What Next?

Slinky0390 · June 3, 2008

Well I've been working my butt off and I have some extra cash burning a hole in my pocket. I really would like to buy some new glass and was wondering if anyone has any recommendations. I definitely want to get Canon and if possible L series. I currently have an EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 24-85 f/3.5, and EF 70-200 f/4.0L, and I'm just not sure what to start looking at, macro, wide angle, etc.

macmac · June 3, 2008

I suggest the 17-55 EF-S

Glenn NK · June 4, 2008

macmac wrote:

I suggest the 17-55 EF-S

Even though I use my 100 macro much more than my 17/55, this is an excellent recommendation unless the OP is into macro.

It's a brilliant lens (and idea).

And there's really nothing else that comes close for our 1.6 crop bodies.

Scott_Quier · June 4, 2008

Three lenses I can recommend:

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 - This is an "L" in all but name (OK, the the construction isn't as solid as most (all?) "L" lenses but it's a very, very good lens. It gets rave reviews and for good reason.
EF-S 10-22 - Not an "L", but you wouldn't know it from the photos
EF 100 f/2.8 Macro - just a sweet macro lens that allows you to put some distance between you and your subject.

ziggy53 · June 4, 2008

Slinky0390 wrote:

... I currently have an EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 24-85 f/3.5, and EF 70-200 f/4.0L, and I'm just not sure what to start looking at, macro, wide angle, etc.

The previous recommendations for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM are what I recommend as well. It is a superb lens and (IMO) the best choice in a standard zoom for Canon crop 1.6x cameras.

Focus is fast and accurate and it is very usable wide open to awesome sharpness by f5.6. The IS extends the versatility in low light. Color and contrast are just where I want them to be.

Do also get an appropriate lens hood because those cheepskates at Canon do not supply one. I bought a cheaper one than the Canon version (third party) and it works fine.

A very nice alternative is the Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II. While it doesn't have the IS it is still a very good performer optically.

If vista landscapes are your thing then maybe one of these:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm, f/3.5-4.5 USM
Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Tokina 12-24mm, f/4.0 PRO DX
Tamron 11-18mm, f/4.5-5.6 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF)

If true macro is where your mind wanders:

Canon EF 100mm, f/2.8 USM Macro
Sigma 105mm, f/2.8 EX DG Macro
Sigma 150mm, f/2.8 EX DG APO Macro
Tamron SP 90mm, f/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro
Tamron SP 180mm, f/3.5 Di Macro LD-IF
Tokina AT-X 100mm, f/2.8 PRO D Macro

All of these are very good optically.

Slinky0390 · June 4, 2008

Thanks for the suggestions, I'm definitely going to check them out while I'm at school. I know that you feel strongly about the 17-55 but while looking at that on B&H I saw the EF 17-40mm f/4.0L, have anyone of you had any experience with this lens or know anyone who has (I'm just thinking that maybe some day I'll upgrade to a 5D and I would rather not be left with incompatible lenses or trying to sell them) I can imagine the biggest disadvantage would be not being able to shoot as wide open as the 17-55.

Cameron · June 4, 2008

Slinky0390 wrote:

Thanks for the suggestions, I'm definitely going to check them out while I'm at school. I know that you feel strongly about the 17-55 but while looking at that on B&H I saw the EF 17-40mm f/4.0L, have anyone of you had any experience with this lens or know anyone who has (I'm just thinking that maybe some day I'll upgrade to a 5D and I would rather not be left with incompatible lenses or trying to sell them) I can imagine the biggest disadvantage would be not being able to shoot as wide open as the 17-55.

The 17-40mm lens is also an excellent choice. When compared to the 17-55 lens it doesn't have image stabilization, you lose one stop (f/2.8 vs f/4), and you lose 15mm on the long end. The image quality of the 17-40 isn't any better [ducking] than the 17-55 in my opinion. While it's true you may someday upgrade to a full-frame camera, the 17-55 will remain in high demand and resale value will be excellent. Unless you have immediate plans to go with a full-frame camera, I'd recommend spending your money based on your current needs rather than compromising now to cover yourself for a possible future purchase. Just my $0.02.

Scott_Quier · June 4, 2008

CSwinton wrote:

The 17-40mm lens is also an excellent choice. When compared to the 17-55 lens it doesn't have image stabilization, you lose one stop (f/2.8 vs f/4), and you lose 15mm on the long end. The image quality of the 17-40 isn't any better [ducking] than the 17-55 in my opinion. While it's true you may someday upgrade to a full-frame camera, the 17-55 will remain in high demand and resale value will be excellent. Unless you have immediate plans to go with a full-frame camera, I'd recommend spending your money based on your current needs rather than compromising now to cover yourself for a possible future purchase. Just my $0.02.

Cuong · June 4, 2008

You're getting wonderful recommendations here. I absolutely agree with all the posts above. If you're looking for a longer reach, I'd recommend the 300mm f/4L IS and the 1.4x teleconverter.

Cuong

Manfr3d · June 4, 2008

It doesn't always have to be glass. I'd recommend a nice flash like the 580EX II or a good tripod.

claudermilk · June 4, 2008

I'll answer your question with a couple of my own: What are you trying to shoot? (i.e., portraits, landscapes, macro, etc.) What is it in your kit that is missing to make that happen?

I could push my own favorite glass, but that may not be the right answer for your needs. So, let's get more specific on what is needed then the options become clearer.

Glenn NK · June 4, 2008

17/55 and 17/40 - a tested comparison:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/177-canon-ef-17-40mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

Both lenses test very well for resolution (MTF charts), with the 17/55 having the edge. My summary of the primary differences are:

1. Distortion, the 17/40 isn't quite as good as the 17/55 at the wide end,

2. Vignetting - the 17/55 vignettes a bit more, but when stopped down to f/4 (the max aperture of the 17/40), the lenses are almost the same,

3. Chromatic Aberrations - the 17/40 is a bit of a stinker on this.

4. Build quality - the edge of course goes to the 17/40.

Slinky0390 · June 4, 2008

Manfr3d wrote:

It doesn't always have to be glass. I'd recommend a nice flash like the 580EX II or a good tripod.

I already have a Manfrotto tripod with an adequate ball head and a Canon Speedlight 480EX.. I could really use a wireless transmitter for the flash but I'm still debating it, I feel I would use a lens more than a transmitter.. Anyway, thanks everyone for your recommendations.

Slinky0390 · June 4, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

I'll answer your question with a couple of my own: What are you trying to shoot? (i.e., portraits, landscapes, macro, etc.) What is it in your kit that is missing to make that happen?

I could push my own favorite glass, but that may not be the right answer for your needs. So, let's get more specific on what is needed then the options become clearer.

Well right now my walk around lens is the EF 28-85mm which has been doing me just fine. I also have a EF 50mm f/1.4 which I use quite frequently, and finally, I have the EF 70-200 f/4L which I use once in a blue moon when I do candid street shots or sports. I'm just torn between what to do next, I thought about macro, but I don't know if that lens will sit in my bag like my telephoto. I guess it's something I need to figure out for myself, but suggestions definitely help for when I do decide on what I want to shoot.

claudermilk · June 5, 2008

OK, so macro. Sigma's 150mm gets good reviews as does Canon's 100mm. Tamron's 90mm and 180mm get really good reviews & the longer one is on my own wish list.

You could also play with wider, in which case the top contenders are Canon's 10-22/3.5-4.5 or Tokina's 12-24/4. I prefer the latter.

Slinky0390 · June 5, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

OK, so macro. Sigma's 150mm gets good reviews as does Canon's 100mm. Tamron's 90mm and 180mm get really good reviews & the longer one is on my own wish list.

You could also play with wider, in which case the top contenders are Canon's 10-22/3.5-4.5 or Tokina's 12-24/4. I prefer the latter.

Thanks, I was looking at the canon 100mm for quite some time.

What Next?

Comments