Options

What to add to my kit??? Advice needed

tshaddicktshaddick Registered Users Posts: 185 Major grins
edited April 14, 2011 in Cameras
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.
www.wildelements.ca

Comments

  • Options
    SimpsonBrothersSimpsonBrothers Registered Users Posts: 1,079 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX
    Simpson Brothers Photography - Facebook - Twitter

    Smugger for life!

    Most Popular Photos
  • Options
    borrowlenses.comborrowlenses.com Registered Users Posts: 441 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    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.
    http://www.BorrowLenses.com
    Your professional online camera gear rental store

    Follow us on Facebook
    http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
  • Options
    tshaddicktshaddick Registered Users Posts: 185 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    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.
    www.wildelements.ca
  • Options
    catspawcatspaw Registered Users Posts: 1,292 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    Canon's 24-70 f/2.8 L is the ONLY one I'd think of, if you can swing the price :D

    otherwise for landscapes, you could look at some of Canon's wide primes.
    //Leah
  • Options
    tkePhotographytkePhotography Registered Users Posts: 25 Big grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    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.
    Tim

    http://www.tkephotography.com
  • Options
    cab.in.bostoncab.in.boston Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    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.
    Father, husband, dog lover, engineer, Nikon shooter
    My site 365 Project
  • Options
    ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 23,848 moderator
    edited April 7, 2011
    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.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Options
    ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    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).
  • Options
    DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    The Tamron 17-50. Or for a little more the IS version (VC in their lingo).
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • Options
    Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    SimpsonBrothers wrote: »
    Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX

    15524779-Ti.gifagree15524779-Ti.gif 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......
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • Options
    DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    I wouldn't want to be stuck at 24mm as my widest focal length on a crop frame body.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • Options
    Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    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......
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • Options
    DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited April 7, 2011
    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.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • Options
    davevdavev Registered Users Posts: 3,118 Major grins
    edited April 8, 2011
    If you can live without the f2.8, a Canon 15-85is is a very nice lens.
    dave.

    Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
  • Options
    divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited April 8, 2011
    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.
    facebook | photo site |
  • Options
    Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited April 8, 2011
    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
  • Options
    adi_190adi_190 Registered Users Posts: 6 Beginner grinner
    edited April 11, 2011
    Why don't you go for Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS produces a shallow depth-of-field good for portraits.
  • Options
    Manfr3dManfr3d Registered Users Posts: 2,008 Major grins
    edited April 14, 2011
    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.
    “To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
    ― Edward Weston
  • Options
    chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 771 Major grins
    edited April 14, 2011
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.