New camera, need lens (canon)

mrlarter

So I now have my new Canon 30D, I also now have my Battery grip and strap and about to buy a new memory card in the next few days. So my question is I need to upgrade my lenses. What are your recommendations?

At this point I pretty much use my 50mm religiously where ever I go. but of course will need telephoto lenses and a good standard lens and wide angle for traveling.

I have been eyeing the new Canon 17-85 USM IS lens that was a potential kit for the Canon 30D.

I know of course the L series is the highest quality but at this time is a little out of my price range.

Jeffro

I'm a bit leary of investing in EF-S lenses...if that's the one you are thinking about. I like the fact that my current lens lineup...except the EF-S 18-55 kit lens that came with my Rebel....will work on my film camera, and future Canon digital cameras.

I see the New EFS-17-55 F2.8 IS, is going for $1,149!! Yikes, that would be a huge investment, taking into consideration that it wont work on all the digital Canon bodies. I'd go for the 24-105L F2.8 for the same money before I went with the EF-S lens.

With the prices of what you are looking at being so close to L glass, and considering the focal lengths you have, I would think about saving for that first L glass. You wont regret it. I love all my L glass. I want the 24-70L F2.8 now, and will patiently wait until the day comes that I can get it.

If it's a good season at the track that day may be closer than I think......:D

Good luck with your dessision, as Canon gives us oh so many choices...

mrlarter

what is the lowest priced L series lens?

Jeffro

mrlarter wrote:

what is the lowest priced L series lens?

At B&H the 70-200L F4 is $584.95...great lens, ask anyone.
The 17-40L F4 is $679.95.....great lens, just ask me!:D
The 200L F2.8 II USM is $659.95.

The 70-200 and 17-40 together are only a hundred bucks more than the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS....and in my book will hold their value way longer.

Red Bull

I can tell you that the 70-200 f/4L and the 17-40L are fantastic lenses. My 17-40 practically lives on my camera. Definately worth saving for a bit longer.

claudermilk

Of course the obvious question is what do you need the lens to do? The mentioned lenses all have excellent reputations (I've only used a 70-200/f4, so am only familiar with that--it IS a fantastic lens). However, a 17-40 is useless for sports or birding while the 70-200 probably isn't the first choice for landscapes. So analyze your shooting habits and what is really needed before dropping money just to cover 8-400mm seamlessly.

A very popular walk-around is the 24-105. I have the 24-70 as my mid-rnage zoom & it's well worth the $1k pricetag. Once I have the $1500 for a 70-200/2.8IS I won't worry about spend that on the lens--but I know exactly what I need it for.

As for EF vs EF-S. Only worry about EF-S if you definitely plan of going to a 1.3x or FF body (that would be 1D-series, 5D, or film). The 1.6 bodies will be around for a while. For some people it's an issue, for others sticking with 1.6 crop bodies it's a non-issue.

BTW, for wide angle, the Canon 10-22 is an EF-S, non-L, but a great UWA lens--so the magic red stripe is not necessary (also see the various 50mm "nifty-fifty" "thrifty-fifty" and "plastic fantastic" lenses).

As an example I'll use myself for choosing lenses. First was the kit obviously, then the 50/1.8 Mk I as a cheap stopgap better-quality lens until I settled my wishlist. I shoot dance performances primarily in either coffee shops or smaller "black-box" theaters, to the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8IS are ideal both for fast apertures and focal lengths. I will also be doing landscapes on trips, so the Tokina 12-24 will handl those needs. Less frequently I do racing and some larger venues for dance/theater, so the Sigma 120-300 looks atractive (since I cannot afford the 300/2.8IS). Yes, I intend to have 12-300 more-or less covered, but each lens has a specific purpose in mind. The 24-70 was first as it covered my most common situations, the 12-24 is next as a) I can usually get my hands on a 70-200 when needed, and a vacation later this year provides the perfect excuse.

Jeffro

claudermilk wrote:

However, a 17-40 is useless for sports or birding while the 70-200 probably isn't the first choice for landscapes.

I wouldn't call it usesless in sports..because I have and do use it for a different perspective from time to time, it can give something old a new look. See....

Attachment not found.

BTW this was shot (at 17mm) without a polarizer, but with the Canon UV filter attached, oh and the lens hood.

W.W. Webster

mrlarter wrote:

What are your recommendations?

The first questions are, of course, what do you want to use it for, and also what other lenses might you complement it with in the future as you build up your kit.

However I also suggest you think carefully about whether any EF-S series lens is right for you. The 30D is a great camera, but EF-S lenses cannot be used on EOS 1x and 1.3x crop factor cameras. Is it possible a 1Dxxx or 5D or other full or near full-frame camera yet to come could be in your future? If so, you may wish to steer clear of an EF-S lens.

ChrisJ

I bought my 20D with the 17-85 EF-S lens thinking that if I ever sold the body, then the lens would go with it. I haven't regretted that decision, it's a good (not great) lens with a lot of flexibility.

That being said, my next "stop" is probably the 24-105L. I like the quality of primes, but I've decided I'm a zoomer for most walkabouts.

claudermilk

Jeffro wrote:

I wouldn't call it usesless in sports..because I have and do use it for a different perspective from time to time, it can give something old a new look. See....

Attachment not found.

BTW this was shot (at 17mm) without a polarizer, but with the Canon UV filter attached, oh and the lens hood.

...and thus the exception to my generalization. I was half-expecting someone to pipe up with a picture of some tiny bird whose nose was poked right up to the lens. The point is still valid, some lenses are better suited to some types of shooting than others & tht should be taken into consideration when making a selection.

OT, very cool shot & a good example of thinking outside the box.

mrlarter

sorry I tried to reply to this yesterday but got an error.

Right now i'm mostly taking portrait shots but I want to be doing photo journalism so a good walk around lens is the focus right now.

Jeffro

claudermilk wrote:

...and thus the exception to my generalization. I was half-expecting someone to pipe up with a picture of some tiny bird whose nose was poked right up to the lens. The point is still valid, some lenses are better suited to some types of shooting than others & tht should be taken into consideration when making a selection.

OT, very cool shot & a good example of thinking outside the box.

You're right the point is still valid, as you have to be very close, and going for a certain look with the 17-40 in sports. And thanks...:D

If I were choosing an L walk around lens, I would go for the 24-70 f2.8L, to compliment my 70-200 f2.8L IS.

W.W. Webster

Jeffro wrote:

I would go for the 24-70 f2.8L.

claudermilk

Jeffro wrote:

You're right the point is still valid, as you have to be very close, and going for a certain look with the 17-40 in sports. And thanks...:D

If I were choosing an L walk around lens, I would go for the 24-70 f2.8L, to compliment my 70-200 f2.8L IS.

Those two lenses go together so well it's almost a crime to call your collection complete with only one of them (no, mine is not complete--gotta get the 70-200).

Anyway, the 24-70 or 24-105 both make great walk-around lenses. I have the 24-70 & love it. Oh, almost forgot the 17-85 IS...and I see that they just added a new 18-55/2.8 IS to the line--though those two are EF-S lenses.