Canon lenses for new 400D or 30D

mwgrice

I've decided to buy either a 30D or the new XTI/400D/whatever they're calling it. I've been leaning towards the 400D, but a $200 double rebate puts the 30D under $1000.

Anyway, I'm looking at lenses, and I was wondering if you could tell me if any of these are bad ideas/bad performers or can suggest any alternatives. I'm not going to buy the kit lens.

So what kind of photography do I do? I'm a bit of a generalist (probably too much so, but that's another story). I do landscape, travel and street photography, some portraits, I love night photography, and I'd like to do some macro, and did I mention I'll probably wind up shooting my brother-in-law's wedding?

Here are the lenses I'm thinking of (and no, I'm not going to buy them all):

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM, $585. This looks like the cheapest L.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, $420. I'm looking for a good walking around lens.

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro, $490. I believe I've read on this forum that this is a bargain.

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD, $380. Another candidate for a walking around lens, but an off brand. Is there a decent Canon equivalent that's reasonably priced?

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, $315. Is this a good portrait lens?

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, $80. I've read that the 50mm f/1.8 is supposed to give good results even though it's cheaply made.

Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, $690. Supposed to be a good lens and is at a reasonable price point for me.

At this point I would lean towards the one of the zooms (maybe the Canon 28-135mm), the 50mm and the Tamron macro lens. Or maybe the 70-200mm Canon zoom, the 28-75 Tamron zoom, and the 50mm f/1.8. Or...

One last question--what's with those lens cases that Canon sells? You buy a $500 lens, you think you'd get a case.

jsedlak

I love my Canon 50 f/1.8 and wouldn't imagine going any lower on the FStop. Would be nice for low lit portraits I guess, but the f/1.8 does fine for me, especially considering the price difference. I am guessing that the 1.4 is sharper, and isn't very flimsy around the focusing ring like the f/1.8.

After walking around today in the city I had to keep switching between the 50mm and the kit lens (18-55)... To put it quickly; I will be looking for a 24-105 (?) f4L or the 28-135 IS that you mentioned. I really wish I had a longer focal length than the 18-55 provides, but love the low end wide angle it gives as well. The problem with the kit lense is its low light capabilities compared to the 50 f/1.8.

Then again, I am no pro... so wait for the bigger Canon junkies to chime in... Hope this helped!

Tommyboy

What about a 17-85 for walking around? It's wider than any of the 28s, it's image stablizied (taking away some of the slowness problem) and is reasonablly sharp.

BenA2

Like Tommyboy, I'm surprised the EF-S 17-85 IS isn't on your list. I own one, and it is indeed a solid walk-around, though it won't help out with hand-held night shots and it's not much help at a wedding either. For those, stick with a prime. I just shot a wedding (not actually a wedding photog, just did it for family who's photographer backed out three days before the wedding) almost exclusively with a 70-200 f/4L and a 50 f/1.4. I highly recommend the latter for these two tasks. Although, I have to admit I did shoot some of the formals with the 17-85.

As for walk-around, and to cover your macro shots, the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro is a great alternative. It's cheaper than the 17-85, faster, and it even comes with a hood and a case. It's missing USM and IS, but it's more affordable. Plus, it's getting excellent reviews for image quality and focus speed. It's not a true 1:1 macro, but it should cover things like flower shots very well. I haven't personally held one, but it sounds like the build quality is a step above the 17-85 as well.

mwgrice

BenA2 wrote:

Like Tommyboy, I'm surprised the EF-S 17-85 IS isn't on your list. I own one, and it is indeed a solid walk-around, though it won't help out with hand-held night shots and it's not much help at a wedding either. For those, stick with a prime. I just shot a wedding (not actually a wedding photog, just did it for family who's photographer backed out three days before the wedding) almost exclusively with a 70-200 f/4L and a 50 f/1.4. I highly recommend the latter for these two tasks. Although, I have to admit I did shoot some of the formals with the 17-85.

As for walk-around, and to cover your macro shots, the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro is a great alternative. It's cheaper than the 17-85, faster, and it even comes with a hood and a case. It's missing USM and IS, but it's more affordable. Plus, it's getting excellent reviews for image quality and focus speed. It's not a true 1:1 macro, but it should cover things like flower shots very well. I haven't personally held one, but it sounds like the build quality is a step above the 17-85 as well.

I think I'd confused the 17-85 with another lens that wasn't reviewed well on Amazon. I'm having a little trouble keeping them straight, to be honest. I'll add that to my list of candidates.

System

I'm gonna give a very biased opinion here...

I personally feel that waiting to buy top notch glass is better than buying a full array of mediocre glass. I'd rather have one great lens and wait until I can afford another great lens because I only want my skills to limit my photography, not my equipment. That said, and not knowing your budget, if I could only have one great lens to start with it'd be either the 24-105 f/4L IS or the 70-200 f/2.8L (or IS if you can swing it but it's not a must). I feel they are the most versatile glass Canon makes. They both produce amazing pictures, have top notch build quality and will hold their value for as long as you own them. Of the two I'd lean slightly toward the 24-105 as it offers a nice compromise between reach and size / weight for a walk around or travel lens. I own both and love them, but the 24-105 is the one I struggle to take off the camera becuase it does so much so well.

mwgrice

truth wrote:

I'm gonna give a very biased opinion here...

I personally feel that waiting to buy top notch glass is better than buying a full array of mediocre glass. I'd rather have one great lens and wait until I can afford another great lens because I only want my skills to limit my photography, not my equipment. That said, and not knowing your budget, if I could only have one great lens to start with it'd be either the 24-105 f/4L IS or the 70-200 f/2.8L (or IS if you can swing it but it's not a must). I feel they are the most versatile glass Canon makes. They both produce amazing pictures, have top notch build quality and will hold their value for as long as you own them. Of the two I'd lean slightly toward the 24-105 as it offers a nice compromise between reach and size / weight for a walk around or travel lens. I own both and love them, but the 24-105 is the one I struggle to take off the camera becuase it does so much so well.

Good point. Considering I currently use one lens with a P&S, I wouldn't really be losing anything.

erich6

For value, quality, and focal length coverage I recommend the following:

Canon 17-40 f/4L (awesome for outdoors and sweeping landscapes, great colors and contrast)
Canon 50 mm f/1.4 (this lens is sharp and works well for portraits)
Canon 70-200 f/4L (I recommend the f/2.8L IS but if price is an issue then this lens will work...I just find the IS so useful in this focal length range...also recommend the 1.4x teleconverter).

I had the Canon 70-300 f/3.5-f/5.6 IS and it takes great pictures, black and lightweight, and has pretty decent quality. I just don't like the rotating and extending zoom and focus (I much prefer internal focus/zoom) and the slow/loud autofocus motor. You also have the problem with the initial series of this lens with very soft focus at the long end of the focal range in portrait mode.

The new Canon 70-200 f/4L IS sounds good but for the price you might as well step up to an f/2.8.

Cheers,

Erich

Tommyboy

truth wrote:

I'm gonna give a very biased opinion here...

I personally feel that waiting to buy top notch glass is better than buying a full array of mediocre glass. I'd rather have one great lens and wait until I can afford another great lens because I only want my skills to limit my photography, not my equipment. That said, and not knowing your budget, if I could only have one great lens to start with it'd be either the 24-105 f/4L IS or the 70-200 f/2.8L (or IS if you can swing it but it's not a must). I feel they are the most versatile glass Canon makes. They both produce amazing pictures, have top notch build quality and will hold their value for as long as you own them. Of the two I'd lean slightly toward the 24-105 as it offers a nice compromise between reach and size / weight for a walk around or travel lens. I own both and love them, but the 24-105 is the one I struggle to take off the camera becuase it does so much so well.

I'll add this: Although ancient history, I used to sell 35mm cameras in retail stores and worked for two manufacturers. I had access to all glass, pro, prosumer, consumer, OEM, aftermarket, you name it. In 15 years, I never found an aftermarket lens that was as good as the OEM lens. Cheaper, faster, more features, but not better pictures. All the current players were around then: Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc.

I realize I'm painting with a broad stroke, and I'm talking about older technology, but I strongly agree that the OEM lenses are worth the extra $$. That's my 0.02. I know many others will feel differntly, and I respect their opinions.

Now, how am I going to afford that EF-S 10-22?

BenA2

Tommyboy wrote:

I'll add this: Although ancient history, I used to sell 35mm cameras in retail stores and worked for two manufacturers. I had access to all glass, pro, prosumer, consumer, OEM, aftermarket, you name it. In 15 years, I never found an aftermarket lens that was as good as the OEM lens. Cheaper, faster, more features, but not better pictures. All the current players were around then: Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc.

I realize I'm painting with a broad stroke, and I'm talking about older technology, but I strongly agree that the OEM lenses are worth the extra $$. That's my 0.02. I know many others will feel differntly, and I respect their opinions.

Now, how am I going to afford that EF-S 10-22?

Interesting perspective. I've never shot with Nikon, so I can't speak to Nikor, but I would agree that there are no Canon L lenses that can be beat in image quality by third party lenses of the same focal length and max aperture. However, if you compare consumer-grade lenses, I don't think this is true.

e.g. Canon 28mm f/1.8 vs. Sigma 30mm f/1.4--same price range and close to same lens--I'll take the Sigma any day of the week. But, if you throw the Canon 35mm f/1.4L into the mix, well then, there's no contest.

I'm sure there are many other examples (I know I've read about a few) where Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron are all outperforming Canon non-L glass, and usually for less money.

So, basically, what I think you're saying is, it's always worth it to save for "L" or top-noth EF-S glass (or the Nikor equivalent). I agree in principal. But in practice, it seems to me more important that people get glass in their hands to start taking pictures, improve there skills, and upgrade later and take advantage of the resale market to work their way up to the primo glass.

Together, we've now contributed $0.04.

Now, how am I going to afford that EF 24-105?

System

BenA2 wrote:

Now, how am I going to afford that EF 24-105?

Stop buying so many Sigma lenses!

schmoo

I don't know what the pros will say, but I find myself referring to this site quite a bit when investigating lens possibilities. One nice place to start are his list of recommendations for specific shooting scenerios.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

My next lens upgrade will be the 24-105L for sure! I have the 28-135mm and it served well for a while, but definitely does not give L-quality results.

BenA2

truth wrote:

Stop buying so many Sigma lenses!

Hey, I've got just as much "L"ust as the next guy:D

Actually, Truth, I was going to ask you a question about the 24-105. I see you're recommending it, own it, and use it on a 1.6 crop camera. I really want to replace my 17-85 with this lens as my walk-around on the XT, but I'm having trouble getting over the loss of 17-24. I do have the 10-22 to cover the gap, but I don't like the idea of switching lenses in the walk-around mode.

So, my question for you is, how often do you find yourself wanting a wider angle when you're using the 24-105? I realize this is a highly "personal" question and depends on shooting style, but I'm interested in your perspective.

Thanks.

And to the OP, sorry for the slight thread hijack.

System

I rarely find myself wanting a wider angle though it obviously does happen. I am looking to add a 10-22 EF-S to the collection but it's not as if I feel I'm desperate for it. There are shots I want that the 10-22 would allow for but they are not the bulk of what I do. I guess we adapt our shooting to the lens to some degree. For me I find that with the 24-105 I want more reach more often than I want a wider angle. I don't shoot alot of landscapes or architecture, now is that because I don't have the lens or because I don't have the landscapes I'm not sure. At 24mm the lens is wide enough that for 95% of my shots I can get far enough away to frame what I want. No lens is perfect but I think the 24-105 is the most versatile L glass Canon offers followed closely by the 70-200.

If I had both the 17-85 and the 24-105 and could only take one lens with me on a trip, the 24-105 would always win.

TristanP

erich6 wrote:

For value, quality, and focal length coverage I recommend the following:

Canon 17-40 f/4L (awesome for outdoors and sweeping landscapes, great colors and contrast)
Canon 50 mm f/1.4 (this lens is sharp and works well for portraits)
Canon 70-200 f/4L (I recommend the f/2.8L IS but if price is an issue then this lens will work...I just find the IS so useful in this focal length range...also recommend the 1.4x teleconverter).

I had the Canon 70-300 f/3.5-f/5.6 IS and it takes great pictures, black and lightweight, and has pretty decent quality. I just don't like the rotating and extending zoom and focus (I much prefer internal focus/zoom) and the slow/loud autofocus motor. You also have the problem with the initial series of this lens with very soft focus at the long end of the focal range in portrait mode.

The new Canon 70-200 f/4L IS sounds good but for the price you might as well step up to an f/2.8.

Cheers,

Erich

I agree. Although, if weddings will be a frequent subject in the future, the Tamron 28-75 or Canon 24-70 2.8 lenses are more suitable than the 17-40, I would imagine. The 50/1.4, 17-40, 70-200s, and 24-70 are all part of the double rebates through January, so you can save a little $.

mwgrice

I broke down and bought the 30D, the 10-22mm and the 24-70mm L . I'll buy one of the 70-200mm zooms next year.

justME

I bought a 30D today also! I hope it gets here soon.

mwgrice

justME wrote:

I bought a 30D today also! I hope it gets here soon.

Yeah, I should have shelled out for the faster shipping.:D