Initial Lens Lineup - Good Enough?

Right, this is the last time I pester you folks, at least about

this. :) And a thousand thanks for the help you've given me thus

far, it has directed my research and enabled me to make what I think

is a good selection.

 

I've chosen:

 

EF 70-200mm f/4L USM telephoto zoom

 

EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

 

EF 35mm f/2 wide angle

 

Combined with the 18-55mm kit lens, I'm hoping this will be a good

enough variety of lenses to cover more-or-less every shooting need

for a beginning photographer, and the lens quality will be high

enough that only my skill-or-lack-thereof will hold me back.

 

What do you folks think? Reasonable selection? Or rubbish?

 

Thanks again! :)

I would choose the EFS17-85 IS lens or the combination of 17-40/4L + 50 1.8/1.4 over the 35/2. But again, I'm not sure what you are shooting, that's only my personal choice.

<p>I can never remember who posted what before and I'm too lazy to look up your posting history :-) so I don't know what your previous pesterings told us about your photographic interests. But I think this is a good enough variety of lenses to cover most everyday shooting needs.</p>

 

<p>The 18-55 is the least impressive of the lot, but it's cheap and supposedly not as horrible as the average kit lens; actually, it's supposed to be quite usable, particularly if you stop it down a bit. The 35/2 is a good choice for a fast normal lens (it's not a wide-angle on a 1.6-crop body; in fact, it's slightly longer than normal). The 100 macro is a superb macro lens and also a fine telephoto lens for general use. The 70-200/4 is a very good medium telephoto zoom.</p>

 

<p>Of this kit, the 18-55 is the one covering the focal lengths which are the most useful to me, so it's the one I'd end up using most. As such, I probably wouldn't want this to be the worst of my lenses, so if it were me, I'd consider replacing this with the 17-85, even if it meant putting off buying one of the others. But like I said, that's me and the way I shoot; you may have other priorities, and if the 18-55 is basically for holiday snapshots while the others are for serious photography, then I'd agree that it could make sense to go cheap on this lens in order to afford the other lenses.</p>

 

<p>Someone will surely point out that you're lacking in wide coverage. For me, 18mm on a 1.6-crop body is wide enough for general usage, but that's a personal preference, which is shared by some and not by others.</p>

I can only say I wish I had started with those lenses, or better said I wish I had those now.. You have more than enough to get started and once you start using your gear you find out if something is missing. Good captures.

Rubbish. Lack of skill holds us all back.

 

Keep the 18-55, skip the rest. Tape it in place at 18mm and shoot 500 frames a week for

one month. Then do the same at 55mm. After two months, consider a moderate tele or

short w/a prime, 85 or 14mm, then do the same with it. If you're still shooting in three

months, you'll understand the basics of exposure and lens position and you'll understand

the limits of your gear and know what you may or may not need next.

 

Sorry to pull out the Mr. Miagi on you, Kyle, but it's the singer not the song. -b

I'd have to agree with Steve. I had the 17-85 and it was a great lens, very sharp and the IS was very handy. If you don't mind a 3rd party lens, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is a pretty good lens in that range for a decent price. Although not as sharp as the Canon 17-85 (at same f-stops), it is a fast zoom (f/2.8) and unless pixel peeping very sharp up to the 8x12's I printed.

 

M

I was going to purchase the 17-85, but the review here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm made me reconsider. The distortion at the low end is horrifying. I might be able to buy the 17-85 if I dropped the 35, or waited to buy the 70-200, but is a lens that turns straight lines into drastic curves really worth $600.00?

 

And Brad, that sounds like an excellent idea, and I'll probably do something akin to that as I'm learning, but the current offer from Canon to double or triple rebates is something I can't pass up. :)

Kyle, there just isn't any figuring it. I like wide angles. Some people really like macros. No matter what you buy, you'll wind up not using one lens and wearing some other lens out. No matter what you bring or buy, you'll wish you had something wider or longer or faster. If you get all the lenses you could ever want, you'll be wondering how to tote that suitcase around. So just get something and start shooting.

 

I've bought a macro and a 500mm and seldom use either now. Not the quality (which isn't tops), but I just don't shoot that kind of photo much.

Don't forget the 50mm F1.8 prime. It's only $75.00. Makes a great potrait lens.

Kyle,

I must be missing something here. What camera body and what type of shooting are yoy going to do? Bill

I have the 17-85. It does a great job if you don't know what to look for. Decent job if you know what to look for. There's a fair amount of barrel distortion at 17mm and vignetting at f4.0. It's visible depending on what your shooting. Not as obvious in other situations. Overall I like it because it fits my need for diversity and has IS. Sharp for the most part. I'm happy with it.

 

With that said, my Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 should be arriving any day now.

 

<a href="www.rwongphoto.com">www.rwongphoto.com</a>

Everyone ALWAYS recommends the 17-85/IS.

 

For everyday vacation work. . .this is a fine enough lens. Fortuanetely, the cost has been dropping to more reasonable levels.

 

Bottom line on the 17-85/IS is that it is a compromise lens. . .you pay a fair bit of money and get mid-grade quality in return for Image Stabilization and a good zoom range.

 

In the 18-55 range. . .the 18-55 is not shabby. While the 17-85/IS is optically better. . .it is not 6x better. You are paying for convienince.

 

The other lenses you have selected are all top notch. There is nothing better. .. . I would not trade down to the 17-85/IS, unless you need that range more. BUT . . .if you want to emphasize the wide end, I would go differently: 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, 100/2.8. Then save for the 70-200/4L.

 

I definately do not recommend getting everything at once. I built my kit over 10 years. My everyday kit these days is 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, 85/1.8. 24/2.8, 35/2, and 70-200/4L with 1.4TC (and a few other toys) normally sit in the closet awaiting special needs.

Wonderful selection! Now stop worrying/buying equipments and go take some great photos with those great lenses. Don't forget to share with us in your gallery! Have fun!

My apology if you haven't gotten the lenses and camera YET, base on your previous postings. If that's the case, why not save the money for now, shoot with the kit lens first, and purchase your next lens(es) base on your experience with the kit lens? Sure, you don't have to stick with the kit lens forever, but you may have a better understanding on what your needs are and what focal length you prefer after using that for a while. Best wishes.

Kyle,

I see from another post that we are talking about a 20D. I have found after atleast 2K misspent bucks that was not happy with non L lenses. So buying a lens for me is a one at a time thing. I have L lenses from 17mm thru 200mm and I am looking at a 300mm f4L IS with my Income tax check next month.I havn't heard anyone complain about having the best and I believe that L lenses are the best available.The 50mm is not offered in the US as an L lens so the 50mm1.4 will have to do. Above 200mm I think that for me IS is a must. Because I shoot mostly off hand. If you ever held a set of 10 power binoculars you know how shakey they can get. I wouldn't worry about rebates there will be more later.

Lol,Bill

Thanks, folks... I'm still pondering most of these. I've ordered the 70-200 from Amazon, because their current discount expires tonight. The others I'll buy from Adorama, which had better prices.

 

As for camera body and type of shooting, I did forget to mention that. :) I have an EOS 20D, and I'm mostly interested in nature photography. Macro photography intrigues me; I know I'll want that lens. I'm also interested in landscape photography, and I had hoped the 35mm lens would work well as a moderate wide-angle lens for that.

 

As for the 17-85... so many people rave about it that I'm now considering dropping the 35 and buying that instead. But the ridiculous amount of distortion at the low end bothers me. If I get a poor photo, I want to be able to look at it and say, "How can I do this better," not, "Oh well, I guess that's as good as it gets."

 

Is there a better choice for wide-angle landscape photography than the 35mm lens, for a comparable price? Or a better walking-around lens than the 17-85? I haven't found these yet, but then, I may not know where to look. :)

Kyle,

With or with out IS a monopod helps a lot,

Bill

FWIW, I got *just* the 24-70 when I got my 20D, and am very pleased with that combo. Obviously doesn't have the latitude you're looking for.

A 35mm lens won't be wide FOV at all on a 1.6 crop camera.

 

If you REALLY want wide angle FOV on a crop-factor body, you may want to copy my move of getting a Sigma 14mm lens. Did a great job on my D60. It's expensive, though. If you want wide angle and don't consider the kit lens or 17-85 IS acceptable (I have no experience with either) the only adequately wide lens I'm aware of that's not super-priced is the Tokina 17mm. I have no personal experience of it, but it seems to be considered good at the price.

 

To fill the gap between my 14mm and my 50/1.8, I bought a Canon 20/2.8 lens. It's not priced too unreasonably and does well on a crop body, but it isn't terribly wide.

 

Personally, I think buying the kit lens and the 70-200/4 you've already ordered is a good way to start. With a 62-67 adapter, you can put one of the Nikon diopters (6T I think) on the 70-200/4 you bought, and it will do acceptably for closeups (I carry that combination for macro targets of opportunity when hiking for landscapes). This would let you dip your toe into macro shooting. After you get some experience with these, you'll have more information to base future buying decisions (if any) on. If nothing else, the kit lens will always be useful as a knockabout lens when you're asked to photograph family gatherings (it is inevitable).

 

By the way, you may want to consider picking up a flash, especially if macro is important to you. A used Canon 420EX is a good buy now.

I've got a lot of lenses and having too many lenses makes your backpack too heavy and your wallet too light. My two indispensable lenses for landscape/nature photography are the 17-40L and 70-200/4L. Next one to grab depends on what I'm intending to shoot but I'll pick from the 10-22, 100 macro or 400/5.6 (or take them all!).

 

Based on what you indicate you'd like to shoot and my experiences with my lenses, I'd start with the 70-200 (alternatively consider the new 70-300 IS - it's getting great reviews and IS is a blessing if you're less than meticulous about tripod usage) and the kit lens. Next I'd recommend a 17-40 but only if you're unhappy with the kit lens in comparison with the 70-200 (give it a few months). Finally think long and hard about how important macro photography is. You'll get great 0.5x (approx) with the 70-200 and a 500D close-up lens (why doesn't Canon make this in 67mm filter size!?) for less weight, bulk and expense than the otherwise great 100/2.8 macro.

 

As for the 35/2.0, I've got 28, 50 and 85 primes at f/1.8 and really rarely use them for landscapes. A couple times I've done some shallow DOF work, but usually they're left at home when shooting landscapes/nature. I use them for low-light no-flash people photography (indoor/street) or for their small size when travelling.

What about :

 

- Canon EF-s 10-22mm (also an EF-s..but seems to be a very good lens)

- Sigma / Tamron / Tokina 20-70isch mm f2.8

- Canon EF 70-200 f4L

 

 

I personally have that "dreaded" EF-s 17-85 and am happy with it.

Combined it with a 70-200f4L (and since recently with a 50mm f1.8)

 

Problem is that it is the only lens available with a decent range and still wide enough on a 1.6 crop. I there was a sigma or Tamron that was a 17-70 instead of 24-70mm f2.8 I....

10~22, 24~105, 60macro. Well, that's what I use as a walk-around kit and it's a great combination, with my 100~400 and/or 135/2 [optionally +Extender 1.4x] when I need something longer. I currently have a considerable number of other lenses that I use as needed, and have owned still more over the years, so this is the outcome of exploring quite a lot of possible combinations in practice. All three of those lenses are optically outstanding - no hiding places, no nagging doubts about the need to upgrade - takes all the fun away, really.

Excellent lenses. You almost can't go wrong with primes and/or L lenses. Consider the 10-22 or 17-40 instead of the kit and you're all set.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Kyle,

 

You mentioned nature photography. Unless you plan on buying a teleconverter, the 70-200 may not be long enough. 100-400 L IS is very commonly used for nature photography by those of us who can't afford to spend $6000 on a 500mm prime lens :-)

 

As for wide angle, I agree with the other folks. Either the 17-85 IS or the 17-40 L. I personally like the flexibility of the longer IS lens but I understand your point about the quality of an L. 35mm with a 1.6X crop factor is not wide angle.

Kyle - if you are just starting out with your DSLR or with photography in general, I would second the recommendation to KEEP the kit lens for now and tape it in 18mm and then 55mm. Go around for a week on each setting and learn how focal length and distance to subject relate to each other. Learn about a near-far composition and how to create a nice little portrait with a blurred background.

 

If you can start to approach photography as first making an image IN YOUR HEAD, you will go much further. Secondary to photography is using your camera as a tool to transfer that vision of an image to an actual image. I think that the best way to learn is to start making an image NOT by picking up the camera, but by thinking about what you want the final product to look like, and how you might get there. Part of that is getting really good with focal lengths.

 

It took me a few years of casual shooting with film to figure out focal length to the point where I understood it intuitively. Now, when I shoot a wedding, 95% of the time I pre-visualize the image I want and then zoom the camera to that setting. Every so often, something new comes up, but for the most part, I select the right focal length based on the image I want instead of zooming around.

 

So, again, tape your lenses at 18mm and 55mm and then something in betewen. Resist the temptation to zoom around if it's not what you want. Your use feet only.

 

A few weeks will be a really good investment in your learning. Once you are done that, then you can talk about buying other lenses...