Lens line up for a beginner (Canon)

MartMax

Hi all,

Now that I have my first dSLR (Canon EOS 40D) nearly for a month, I start to have this temptation to get more better lens. Currently, I have the 50mm f1.8 and the kit lens 17-85mm f4/5.6 IS USM. With moderate budget in mind and flexibility for all sort of fields (macro/portrait/landscape/sport/nature), I hope I can have the following in the bag (well I need a new bag too then!) within 3-6 months.

Wide angle - Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM
Telephoto - Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM
Macro - Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM

After that, I might consider to replace the 17-85mm f4/5.6 IS USM with Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM.

Again, everything is depending on many limiting factors that I've to consider. Until then, it is only a wish list - so I hope you guys can comment if they are a well balanced combo of glasses.

Many thanks.

AnimalRights

mart_max wrote: »

Wide angle - Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM
Telephoto - Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM
Macro - Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM

After that, I might consider to replace the 17-85mm f4/5.6 IS USM with Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM.

Again, everything is depending on many limiting factors that I've to consider. Until then, it is only a wish list - so I hope you guys can comment if they are a well balanced combo of glasses.

Many thanks.

Our budding photo "Careers" have ran along similar lines......got our cams around the same time although mine is the 450D
I have the 70-200L USM but it's not IS (Would love to get it)
I have that Macro too
I also hope eventually to get a wide angle but 1st I'm aiming for b4 Xmas the 300mm f4 IS.
I ordered the 1.4x today so that will tide me over til then hopefully.
And er sometime next year I'd love that 24-105 too.
Only thing your missing is a 50mm for gigs?
I have the 1.4 50mm.

Carrigman

They are an excellent choice of lenses. I presume you have a tripod? If not, invest in one asap as it will make the single biggest positive difference to your photography.

AnimalRights

I have a tripod but maybe a monopod would suit me better.......

MartMax

Ehehe. I don't have a 'proper' tripod yet but will look into it soon, tough decision though I presume. Going to London for a weekend this month - I might swipe the Visa for a tripod and the 20-700!

JMcL

Seriously, as Carraigman said, prioritise a tripod, and if you're looking at spending that amount of money on glass, don't skimp. All the expensive glass in the world will still result in blurry photos if it can't be held steady. I'd look at the Manfrotto 190, though preferably an 055 as a start, look at paying more for the same stability with lesser weight. If you buy a good tripod at the start, you'll save yourself having to go out and buy a better one when you find out the cheap one ain't that much of a bargain. I speak with experience here, having found out the hard way!

leinsterman

mart_max wrote: »

Wide angle - Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM

I'd be careful about purchasing EF-S lenses if you ever think you'll upgrade your camera body to a 5D or better ... these bodies don't take 'em ...

I have the Sigma 12-24 which is not too bad ...

If you are shooting a lot of sport and wildlife then 200mm at long end is going to be too short ... but it is a good start ... ideally for both of these you need as much length and as fast as you can afford ...

Do you have a budget in mind ? ... If you looking at the 24-105 F4L then I'm guessing it is a decent budget ... this lens has become one of my favourite walk around lenses over the past year ... a good all rounder, though a bit on the slow side for indoor work without flash ... you'll need something faster for this... like the 50mm F1.4 or F1.8...

The 100mm Macro is a great lens and can be useful for portraits also ... I also use a 70-200F2.8L IS for portraits the odd time ... I think the 85mm F1.8 is ideal for portraits ... but I don't have one myself.

Borderfox

I would switch the 10-22 for the 17-40L, other than that good choice

leinsterman

Borderfox wrote: »

I would switch the 10-22 for the 17-40L, other than that good choice

Sorry to hijack here ... but this will possibly interest the OP anyway ...

I have the 16-35 F2.8L Mk II ... I find it great for use on a 1.3 or full frame but I have doubts about it on a 1.6 crop body ... the 17-40 is not far off ... in fact it is slightly worse at the wide end on a 1.6 crop ... being an effective 27 - 64 (the 16-35 is a little wider at 25.6 ...)

There is no disputing the quality of results possible with good use of both of these lenses which is nothing short of amazing IMO ... but for the money , 27-64 is a little dull range if you are on a budget ... in fact I often find myself reaching for the Sigma 12-24 on the 1.3 crop in favour of the far better quality 16-35...

What do people think ?

Paulw

Very interesting.

I bought the EF-S 10-22mm. Brilliant lens. But, since I got the 1D MkIII, I find I don't use the lens (more that I seldom use my 40D with it).

So, I've been thinking about buying the 16-35mm.

In some ways, I regret getting the EF-S, but on the other hand, my girlfriend does use the lens, and I still have the option of using it on my 40D.

It is certainly something to consider when buying.

LeoB

hI, I am on a very limited budget also. i like people photography but also like Sport, mainly G.A.A. I would love a really good lens and was thinking of 70-300 is usm? Would this be good enough for getting decent images at club games? or should I wait (quite a while) and go for Sigma 70-200 f/2.8?. Iuse a Canon 400d. Some of my shots are on our club website www.stmaursgaa.ie Maybe if I win the club lotto I will have enough for a good lens:)

Paulw

LeoB - from your team photos there, you really need to get your sensor cleaned. It's filthy.

Some of your action shots look really good.

LeoB

Paulw, Thanks for reply, Where can I get sensor cleaned? Or can I do it?

leinsterman

LeoB wrote: »

Paulw, Thanks for reply, Where can I get sensor cleaned? Or can I do it?

www.copperhillimages.com

or

http://www.lenspen.com/403/377/

... or pay €50 to Conns ...

Paulw

It's not that hard to do it yourself. Do a forum search for sensor cleaning and you'll find plenty of threads with tips, tricks, and what to use/buy.

Many camera stores will do it for you (for a good fee).

Back to lenses - for GAA, I'd say you need the extra reach so, you'd want something greater than 200mm.

AnimalRights

Paulw wrote: »

LeoB - from your team photos there, you really need to get your sensor cleaned. It's filthy.

Is that thru normal wear n' tear or is it dirt getting into an uncovered cam with lense off?
If normal wear n' tear how often does this occur?

Paulw

How long is a piece of string?

With my old 20D, I needed to clean it after 3 months of use, but then didn't need to clean it again for over a year.

There are a good number of factors that can cause dust on the sensor. Some good tips to avoid it - always turn off the camera when changing lens, always have the body pointing down when changing lens (so dirt falls out), don't change lens in a dirty environment ... things like that.

f1_jb

I too have thought long and hard about which lenses to buy for Canon 30D and on a recent trip to London with work I was all set to Buy 2 lenses

1. EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
2. EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

On my way trough Dublin Airport I picked up a Photo magazine and while I was reading it in my hotel room I changed my mind completely about what to buy. I have always had Canon cameras all my life and I have always bought the best Canon lenses I could stretch to at the time. They have never let me down so I have decided to bite the bullet and get

1. EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM which my brother let me borrows his one and it's a super lenses.
2. Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM, the last 70-300 lenses I had been too long for everyday use and I seldom used it.

Another thing that changed my mind is the fact that there both full frame compatible as I expect at sometime in the next few years I will get myself a full frame camera.

I have also decided to threat myself and my wife to along weekend in New York and buy the lenses while over there as I know the money saved will pay for the flights.

Check out this site for lense reviews seems quite good.
http://www.photozone.de/

MartMax

Hi all,

Thanks for the encouraging responses. Yeah, I have thought about upgrading to full frame body but that won't happen in the nearest future. Having said that, I think should I keep the 40D as second body, the EF-S lens might still have their place in the bag same like Paulw does.

Leinsterman, I do have a little budget around 2-3K euros to spend over next few months depending on many things - moving house, getting car, etc. Possibly a wedding too but will defer that until i have all camera gears, :pac: so no wife will complain. I have calculated the 10-22 will cost around 600 euros, a 70-200 f4 for 900 euros and 100 macro for 500 euros. Totalling 2000 or could be less.

Back on topic, I suppose the 70-200mm f4 L can be extended by a TC but that'll also increase the f number too. Having the f2.8 version would be better but that means i've to spend as much as twice. But maybe.. maybe...

Speaking of tripod, thanks to Carrigman and JMcL for reminding me. I have looked into Manfrotto 055PROB, I think I could find get it from the UK for 110 pound. Would love a more compact O55MF4 but that's 190 pound! For the head, I might just go for a Manfrotto 3-way head 808RC4 which is about 80 pound. But that's just an early thought. Will spend more time looking into tripod things soon.

Some tough decisions to make and hard money to spend. For the mean time, I'm just gonna go out and improve myself taking better pictures.

Thanks again to all for the advices.

MartMax

hi all

just an update and i know this has been argued a lot in every forum anywhere.

so today i booked a 70-200mm F4 IS L over the phone with Jessops and coincidentally with my stay in London this weekend, I will be picking it up. It costs 684 pounds.

as much as i'm excited over this, i still have doubt if this is a perfect choice. obviously the F4 non-IS is cheaper but F2.8 is also in the same price range. although F2.8 with IS is definitely out of my budget at the moment. although i think i can live with the weight and size of F2.8 versions, i don't see how it fits me as a walk around lens.

anyway, i hope i end up with something good this weekend - so next week at Tattersalls i'll have a better focal reach and faster lens.

Blazer

Just getting into the photography myself. Purchase a Canon 400D.
Only have the standard 27-55m so have been doing a lot of looking around for lenses. Luckily my boss is also a professional photography (lucky bastard does model agencies amongst other things ) and recommended this buyer (adani505) on ebay for lense purchases. He's always found him very good.
Yesterday he had a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM which was going for €450 + €40 shipping on his site. Needless to say it's gone already. This lenses is €699 on komplett.ie so it's a great bargain. Next one he gets in is mine.
Also going to New York in November and am planning to get this baby
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
It works out at €904 and over here it's nearly €1800..complete rip off if u ask me..
the good thing is I'm running in the NY marathon and everythings paid for me so the trip itself is costing me nothing.

Below site is also a good site for lense reviews
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx

MartMax

Another question guys as at this stage, I'm kinda torn between 24-105 f4 and 24-70 f2.8. I understand that the extra stop makes a lot of different letting twice as much light but anybody care to share their experience with both lens in real life usage like weddings, indoor events, etc? cheers, mart.

Borderfox

Swings and roundabouts Mart, as a walkaround the 17-55 f2.8 IS is probably the best EF-S for a crop body and I have seen some fantastic shots from it, on the upside its f2.8 all the way and lighter than the 24-70 f2.8L.

leinsterman

mart_max wrote: »

Another question guys as at this stage, I'm kinda torn between 24-105 f4 and 24-70 f2.8. I understand that the extra stop makes a lot of different letting twice as much light but anybody care to share their experience with both lens in real life usage like weddings, indoor events, etc? cheers, mart.

I had the same decision to make ... the two lenses are around the same price so it can be a bit of a trade off ... I can say that both are fantastic lenses, so you can't make a bad decision here ... each has its merits depending on your needs ...

I can only really quote my rationale in buying the 24-105 F4L over the 24-70 F2.8L ... so in my case -

• I wanted a walk around for a full frame (5D) and/or a 1.3 crop (1D Mk III) body ... the 24-105 is for me a better option given the extra range, the Macro mode, my style / interest areas (for this lens this would be Travel mostly). I would not recommend either lens as a walk around for a 1.6 crop body ... it is not wide enough at the wide end.
• I do a good bit of portraiture while travelling ... speed would have been useful for those narrow dept of field close crop shots ... but the extra range gives me more of what I want and I can still get narrow dept of field close crop face shots at the 105 end with a little extra compression when I need it too ... which in my opion is more important (my ideal lens is a 24-105 F2.8 which does not exist, or if it did would be too large) ... In addition I prefer to use primes for portraits ... zooms are not really good enough. The disadvantage for me is when shooting indoors without a flash ... but with the good ISO noise performance of a 1D this is not an issue in most cases... and I plan to buy whatever replaces the 5D ... so I'd expect this will be even better.
• When I was making my purchase decision I already had the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 ... So this was enough for me ... however, subsequently I liked the 24-105 F4 so much I ended up selling the 24-70 to Sineadw ... as it had become redundant. In fact the 24-105 is pretty much glued to the 1D and even the 20D most of the time except where I need speed, extra width or extra reach ... for speed I generally reach for a prime ... for extra width I use the Sigma 12-24 or 16-35 F2.8L Mk II.
• I tested both lenses ... the 24-70 is big and heavy when compared to the 24-105 ... for travel it is too big and heavy.

I have not regretted my decision ... in fact I recommend you take a similar approach unless you plan to do Studio or a lot of indoor work ... If you want a contrary opinion to balance mine then talk to Fajitas! ...

jackdaw

mart_max wrote: »

Hi all,

Now that I have my first dSLR (Canon EOS 40D) nearly for a month, I start to have this temptation to get more better lens. Currently, I have the 50mm f1.8 and the kit lens 17-85mm f4/5.6 IS USM. With moderate budget in mind and flexibility for all sort of fields (macro/portrait/landscape/sport/nature), I hope I can have the following in the bag (well I need a new bag too then!) within 3-6 months.

Wide angle - Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM
Telephoto - Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM
Macro - Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM

After that, I might consider to replace the 17-85mm f4/5.6 IS USM with Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM.

Again, everything is depending on many limiting factors that I've to consider. Until then, it is only a wish list - so I hope you guys can comment if they are a well balanced combo of glasses.

Many thanks.

2 L lenses in there .. hardly a moderate budget ..

leinsterman

jackdaw wrote: »

2 L lenses in there .. hardly a moderate budget ..

That depends on your perspective... personally I think the original poster is correct ... this is a moderate to middle order range of lenses when considering the options ...

The 70-200 F4L is not the top range 70-200 of Canon's line up, by two models ... and there is Sigma and the others ... Sigma has a very nice 70-200 F2.8 option as well as their 120-300 F2.8 ... KeithJack has the 120-300 if the OP needs more information ... but I spoke to him about it the other day and he loves it ... his results speak for themselves.

the 100mm Macro is not an L lens ... though it is in the middle bracket price wise ...

The 10-22 is by no means L grade ... it won't fit any professional body ...

AnimalRights

mart_max wrote: »

Another question guys as at this stage, I'm kinda torn between 24-105 f4 and 24-70 f2.8. I understand that the extra stop makes a lot of different letting twice as much light but anybody care to share their experience with both lens in real life usage like weddings, indoor events, etc? cheers, mart.

Jeez our careers still continue on parallel lines!
I thought long and hard (well really I read lots!) and went for the 24-105L, can say this now even at this early stage it will be on my camera almost all the time, so flexable, well built.
Got it for €750 from Conn's in a special, normally 1k here, no rebates though but nice not to have to rely and wait on online deliveries and also no P+P.

MartMax

Thanks all for the advices and comments.

Borderfox wrote: »

Swings and roundabouts Mart, as a walkaround the 17-55 f2.8 IS is probably the best EF-S for a crop body and I have seen some fantastic shots from it, on the upside its f2.8 all the way and lighter than the 24-70 f2.8L.

Wow Keith price tag on that lens is quite nasty too, matching the L ones considering it's a EF-S mount but the f2.8 and focal range are big plus for my 40D.

leinsterman wrote:

KeithJack has the 120-300 if the OP needs more information ... but I spoke to him about it the other day and he loves it ... his results speak for themselves.

That's one nice lens I looked at it in person when I was at Keith's ranch many weeks ago. Saw some photos of it, the sharpness and bokeh are pretty sweat. Not too mention the focal length as well as large monopod it needs to be sitting on.

AnimalRights wrote:

Jeez our careers still continue on parallel lines!

I think you are moving a bit faster than me . I'm still learning a lot the technical side of it as well as defining style of photography. At this stage, I happen just love to take photos be it people, animals, landscape, etc. Also, I'm thinking of getting more serious although I won't be giving up my day job sooner or later - it pays for everything.

Back to the lens, I might just go after a Sigma rather than Canon for UWA, cheaper, faster and not an EF lens.

I never thought the 24-70 is as heavy as 950g until leinsterman mentioned it, althou I find that 24-105 (670g) is bearable for travel and walkaround as I had it tried before.

Above of all, I have to swallow the fact that there is no one perfect lens for everything and this hobby is not cheap but worth enjoying! Decison wise, I have not made up my mind yet .

f1_jb

I'm tearing my hair out the last few days trying to decide which lense to buy, Conn's price on the 24-105L @ €750 is good but I feel I need something a little longer after my holiday 2 weeks ago. I'm using the 17-85 that came with the camera so altough the I know the 24-105 is a great lense it would be like swaping like with like for focal length.

Its a toss up between 70-200L F4 or F2.8 and again is IS worth the extra money? I have the money waiting to buy and could streatch to the 2.8 IS but keep asking myself is it worth it? My camera in a 30D but I'm waiting to see what Canon plan for the 5D update or replacement.

Any pointers would be great as I know you guys between you eather own or have tried out the lense.

AnimalRights

IS is in my opinion def worth spending the extra on!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I used to own the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and so regretted not getting the IS version, so when I was getting the 70-200 f2/8 I made sure I had the IS version.
One word of caution the 2.8 non and IS versions is a very heavy lens....
If you want a walk around lens I recommend the 70-200 f/4 IS version.

Borderfox

I was working in the rain at a Triathlon today using the 70-200 f2.8IS L and the 1dmk3, very satisfying that both lens and camera body are weather sealed. In terms of IS working I can get down to 1/60th @ 200mm and still have a crisp clear shot.

f1_jb

AnimalRights wrote: »

IS is in my opinion def worth spending the extra on!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I used to own the 70-200 f/4 non-IS and so regretted not getting the IS version, so when I was getting the 70-200 f2/8 I made sure I had the IS version.
One word of caution the 2.8 non and IS versions is a very heavy lens....
If you want a walk around lens I recommend the 70-200 f/4 IS version.

Thanks for the heads up on the size differance between the f4 and f2.8. I'm now the happy owner of a 70-200mm F4 IS and with the money I saved I bought myself a decent tripod and can now get rid of the one I bought 15 years ago. Didn't pick a great day for trying out an new lense but the few shots I have take are pretty good.

John

AnimalRights

f1_jb wrote: »

1. EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM which my brother let me borrows his one and it's a super lenses.

Congrats on your choice of the 70-200L f/4 IS and can't wait to see some pictures with it.

I purchased the 24-105L this week from Conn's and this will def be on my Camera 95% of the time.
It's also fine to use in Pub gigs too.

jackdaw

Hi OP
If you're still confused between 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4 ...

well get the 24-70 f2.8, you allready have 70-105 in L f4 range ...

the extra stop makes a difference ,,,

I have both the 70-200 2.8 is and 24-70 f2.8

my fav lenses...