great lenses, the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 ($409), and the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L (non IS)($1100), and you have a great basic kit that is capable of most common shooting scenarios. You are still close to your original budget. You will notice the effects of the better glass way before you notice the differences in the bodies.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=91680&is=GREY&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=340169&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

If you need to save some initial cash, the Canon f4L version of the 70-200mm is also a great lens to substitute for the f2.8 version. The 2.8 aperture is better for some types of portraiture, which is why I still recommend it for you.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183198&is=GREY&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Best,

ziggy53

Nikolai · July 7, 2006

350XT vs 30D
Ziggy brought a very nice point: cheaper body, better glass.

However, IMHO, in the long run you'll lose more money this way. With 30D still "new" and going for only $1,200+ (or even cheaper if you look at andybay or fm, there were some awesome deals on it just recently) you'll have at least two years for this body. At that point you'll be able to sell it for at least $800 (or more), thus consuming about $400. I'm not sure if you be able to sell XT in two years...

And while I'm all for better glass (which you will get eventually), I honestly think having a nice body adds to the UPO (ultimate pride of ownership:-). There won't be a day passing by that you won't be thinking of a faster buffer, bigger LCD, spot metering and all the other niceties...

Just thinking out loud...

Jeffro · July 7, 2006

I would also back off the 30D if you can't afford good glass. I first bought the Digital Rebel (300D) and added some good glass next, 300L F4 IS, 17-40L F4, and then the 70-200L F2.8 IS. I quickly realized I wanted more camera, thus my move to the 20D. The Rebel is my back up. It takes great pictures, but lacks some great features, and the build of the 20D.

The Rebel XT has replaced the Digital Rebel. The XT has more megs than the Rebel, and more FPS as well. The size is smaller, it feels less like an SLR to me, and more like a point and shoot. I don't like how whe dial sits up on top of the camera either. Now most of that is a matter of taste, mainly mine. The 20D, which has been replaced by the 30D, has a better build than the XT, and in my opinion a better feel. The 30D has a few extras, such as a bigger LCD that if money weren't a concern I'd say buy the 30D. You may be able to find a 20D fairly resonably priced. I'd suggest going to the camera store and holding all of them.

If you get a 20D or XT you can spend the extra cash on lenses, or a lens. I would try for an L-series lens, they add more to the image than the camera does (IMO). This one is a pretty good all around choice...24-105L F4 IS but it's $1,200..

. The 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS is only $419....both at B&H.

Digital Rebel...$549.00 (black body)
XT...............$564.00 (silver body)
20D..............$999.95
30D............ $1279.95

All from B&H...which I own no stock in at all!

You could save some major cash by stepping back.

All cameras take "similar" pictures, it takes the photographer to make them special!

Steve Cavigliano · July 7, 2006

Ross,
I agree with all that suggest you get a less expensive body and apply the savings towards better glass.

IQ from an XT versus the 30D is almost the same (it should be the same CR2 vs CR2 files). Yes, you don't get some of the really kewl features of the 30D, or even the 20D. But, as Nik points out, you really can SEE the difference between good lenses and very good, or excellent lenses.

The 28-135IS is a good lens. I have seen many very nice shots taken with this lens. But, you will see the difference between most of the shots you capture with it and lenses that are a step up. A step up in performance and, unfortunately, a step up in price.

FWIW, you are going to have a hard time covering your 18mm wide length. Most of the 10/11-20/22mm lenses work best mid-zoom. So that's 15-16mms. Add the 1.6x crop and you are at a 24mm, or narrower FOV. Unless you were already taking the multiplier into account. Anyway most of these super wide zooms are not only pricey but most, if not all, are only designed to be used on less than full frame cameras. Same as the "good" kit lenses.

Personally, besides the XT suggestion I would like to suggest getting it with the 18-55 kit lens. My thinking is that this will give you 29mms in a pinch and stopped down and zoomed around mid-zoom, it isn't bad at all

Then you can cover your most used focal lengths with one, or two, very good lens. Like perhaps the 70-200F4L. And/Or, possibly something shorter (28-75 Tamron, 24-70 Sigma), for a walkaround lens.

For what you were going to spend on the 30D and lens, you could pick up one quality long zoom and a quality wide/normal zoom and slap them on an XT and be delighted with the results

Try it, you'll like it

Steve

rosselliot · July 8, 2006

Decision made?!
okay...I REALLY appreciate all of the input. and in my research I learned more than ever about lenses and photography in general! so I'm really excited now about getting my next camera!

Now, I do understand the opinion that I should just get a lesser body and pay more for the glass, but truth be known, I need to be able to get QUITE a few years from this camera, and in 1-2 years, when 2.5" LCDs will be considered mediocre, and when I'll wish I had more auto focus points, etc...I don't want to regret not spending the extra 200-500 now and get the best of the best. but I can definitely see the reasoning behind the other; however, I can justify both of them....but 30D I think is the best for me now to save me time and trouble in the future.

I took into consideration all of the views on the lenses, looked at the ones that were WAY too expensive and looked at what the guy at www.the-digital-picture.com/ said and think I have come up with a plan...

I am still planning on getting the Canon EOS 30D with no kit lens.
I planning on buying TWO lenses to last me a few months while I wait until I buy a really good lens to cover the focal lengths that I'm missing. Those two lenses are:
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens - $314.95
The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens - $544.95

now, I know those are more expensive than the original budget I gave y'all to work with, but because of y'all's posts, I took everything into consideration and decided 'why spend 3/4 of the price of a GREAT lens for a mediocre one? why not just spend the 25% more?!" so I found two with great reviews and I thought the f-stops seems to be useful and I think the 70-200 will prove useful as my walk-around lens. and the 85mm will be good for indoor parties etc, right? because of the low f/stop and all? I'll be needing a wide angle lens, but I don't need it immediately, that'll come soon along with a macro lens.

Do y'all think those are a good choice?! I sure hope so, I've spent forever on it. but again - I'm all new to this, and the only thing I'm going is the reviews I've read, I'd like the opinion of professionals like y'all! I'd REALLY appreciate any help, comments, and ideas!!!

- RE

Nikolai · July 8, 2006

Ross,
I totally on the same bandwagon with you body-wise

Now, while I can agree about 70-200 f/4, I kinda think that you may consider a wider prime, e.g. 50mm f/1.4? Considering the unavoidable crop factor on non FF bodies, 85mm is a bit too narrow for a portrait work, unless you're not talking ball rooms or wanna shoot more than a face only..

That link shows the price under $300 (rebate is valid until 7/16/2006; and no, I'm not affiliated with that site, although I am a satisfied customer), so it's kinda better from every point of view...

This way you will also put your foot into a door to a wider part of the world.
EDIT: Or you may even save extra ~$200 and simply get "plastic fantastic" EF 50mm f/1.8. If you like it and use it a lot, you can always upgrade...

HTH

Pezpix · July 8, 2006

Nikolai wrote:

I totally on the same bandwagon with you body-wise

Now, while I can agree about 70-200 f/4, I kinda think that you may consider a wider prime, e.g. 50mm f/1.4? Considering the unavoidable crop factor on non FF bodies, 85mm is a bit too narrow for a portrait work, unless you're not talking ball rooms or wanna shoot more than a face only..

That link shows the price under $300 (rebate is valid until 7/16/2006; and no, I'm not affiliated with that site, although I am a satisfied customer), so it's kinda better from every point of view...

This way you will also put your foot into a door to a wider part of the world.
EDIT: Or you may even save extra ~$200 and simply get "plastic fantastic" EF 50mm f/1.8. If you like it and use it a lot, you can always upgrade...

HTH

Ah, the "nifty fifty" aka "plastic fantastic". You just cant go wrong with a sub-$100 lens with that kind of apature and handy length, especially on 1.6x factor cameras!

Red Bull · July 8, 2006

Have you thought about a Sigma 30mm f/1.4? I've read great reviews on it. Of course that's if you want a wider prime.

I also agree with Nik about the 50mm 1.8. I have it and it's great for low light. With your budget, you can't afford not to have one at only $80!

rosselliot · July 8, 2006

Okay....try NUMBER TWO:

DOUBLE TAKE...

Summary:
Canon EOS 30D - $1,294.89
The Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Lens - $229.95
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens - $544.95
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens - $79.95

Total (with all 3 lenses) - $2149.74

Does that seem like a good kit for what I plan to do? 70-200 is the number one recommended lens for portraits, the 35 and 50 are both wide angled, and okay in low-light situations, landscape and stuff will be covered...by at least one, right???

Can't wait to hear everyone's ideas, this is so helpful!!! I REALLY appreciate all of y'all's help!

- RE

Nikolai · July 8, 2006

Ross,

rosselliot wrote:

70-200 is the number one recommended lens for portraits, the 35 and 50 are both wide angled, and okay in low-light situations, landscape and stuff will be covered...by at least one, right???

Can't wait to hear everyone's ideas, this is so helpful!!! I REALLY appreciate all of y'all's help!

- RE

This may sound as a neatpicking, but... While 70-200 f/4 is a very nice lens, I would not necessarily call it a portrait lens (that is unless you go for a tele-candids). It's not fast enough, and it's kinda long, considering 1.6 FOV crop.

I also don't know much about that 35mm

I'm using EF-S 10-22 for wide angle, and, man, sometimes I wish I could to go wider...

That been said, I think you got yourself covered

.

Jeffro · July 8, 2006

rosselliot wrote:

Summary:
Canon EOS 30D - $1,294.89
The Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Lens - $229.95
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens - $544.95
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens - $79.95

Total (with all 3 lenses) - $2149.74

With the 35mm being so close to the 50mm why not consider a lens that is wider than 50, and zooms to the 70 length?

Maybe...

Canon 30D
Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 II USM
Canon 70-200L F4
Canon 50 F1.8 II

I use my 70-200L F2.8 IS for single portraits quite often @ 70mm. As you can see in my signature I have all these lenses (except for the fact I have the 2.8 IS version of the 70-200) and they all perfrom great.

No matter what you get you will always want more. Having a "kit" that covers a wide assortment of lenses is a good start, from there you can start saving more more L's!! I know I want more!!:D

In the end how you start is totally up to you! Good luck!

rosselliot · July 8, 2006

okay guys,

TAKE THREE:

Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens - $419.95
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens - $544.95
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens - $79.95

That's more than I was hoping to spend...by far, but as I've learned from research and y'all's posts, quality is expensive!! and I don't want crappy lenses...even if they ARE my first lenses.

is this is the final draft? or more changes....?!

haha

Thanks again,

Ross

Jeffro · July 8, 2006

rosselliot wrote:

okay guys,

TAKE THREE:

Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens - $419.95
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens - $544.95
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens - $79.95

That's more than I was hoping to spend...by far, but as I've learned from research and y'all's posts, quality is expensive!! and I don't want crappy lenses...even if they ARE my first lenses.

is this is the final draft? or more changes....?! haha

Thanks again,

Ross

Go buy them! Start shooting! Procrastination is getting you (us) nowhere!

Mongrel · July 8, 2006

Sorry, Ross you're not done yet....

rosselliot wrote:

okay guys,

TAKE THREE:

Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens - $419.95
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens - $544.95
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens - $79.95

That's more than I was hoping to spend...by far, but as I've learned from research and y'all's posts, quality is expensive!! and I don't want crappy lenses...even if they ARE my first lenses.

is this is the final draft? or more changes....?! haha

Thanks again,

Ross

Here's why...

BOTTOM LINE: You WILL NOT be happy with the 'wide' end of the 28-135 on a 1.6 cropper (30D). Trust me, it's way too tight for *so many* shots you'd be kickin' yourself.

Get the 30D with the 17-85 IS 'kit'
Get the Canon 55-200 USM (trust me...)
Get the 50mm f/1.8

This is as perfect a starting kit as I can think of for your needs at this point.

Got to run, their lighting the candles on my daughter's birthday cake...

I'll be back to explain further....

Nikolai · July 8, 2006

Agree with Mongrel

Mongrel wrote:

You WILL NOT be happy with the 'wide' end of the 28-135 on a 1.6 cropper (30D). Trust me, it's way too tight for *so many* shots you'd be kickin' yourself.
Get the 30D with the 17-85 IS 'kit'

I vote for 17-85 IS USM. I had both 28-135 IS USM and 17-85 IS USM, found the latter way more useful - for me, that is...

My personal current lineup, in case you're curious (yes, lots of EF-S, but hey, I have EF-S compatible 30D, why not take advantage of that

):

EF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-85 IS USM
EF 50mm f/1.8
EF 70-200L f/2.8 IS (I have been saving for ~9 months to get this one:-)
TC 1.4x

And, by the way, dont' forget the filters.. they will add to expenses fast....

HTH

Jeffro · July 8, 2006

This is for starters.......so start. Everyone is going to have their own choices, their own reasons...in the end it's you that has to be pleased with the choice. And if your next lens isn't going to be that far off, I'd start with you last pick. Then see where you want to go from there, wider, faster, longer, closer....there are endless choices.

You have to "START" somewhere.......:D

Red Bull · July 8, 2006

I think Ross' current choise is pretty good. I mean, I started off with my 20D and only the 18-55. It served me well for 6 months until I bought the 70-200L. Those 2 then served me well until I got the 17-40L a few months later. I think what she has is fine. Like Jeffro said, you have to start somewhere. You can't have it all at one time! (Unless you are Andy

)

I think you should get the kit lens because it's not that bad if you get some practice with it. It will also get you to 18mm which isn't bad for the price of it. It only costs what, 100 more bucks to get it? Like I said I survived with only that lens for quite a while!

rosselliot · July 8, 2006

Okay - decision made.
I guess I'll go "start"!

Can't wait to post "I finally got my fist DSLR!!!!" haha.

Thanks for EVERYONE'S opinions and ideas, I really appreciate all of the help! it's really been informative for me.

Thanks,

Ross

luckyrwe · July 9, 2006

I would only buy Canon glass. Go ahead and buy the "lesser" lens than you want so that you have something. Then when the day comes to trade up, you will find that you will received about 90% of your money back when you sell the lens. I have sold and bought lenses here and we sell amongst ourselves rather often, and I love that.

Plusn there are times when you want to take a $300 lens with you instead of a $3000 lens. They all have their purposes.

rosselliot · July 9, 2006

are y'all going to kill me for posting....again?

I'm so sorry - - - - but I have another question

I've been looking at pbase at the camera database at the 17-85mm lens...and I'm not that impressed. maybe it's the photographers (could be, it is pbase), but the lens should help a bit....so is the 17-85 worth the $509?

or should I spend that oney on the 100mm macro or some other lens that has a similar mm range as the 17-85?!

thanks again,

ross

Nikolai · July 9, 2006

17-85: I love it..

rosselliot wrote:

are y'all going to kill me for posting....again?

I'm so sorry - - - - but I have another question

I've been looking at pbase at the camera database at the 17-85mm lens...and I'm not that impressed. maybe it's the photographers (could be, it is pbase), but the lens should help a bit....so is the 17-85 worth the $509?

or should I spend that oney on the 100mm macro or some other lens that has a similar mm range as the 17-85?!

thanks again,

ross

I wouldn't hold it against any lens just because somebody does not know how to shoot

I know, it's not an L one, but it also does not cost an arm and a leg.
As I mentioned before, it's my workaround lens. Here are a few samples. See if you like its performance...

HTH

RedSox · July 10, 2006

rosselliot wrote:

are y'all going to kill me for posting....again?

I'm so sorry - - - - but I have another question

I've been looking at pbase at the camera database at the 17-85mm lens...and I'm not that impressed. maybe it's the photographers (could be, it is pbase), but the lens should help a bit....so is the 17-85 worth the $509?

or should I spend that oney on the 100mm macro or some other lens that has a similar mm range as the 17-85?!

thanks again,

ross

There is a detailed review here

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm

I personally never played with this lens. But according to the review it is not so great at the corner especially wide open. You really have to stop down to F/8 and above 24mm to get arround with the Vignetting. It is very sharp in the center area but really soft at the extreme corner if you really care and finally CA could be a problem if you shoot wide open. Nikolai's pictures look very nice, but I cannot tell if these are wide open at wide end of the zoom as there is no EXIF data.

I am new to the DSLR too, personally, I would rather buy less quality lenses than buy compromise lenses. If I were you, I would buy the Kit lens and practice with it, Upgrade to L once you have the fund, you learnt and know what you really want.

claudermilk · July 10, 2006

OK, here's another idea. For that kind of money on the wide end take a look at the Canon 10-22 (~$600) or Tokina 12-24 (my next purchase, ~$470). Coupled with the 50/1.8 and 70-200/4 IMHO is a high-quality starting point. Later add a 24-70 or 24-105 for a walk-around & you'll have top-quality glass for most uses. If budget is straining, don't get them all at once, pick the length you'll need first & start with that; then add more lenses later. That's where I'm still at (12-24 next, then the 70-200/2.8IS next year & Sigma 120-300 the following--it'll take a while but the end kit will be top quality & last a long time).

The 70-200/4 makes a great close up/head-and-shoulders portrait lens--I've used that very lens for that purpose with excellent results.

TristanP · July 11, 2006

I'll throw my 2 cents in here.

Save the $300 and go for the 20D. Couple it with the 50/1.8 for low-light, Sigma 18-50/2.8 for wide/walkaround, and the 70-200/4 or 70-300/4-5.6 IS for tele work. The 20D doesn't have the larger LCD or spot metering of the 30D. Otherwise, they're about the same (certainly the same sensor). I found the 350D/Rebel XT too small for me to use comfortably, so paid the extra $ for the 20D. Whatever you do, if the Rebel XT, 70-200/4, or 70-300 are on your list, get them before the rebates end on 7/15 (?). That'll save a little.

Rebate details and pdf link

Lenses?! 'sea of lenses' is an UNDERSTATEMENT!

Comments