I'll admit..I'm a lens dummy

cdonovan · October 27, 2007

I'm wanting to upgrade again, I'm extremly pleased with my last purchase 70-200 IS USM 2.8f, but now I need to upgrade to something better for a different use. I'm looking for wide angle and something that I can use inside.(protraits, weddings) I have a 430EX speedlight, so I do have on board flash as a backup. I've looked at so many different lenses and I'm really not sure what would best fit my needs and budget.

I'm looking to spend max $500.

acouple that look appealing to me are...

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II USM Zoom Lens

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Telephoto Lens

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Wide Angle Lens

What would you recommend and why!
Thanks in advance

z_28 · October 27, 2007

All three lenses (except kit lens) are good choices.
50/1.8 is so cheap and so good so every Canon user should got one in a bag.
85/1.8 is all time everyone favorite.
35/2 is a hidden treasure, my sweet recommendation.

You don't have wide lens in your list but you want one !
16-35L is usually the best choice, but priced.
There is budget option - Tamron 17-50/2.8 - maybe it will fit your needs ?

ziggy53 · October 27, 2007

For weddings I tend to go with fast zooms, because you often have little opportunity to change lenses. The exception is in a very dark church during the ceremony, where a fast prime might be indicated.

For portraiture on a crop camera, the Canon EF 50mm, f1.8, EF 50mm, f1.4, EF 85mm, f1.8 and EF 85mm, f1.2L are all pretty good choices for head shots and head-and-shoulders and even 3/4 length shots, given space. (Yes, the 85mm, f1.2L is far outside your limit, for now.)

I'll use the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L for some portraits as well.

For group shots, I head for a zoom again.

For reception and event work, I'll use anything from the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC or Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L, to the Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L, or Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L, depending on the venue and camera.

Scott_Quier · October 29, 2007

Lenses don't get much better than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS so we're not talking so much about an upgrade as we are about adding to your kit - always a good idea

All the lenses you mention, aside from the 18-55, are well worth looking at.

The 50 f/.8 is a nice lens, especially for the price. It does have some down sides:

Aside from the actaul lens elements and focusing motor, it's all plastice
It tends to hunt really bad in dimmer situations - kinda offset the advantage of the f/1.8
My copy often missed focus
The brokah is created by a 5-bladed aperture - so you OOF hightlights will be in the shape of a pentagon - usually not pleasing

In the 50mm range, I would think that the 1.4 would be a better choice - it was for me.

The 85 f/1.8 is a dream lens. Can't comment on the 85 f/1.2 as I've never even seen one.

Anyway, like Ziggy said, the 50 and 85 are very good for portraits. I also use my 70-200 for this as well.

For group shots, the 50 on a crop-sensor camera is just a bit too narrow. I usually use my 17-55, very much at the shorter end. This is a great lens, but a touch outside your stated price range though B&H has a special on it right now for $854 (see this thread)

Have you considered the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? My copy is very sharp and the build quality is very hard to beat. Nice lens. B&H has it for $430 + s/h

I would definitely NOT consider the 18-55. I've seen some good images from this lens, but usually only after it's been stopped down to something like f/8. I've played with a couple of copies of it and found that there is considerable vignetting at the short end and opened up.

claudermilk · October 29, 2007

Like the rest I wouldn't recommend the 18-55. It's ok, within situations a typical P&S can handle, so loses much of the advantage a DSLR gives. You're also spoiled by L glass already.

I have a 50/1.8 Mk I & what has been said about it already is all true. I've used the f1.4 and f1.2 versions as well. Both are nicer overall. I keep waffling between keeping my 50 or swapping it for the 1.4. The 1.2 is too darn expensive, so that's out. Same problem with the 85/1.2; I've used that as well & it's an awesome lens, but is over $1k so more than double your budget.

It's too bad the budget is only $500. The 24-70/2.8L makes a very nice companion to the 70-200/2.8L & is a very popular wedding lens. My impression is the "default wedding photog kit" is those two lenses from comments I've read over a couple of years.

Scott_Quier · October 29, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

The 24-70/2.8L makes a very nice companion to the 70-200/2.8L & is a very popular wedding lens. My impression is the "default wedding photog kit" is those two lenses from comments I've read over a couple of years.

For weddings, this would be a good lens on FF camera. On the 1.6 crop, it's a little too narrow FOV. That's why many with the 20D/30D/40D cameras have opted for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

niimo · October 30, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

For weddings, this would be a good lens on FF camera. On the 1.6 crop, it's a little too narrow FOV. That's why many with the 20D/30D/40D cameras have opted for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

I would have to agree, and i have never even used a 24-70. I own a 16-35mm 2.8L and often times on my 30D I was surprised to find myself wanting wider. I mean, it is a fantastically sharp zoom, and I love it.. but I can't wait to use it on a 5D.

50/1.8 and 1.4, 85/1.8, all fantastic lenses, I've owned them all at some point. It's been argued that the 1.8 isn't as sharp as the other two, maybe so. Nevertheless, it is impressively sharp and quick and light. I was always impressed by the results. And heck, you're paying a fraction of the cost, right?

Havelock · October 30, 2007

50 mm f/1.8 is a great value for money. Mine is noisy as a horse cart but I just don't mind - photos are not affected by noise! I use it for portraits on a 1.6 crop.
Note, that if you're looking for wide angle on a crop dslr, none of the lens you mentioned meet this requirement.

claudermilk · October 30, 2007

Scott_Quier wrote:

For weddings, this would be a good lens on FF camera. On the 1.6 crop, it's a little too narrow FOV. That's why many with the 20D/30D/40D cameras have opted for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

That all depends on your personal opinion. I'm quite happy with the 24-70 on my 20D. I know some swear it's an awful range on a crop body (35mm FOV equivalent of 38-112mm) & only consider the 17-55. That's fine, I just don't necessarily agree. In the couple of weddings I have shot (friends & family), I was perfectly happy with the range; I didn't have the 70-200 yet & did miss the longer glass.

cdonovan · November 6, 2007

thank you everyone for your help! I am really a dummy, so it's nice to know where to go for good info...I am picking up a 50mm f1.8 later today, thought this would be a good start, and then we'll see what happens when my year end bonus comes in!

Scott you're very astout...not an upgrade...rather an addition!!!

This upgrade from my other "little lens" is much less painful than the "L" upgrade!!!

StephaneB · November 7, 2007

Beware of 85/1.8 for interior shots
I sold my 85/1.8 because it is very sensitive to flare caused by brigh windows near the field of view. They don't need to be visible in the image.

Most probably a longer shade would cure the problem, but I sold it and replaced it with the 100 Macro.

I did it because of the second complain I had with the 85. I use a 5D and on a full frame you can't get a tight head shot because the minimum focusing distance is too long. Of course the macro lens cures that nicely

The third flaw is that I don't find it all that good wide open. I find it soft at 1.8. It becomes sharp at f/2.8, but not as sharp as the 100 macro. That one is wickedly sharp and produces a beautiful soft bokeh.

cdonovan · March 12, 2008

bumping this up again as I'm going to be shopping again soon.:D

So I have the 70-200mm still and I did purchase the 50mm 1.8

What I wish to do with the new lens is use it for portraits, and weddings(receptions, so with that low light possibilities)

Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Zoom lens $459(vistek)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3327&navigator=6

Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX Macro Lens $529(vistek)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3328&navigator=6

K...here comes the dummy again

I get confused and scared when macro is thrown around...does this mean it will allow for macro in addition to the regular range. I started out with a Tamron 70-300mm 4.5 + macro (it had a little button to shift to macro!)

I read their comparison and it sounds like the 18-50 is what I should aim for as it stays at f2.8 through the entire range. where the other does vary up to f4.5

Is this Sigmas reply to canons 17-55 IS USM without the IS and then without the price point too? It's all starting to run together online, with the shopping...my range is still about the same...I'd to just drop the bomb and grab the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM but I'd hafta rob a bank:cry

Thanks in advance folks!

ziggy53 · March 12, 2008

cdonovan wrote:

bumping this up again as I'm going to be shopping again soon.:D

So I have the 70-200mm still and I did purchase the 50mm 1.8

What I wish to do with the new lens is use it for portraits, and weddings(receptions, so with that low light possibilities)

Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Zoom lens $459(vistek)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3327&navigator=6

Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX Macro Lens $529(vistek)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3328&navigator=6

K...here comes the dummy again

I get confused and scared when macro is thrown around...does this mean it will allow for macro in addition to the regular range. I started out with a Tamron 70-300mm 4.5 + macro (it had a little button to shift to macro!)

I read their comparison and it sounds like the 18-50 is what I should aim for as it stays at f2.8 through the entire range. where the other does vary up to f4.5

Is this Sigmas reply to canons 17-55 IS USM without the IS and then without the price point too? It's all starting to run together online, with the shopping...my range is still about the same...I'd to just drop the bomb and grab the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM but I'd hafta rob a bank:cry

Thanks in advance folks!

Both lenses you mention has a close focus capability, but not a true macro.

I have the Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 DC EX (non-"macro"). While it is a great lens, and a bargain, the lens will occasionally miss focus. It actually pre-dates the Canon EF 17-55mm, f2.8 IS by around 3 years. The "macro" version is considered better, but I would also consider the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF).

dmmattix · March 13, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

Both lenses you mention has a close focus capability, but not a true macro.

I have the Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 DC EX (non-"macro"). While it is a great lens, and a bargain, the lens will occasionally miss focus. It actually pre-dates the Canon EF 17-55mm, f2.8 IS by around 3 years. The "macro" version is considered better, but I would also consider the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF).

One thing to consider about the Tamron. It does not have Ultrasonic or HSM focus. I am pretty sure Ziggy's older Sigma does not have HSM either. Most people that have the HSM feel that it is a big improvement. It is one of the reasons I am keeping an eye on the new 150-500 OS EX DG HSM is that I have the previous encarnation the 80-400 OS EX DG and I am really interested in the HSM (as well as the extra 100 mm reach).

Just something to keep in mind.

Regards,

claudermilk · March 13, 2008

Tamron doesn't talk at all about their focus motors, so I would assume they are all the same & don't have a USM/HSM higher-end variant. I would hope that means all their lenses have a better-than-average motor, but in the end it's not a factor with Tamron. Keep in mins USM is just Canon's nicer motor and HSM is Sigma's equivalent. Lack of a motor acronym in the lens name doesn't seem to bother all the happy users of the lens.

The macro capability just means that the lens can do this (usually means a really close minimum focus distance). Nothing to worry about. Note that several macro-specific lenses (Canon's 50/2.5, 100/2.8) are often recommended for general-purpose use as well. They focus to infinity just as well as a non-macro lens.

For the two Sigmas mentioned, I would agree that the 17-70 is probably not going to cut it as it's only f2.8 at 17mm. F4.5 at 700m is way too slow. So the 18-50 is the better choice. However, also keep in mind a lot of wedding photographers are now using that Tamron 17-50 now.

ziggy53 · March 13, 2008

dmmattix wrote:

One thing to consider about the Tamron. It does not have Ultrasonic or HSM focus. I am pretty sure Ziggy's older Sigma does not have HSM either. Most people that have the HSM feel that it is a big improvement. It is one of the reasons I am keeping an eye on the new 150-500 OS EX DG HSM is that I have the previous encarnation the 80-400 OS EX DG and I am really interested in the HSM (as well as the extra 100 mm reach).

Just something to keep in mind.

Regards,

True, the Sigmas mentioned do not have HSM (roughly equivalent to Canon USM) but, I have never felt hindered by the focus speed. The Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 DC EX I have is very quick to focus and that is not a problem.

Most of the time focus is also accurate and I have used the lens professionally. I do recommend the lens and once you know about the mis-focus you can watch for it and usually compensate (more exposures or re-focus.)

Peter Cook · March 13, 2008

peter cook
You have two choices For a wedding protraits my firstchoice would be
85 MMf/1.8 for face portrates
35 MM F 2 is a fantastic lens
I would buy both but my first choice would be
24-105 Mm L lens but that is a expensive lens way above your $500 price
Your 70-200 2.8 L Lens is a fantastic lens (Ihave one)
Peter Cook

cdonovan wrote:

I'm wanting to upgrade again, I'm extremly pleased with my last purchase 70-200 IS USM 2.8f, but now I need to upgrade to something better for a different use. I'm looking for wide angle and something that I can use inside.(protraits, weddings) I have a 430EX speedlight, so I do have on board flash as a backup. I've looked at so many different lenses and I'm really not sure what would best fit my needs and budget.

I'm looking to spend max $500.

acouple that look appealing to me are...

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II USM Zoom Lens

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Telephoto Lens

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Wide Angle Lens

What would you recommend and why!
Thanks in advance

cdonovan · March 14, 2008

The Tamron that I had was loud! when I switched to the 70-200, i was shocked at how quiet the USM was! I wonder if all tamrons have the same type of motor? If so, I'll scratch that option off my list, I didn't like the build, feel and noise involved....I'd rather stick with sigma or canon!

You guys are great, I love reading about all that you know!:D

rpcrowe · March 14, 2008

f/1.8 is nice but, only if....
A lens with an f/1.8 aperture is nice but, IMO, it is only good if you can achieve the IQ you desire with this lens wide open. If the IQ deteriorates below your standards wide open, you might as well have a slower lens which you can use wide open.

Of course, IQ is a very personal decision. What is great for one photographer may not be quite good enough for a more critical photographer.

I am not pointing my finger at any specific lenses, just mentioning that a prospective purchaser should determine if the IQ of any lens wide open will suit that photographer's standards. If you own an f/1.8 lens which doesn't give you the quality you desire until it is stopped down to f/2.8; you might s well own an f/2.8 lens which will provide that quality wide open.

As mentioned above, one of the best lenses to fill your described needs would be the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. However, Tamron and Tokina produce lenses in that approximate focal range with a constant f/2.8 aperture. Although these lenses are not equipped with IS; they will provide very good to excellent imagery.

There is, of course, a cost-to-value ratio to consider. Is the quality of any lens worth (you are the only person who can determine this) the price that you pay for it.

If you are only going to make 4x6 prints at Wallmart or send images of the kids to Grandma by email, then an expensive top-line lens may be overkill for you. However, if you intend to shoot professionally (weddings, etc.) it is worth just about any price to get a lens which will provide you with "professional quality" imagery. After all, there are very few professional carpenters who shop for their tools at the K-Mart "blue-light-special" table.

cdonovan · March 14, 2008

rpcrowe wrote:

If you are only going to make 4x6 prints at Wallmart or send images of the kids to Grandma by email, then an expensive top-line lens may be overkill for you. However, if you intend to shoot professionally (weddings, etc.) it is worth just about any price to get a lens which will provide you with "professional quality" imagery. After all, there are very few professional carpenters who shop for their tools at the K-Mart "blue-light-special" table.

Thank you for putting this into perspective for me. I guess I've been shopping for the best bang for my buck, when my priorities should be much different...especially when trying to make a name...a good one in this business.

Sooooo let me blow the $500 budget out of the water, I have 2 months of weddings booked solid coming up and need a lens that will compliment what I have going with my 70-200 mm IS USM L.
My current camera body is the xt(upgrade planned by the end of this year(30 or 40D is my plan)
I am an equine photographer, but also do wedding/portrait(indoor, outdoor) work.

thanks again NPCROWE

Give me the low down guys...top 3 recommendations for those conditions

rpcrowe · March 14, 2008

If you are doing weddings...
The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is IMO one of the very best lenses on a 1.6x camera for wedding photography as well as for general use. Like I mentioned earlier, it is expensive but, if you get paid for the weddings - that should cover the cost. if you won't get paid and are just trying to build up a portfolio by shooting weddings pro-bono, the 17-55mm is still the best player out there.

When you "upgrade" your XT, try not to sell it. Two bodies are essential in shooting weddings. First, two bodies give you an instant lens switch capability and secondly the alternate body is a safety factor when and if one of the cameras stops working. Equipment failure is absolutely no reason for a primary photographer (paid or volunteer) to miss wedding coverage.

I'll admit..I'm a lens dummy

Comments