What lens to get next....?

[ZballZ]

I have a Canon 400d Rebel Xti and a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, and the canon 50mm 1.8 prime.

I do mostly portraits, and love my 50mm prime for that, but sometimes I find that the 50mm is a little too short in focal lenth...

Now I want something with a longer focal lenth - something in the range of 50-100. I really want it to be fast, say 2.8, which I find necessary for good background seperation in portraits...

But for some reason, these lenses (tamron, sigma, canon) start at 70-something - which would give me nothing between 50-70 - or they are 24-85, which only gives me from 50-85mm of new focal lenth...

What lenses do you have? What do you use for portraits? And at what aperture?

And what lens would you suggest I get next...


...needless to say, my budget wont allow for any Canon L-lenses or alike :mad:

[wheezy]

I'd go with a Prime for sure, and since L is out of the question your best bet is probably the 85mm 1.8, sitting at about $350. That's probably what I'll go for next now that I've fixed my craving for the 17-40 F4L and just bought the darn thing. I have the 50 1.8 and the 135 2.0 (which is AMAZING) but need something in the middle, so the 85 is for me.

[ZballZ]

I was thinking at exactly that! - the 85 1.8 prime! No doubt a great lens - so I hear :)

I would prefer something with a little range though, and since last post, I've come across

Sigma 50-150 2.8 - less than 1000,-$

Anyone with hands on experience with this one?

[CrackedButter]

I can't believe I'm recommending a telephoto lens but what about the Canon 70-200?

[ZballZ]

Good lens, no doubt, but no good for me; 2 reasons.

1) it starts at 70mm, which leaves me with nothing between 50-70mm. A pretty vital range for portrait photography...

2) Its 1.700$ :eek:

It's mostly the range from 50-90 i am after, for my portrait photography...

[OreoCookie]

Good lens, no doubt, but no good for me; 2 reasons.

1) it starts at 70mm, which leaves me with nothing between 50-70mm. A pretty vital range for portrait photography...

2) Its 1.700$ :eek:

It's mostly the range from 50-90 i am after, for my portrait photography...
Have a look at Tokina's 2.8/50-135 and Sigma's 2.8/50-150 tele zooms. They roughly correspond to 80-200+ on your crop sensor. I still find it hard to believe, both Nikon and Canon have dropped the ball here as they don't offer anything themselves …

They weigh about half of what a 2.8/70-200 zoom weights, (about 800 g, I think), they have a nice initial aperture and at least the Tokina is built like a tank. Tokina's built quality is very close to that of Nikon's and Canon's professional line, their lenses have a nice touch, the zoom and focus rings operate smoothly … and they use lots of metal. The Sigma should focus faster (and quieter) as it has a supersonic wave drive (Sigma calls it HSM).

[ZballZ]

The Tokina seems nice ! A bit bulky with that tripot-attachment-thingee, though...

[OreoCookie]

The Tokina seems nice ! A bit bulky with that tripot-attachment-thingee, though...
I wish you could take it off, but it is a lot, lot smaller than my 80-200 Nikkor. Just go to a store and try it.

[CrackedButter]

Good lens, no doubt, but no good for me; 2 reasons.

1) it starts at 70mm, which leaves me with nothing between 50-70mm. A pretty vital range for portrait photography...

2) Its 1.700$ :eek:

It's mostly the range from 50-90 i am after, for my portrait photography...

1) The difference between 50mm and 70mm is taking one step forward or one step back in practical terms.
2) I didn't quote the L version, there is a non L version which retails for $600 in the UK anyway and things here are priced up the wazhoo!
3) Canon and Sigma do a 60mm lens as well.
4) Your camera has a crop factor so even your 50mm isn't actually 50mm you know. Your camera has a 1.6x crop factor you're already shooting at 80mm, which is portrait territory with your prime. Your Tamron with the crop factor is actually 27 - 80mm as it is.

Were you aware of the crop factor? If you weren't then you need something in between 80-160mm.

[Wingnut330]

Were you aware of the crop factor?

I'm in the same boat as this OP and had no clue about crop factor.

[CrackedButter]

I'm in the same boat as this OP and had no clue about crop factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

[Grimace]

All of Canon's 70-200mm lenses are in their L line, but they have varying speeds (f/4 or f/2.8 and some have IS on board.)

The f/4 non-IS version is very reasonably priced. I can't remember how much (off hand) but it is worth a look.

[Wingnut330]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

Cool thanks. Like I said, I'm looking for an 'in between' lens or a walk around lens as well. I have the XSi kit lens, a 50mm and a 70-200mm IS L. I would just like something in between.

[OreoCookie]

1) The difference between 50mm and 70mm is taking one step forward or one step back in practical terms.
Unless you're in a room or sitting at a table, for instance. The difference is quite noticeable. I can't use my 80-200 zoom indoors, because I can't take pictures of people sitting close to me. The 50-135 focal length range corresponds to the classical 70/80-200 zooms on full frame/film.

[James L]

1) The difference between 50mm and 70mm is taking one step forward or one step back in practical terms.

Quoted for emphasis.

[ZballZ]

Were you aware of the crop factor? If you weren't then you need something in between 80-160mm.

Yes, I am aware of the crop factor. Now, The "classic" range for portrait lenses on 35mm full frame camera is from around 80mm to 135mm. To cover that specific area on my 1.6x crop camera I need 50mm to 85mm. This is the "vital" range for me.

Sure, a 85mm prime would be good. Also a 70-200. But something going 50-85 would really be optimum...

The 70-200 at the low cost end, are really to slow - 4.0-5.6 - for good DOF-images...

[ZballZ]

What about this one?

Tamron AF 55-200mm 4-5.6 Di II LD Macro

It's 160$ !!!

Any good?

[miloblithe]

If you want a zoom that is fast and covers 50-70mm I think your only options are:

24-70 f/2.8 (Canon or Sigma)
28-75 f/2.8 (Tamron) (used)
28-80 f/2.8 (Tokina) (used)
28-105 f/2.8 (Tamron) (used)

50-135 f/2.8 (Tokina)
50-150 f/2.8 (Sigma)

Since you're talking portraits, and presumably you're posing people and have time to set up shots, I'd skip zoom and go for the 85mm f/1.8.

[CrackedButter]

Cool thanks. Like I said, I'm looking for an 'in between' lens or a walk around lens as well. I have the XSi kit lens, a 50mm and a 70-200mm IS L. I would just like something in between.

My 3rd point did mention that Canon and Sigma do a 60mm lens.

[ZballZ]

Yeah,
think im down to the 85 1.8 or Tokina 50-135 2.8 (or sigma 50-150)

[ZballZ]

hang on!!!

Sigma 28-105 2.8/4

approx. 300$

[ButtUglyJeff]

Canon also has a nice 135mm f/2.8. It has a cool "soft focus" feature that would be very nice for portraits.

I think it runs around $350

[AlaskaMoose]

Here is a detailed list of Canon lenses, and you will find other than Canon lenses in the same forum:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

[tonie]

skip the zoom if you want fast lens and get the 85 1.8.

[taylorwilsdon]

Canon 70-200mm F/4 "L" - $600
Canon 55-250mm F/4-5.6 IS - $250

Both good tele options. The 55-250 might be a great way to fill your gap and have image stabilization to boot.

[jhamerphoto]

Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro? Approx 105mm with crop factor, and it gives you a little more flexibility for focal range, having a 1:1 macro function and everything. (Actually, it was rated even better than 1:1 by PopPhoto) Plus it has a focus limiter if you don't need the macro settings. I don't know about USD, but in Canada it retails about $550.

[ZballZ]

Canon 70-200mm F/4 "L" - $600
Canon 55-250mm F/4-5.6 IS - $250

Both good tele options. The 55-250 might be a great way to fill your gap and have image stabilization to boot.

I agree. And it is cheap. But would you think that it is too slow? Portraits at 4-5.6? Would they have good background seperation?

[OreoCookie]

I agree. And it is cheap. But would you think that it is too slow? Portraits at 4-5.6? Would they have good background seperation?
Cheap original manufacturer tele zooms are low quality, I'd advise against it. The larger the aperture, the smaller the depth of field at a given focal length (what you call background separation). Image stabilizers won't give you any advantage here.

I'd have a look at the two lenses I've recommended before. Canon's 4/70-200 is a very nice lens but has (IMO) a full-frame centric focal length range.

[apearlman]

hang on!!!

Sigma 28-105 2.8/4

approx. 300$

I don't think you'll be able to compare a 28-105 and a 70-200. Those lenses are for totally different purposes.

You need to decide what focal length (FL) you want to cover, and then people can be very helpful pointing you to the best lenses in that range.

Here's a focal length visualizer tool:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html

I don't see why you're hung up on the 50-70mm "gap" if you choose a 70-200. Even if you have a 55-200, you're still not going to use it indoors. I have nothing between 55 and 70, and somehow I live a full and complete life. Worst case, shoot with your 50 and crop.

Andrew