lens progression...any suggestions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by rweakins, Jul 7, 2008.

  1. rweakins macrumors 6502

    rweakins

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    #1
    i am looking for a new lens and wondering what the hot item is now. i photograph everything from portraits to landscape but the lens doesn't have to be general it can be more landscape or portrait specific.

    currently i have:
    Canon EF 70-200mm f4L
    Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II
    Canon EF 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 USM
    Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II
     
  2. JNB macrumors 604

    JNB

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    In a Hell predominately of my own making
    #2
    EF-S 10-22 would be a good one to add for both landscape & architectural. I have nearly the same lineup you do, and just added the 10-22. Terrific lens!
     
  3. rweakins thread starter macrumors 6502

    rweakins

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    #3
    i've heard nothing but good things about that lens. i'll have to look into it. thanks!
     
  4. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #4
    The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is supposed to outperform the Canon 10-22 if you can do without the long end. I'd like to pick that up but I bought the 12-24mm so its too redundant.
     
  5. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #5
    It may sound boring, but I would upgrade the 50mm to a f/1.4 version. Lots more light and it isn't all that expensive. A super fast prime is very useful!
     
  6. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #6
    I don't see any EF-S lenses in your list. Do you use a FF camera? If not, how about selling three lenses: EF 28-105mm f/3.5, EF 18-55mm f/3.5, and EF 50mm f/1.8?

    Buy:
    EF 24-70mm f/2.8 (around $1,124)
    EF 50mm f/1.4 ($300.00)



    Your list now should look as follows:
    -(this room for a wide landscape lens, 12-24mm or so)
    -EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L
    -EF 70-200mm f/4L
    -EF 50mm f/1.4 (for portraits and such, maybe cheap macro with Kenko tubes)


    What I am trying to do here is to introduce better quality glass. Also, you may want to add a Kenko DG Pro 1.4x teleconverter (around $190.00), and eventually: 85mm L, or 100mm macro, or 135mm L.
     
  7. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #7
    The 18-55 is EF-S.

    Your options mainly seem to be upgrading existing quality, going wider, going longer, or adding a macro.
     
  8. wheezy macrumors 65816

    wheezy

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Alpine, UT
    #8
    I just bought the 17-40 F4L on the wide end and LOVE IT! I thought about the 10-22, and I've actually rented it and it is a fantastic lens as well, but I wanted something that is FF compatible, and the room lost between 10-17 isn't all that much.
     
  9. brendanryder macrumors 6502a

    brendanryder

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Location:
    Calgary
    #9
    ive seen alot of images from it and they look amazing. and having a 2.8 instead of a 3.5-4.5 is awesome. the only problem is is that there so popular you cant find them!!!!!
     
  10. David G. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Location:
    Alaska
    #10
    I recently got this lens off of Amazon, it's kind of expensive but is worth every penny.
     
  11. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #11
    It's a real nice lens.
     
  12. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #12
    You are somewhat correct.

    1. The EF 28-105mm overlaps the lower range of a much better quality glass he already has. By taking this lens out of the picture and introducing a 24-70mm L, he would go wider than 28mm, but from this point UP it would be a smooth travel on "L" glass all the way to 200mm. The EF 28-105mm is just duplication.

    2. The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a much better lens than the f/1.8 he already has, and can be used for portraits as well as a macro lens.

    3. I left a space empty for a super wide lens for landscapes should he want one of such. Lets say that this is what he desires. If so, the list would look like this: 12-24mm, 24-70 L, 70-200 L (no overlap from lens to lens).

    4. Some macro lenses can be used for portraits and such. That's the case with the EF 60mm and EF 100mm. These two, as well as the EF 135mm L would be future options.
     
  13. rweakins thread starter macrumors 6502

    rweakins

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    #13
    it better be worth it for that many pennies:D
     
  14. Mantat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Montréal (Canada)
    #14
    I own a 5D, 17-40 and a 24-70 and I can tell you that with your current setup and interest, the 17-40 is a much better lens. 24-70 is good for portrait but so it the 50mm. In fact I am half torn between keeping my 24-70 and selling it to get a TS lens... It is not that it isnt a good lens, it is awesome. The thing is that I dont find it THAT useful because I always stay in the lower range of the zoom range.

    I wrote an article on my blog about this a month or so ago if you want the details.

    I used the 17-40 on both my 5D and before that my RebelXT and it performed very well in both cases.
     
  15. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #15
    In short I don't thing you need more glass. maybe trade up

    Maybe it's time to think about a wider range of options. What you are doing is trying to make one type of camera work for everything. Actually the DSLR is best only when you need portability and speed. If you don't need to carry your equipment a long distance and your subject can wait a minute of two then you don't need portability and speed

    I always like to address a problem by thinking "In a perfect world what would I do?" then later add some real-world contraints like "OK I can't spend $50K..." But start your thinking big...

    For example if all you were shooting were landscapes and you never go more then 100 feet from a road what camera would you pick? Seriously? I think an APS-C size DSLR would be your last choice. Why not shoot Velvia on 4x5 size with a Schneider 80mm lens? Why not? No money to buy that kind of equipment? Don't worry about that now

    Think about portraits. What's lacking in them right now. I'd bet it's not that you don't have the "correct" lens but that you do not have perfect control of the light and you are having to make do. What you might want is a studio lighting setup. three or more lights, stands reflector, softboxes and so on. Expensive? Yes but worry about that later.

    You can do this for every genre of photography.

    Next look at the price of various options, assuming you can afford only one, see which will make the most dramatic impact on your portfolio of work. My bet is that if you spent $1,000 on a new Canon lens the effect on the portfolio would be very minor, a few images might have slightly more "punch" but you'd need a skilled eye to see it.

    On the other hand if you spent half that on lighting equipment your portrait and small product (table top) shots would change dramatically in appearance and you could get shots that were now imposable. Same if you were to spend $500 on a 40 year old used 4x5 system. In both cases your work would move into a different league. When you already own a bag of lenses adding another, even a high end lens make at most a small difference But even if you were to buy a $20 Holga if would open up an entire new area and make a dramatic difference.

    We see the same thing in sports too. Skiers will have several pairs of skis, When I was into kayaks and racing I owned 8 boats. Now I own two bike, one road bike and one with fat knobby tires. It is really good when you can match the equipment to the task. I think to many SLR owners try to solve problems by buying a lens when they should be buying a second camera system. And the costs are comparable
     
  16. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #16
    Macro? It's magnification is .15x.
     
  17. jalagl macrumors 6502a

    jalagl

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Location:
    Costa Rica
    #17
    There's also de Tokina 12-24 f/4 for wide angle. It is a great lens (review, another review), for about $200-$250 less than the EF-S 10-22. You do loose 2mm on the wide end, so keep that in perspective.
     
  18. Mantat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Montréal (Canada)
    #18
    the 50mm lenses are popular choices for reverse ring or extension tubes. I guess that is what he ment.
     
  19. eddx macrumors regular

    eddx

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #19
    My vote is for the 10-22mm. As a Nikon user I had to go for the Sigma 10-20mm but last week my Canon friend purchased the 10-22mm and after some testing it is a really nice piece of super wide angle glass.

    It is surprising how much I use such a lens.
     
  20. jimothyGator macrumors member

    jimothyGator

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #20
    Another vote for 10-22mm

    I've got the 10-22mm for my 40D, and it's a fantastic lens. It's particular impressive how little barrel and pin cushion distortion this lens has.

    If you're considering the 24-70mm f/2.8L, you might also want to consider the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS EF-S. I haven't used it myself, and it is pricey (though less than the 24-70mm), but I've heard good things about it, and it does have IS, which the 24-70mm lacks.

    I don't have the 24-70mm, but I do have the 24-105mm f/4L IS; currently my only "L" lens. I'd also highly recommend it, as it's a great walk-around lens, can focus moderately close for shots of flowers, etc. (though it's of course not a macro). It's also something to consider vs. the 24-70mm, which is about the same price. Do you value the extra stop wide open, or the longer reach and IS?
     
  21. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #21
    Attach a Kenko tube to the 50mm f/1.4, and you have a nice macro lens.
     
  22. seenew macrumors 68000

    seenew

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #22
    the 10-22. Excellent glass. The 17-40 is great, too, but it is not nearly as wide as the 10-22 on a crop body. I know from experience.
     

Share This Page