What's the best lens combination for an intermediate user?

 

 

<p>Hi, I'm a photography enthusiast and having owned my 40D for over an year now, I'm looking to extend the boundaries a bit and try the deep waters. I'm trying to work out what lenses I should buy within a budget that feels good on my wallet (of course I'm trying.. while I drool over all the nice L series lenses). I currently own EFS 17-85 IS USM which I absolutely love for general purpose shooting, and a sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 general lens without HSM or IS. </p>

<p>I take a lot of portraits, landscapes but few (occasionally) wildlife. So I was considering a good prime lens and a decent Zoom lens (i'm going to get rid of my start-up sigma 70-300). Thanks to all the past reviews you guys have done, I have some idea (i hope) about the quality of the lenses I have in mind. </p>

<p>For a prime lens I'm thinking to go with the Sigma 50mm f1.4 over Canon's 50mm f1.4, although it's about 100bucks more expensive. I think the Sigma is sharper and offers more sterdier build. So given that I have a good f1.4 prime lens for most of my indoor and portraits I'm struggling to pick a good 70-200 lens over few picks.<br>

Following are my shortlist;<br>

1. Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS USM<br>

2. Canon 70-200 f4L IS USM<br>

3. Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM IS<br>

4. Canon 70-200 f4L USM (given that this is dirt cheap for a L lens)</p>

<p>I'd like your opinion on this and see what you think of the selection. Of course, if you think of any other combination for my purpose I'd like to hear them as well. Thank you very much, in anticipation. Cheers!</p>

 

 

<p>One of the first things I would do is replace that EFS 17-85mm lens. It is not nearly in the same category as the other lenses you are looking at, and given that this FL range is probably your core range you'll use it most. (I can say more about my reasons for the less-than-wonderful opinion about the 17-85 if you would like, but I'll save it for now.)</p><p><br></p><p>In other words if you are ready to take advantage of better lenses, I'd start with the core lens. The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is excellent in every way on your cropped sensor camera - in fact some of us who shoot FF sort of wish that there was a comparble lens for us. The 55mm FL and f/2.8 aperture will work quite well for a great deal of portrait work - getting a prime won't really gain you a whole lot over this zoom - and a lot of landscape work is done within that FL range, too.</p><p><br></p><p>As to whether a 70-200 is more useful to you or not, you'll have to decide - though my impression from your description of what you shoot is that this would be a lower priority. As for deciding among the four (you listed three) Canon 70-200mm lenses, it comes down to a question of whether f/2.8 is necessary for your photography and to the value (or not) of IS to your shooting. All four of the Canon 70-200 lenses are optically among the very best zoom telephotos made, so that should not be an issue in making your decision. </p><p><br></p><p>Dan<br></p>

<p><strong>EF-S 17-85mm IS</strong> This is one of those things... and it will never be settled.</p>

<p>There are some people here who really seem to have set against the 17-85mm IS lens. If, as you say, you love it, you won't find anything nearly a convenient to replace it. I personally find the IQ quite good and the flaws it does have are easily fixed in the relatively rare cases where they become obvious. It would be nice to have an update of it, but in the meantime, you've already got it and I'm certainly still hanging on to mine for use on my APS-C bodies.</p>

<p>I personally also wouldn't get any telephoto zoom without IS. Since you're already used to having it, I think you'd be sorry. A wide angle? I think another situation, but every mm extra effectively magnifies shake and tremors.<br>

If cash is a problem, take a look at the reviews of the <em>non</em> -L 70-300mm IS. It doesn't have the build quality, but it seems to be optically fine, and it gives you another 100mm reach.</p>

<p>There are reviews of all of these, including the 17-85mm, at Photozone.de. Bob Atkins has reviewed some of these at his website (<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/index.html">link</a> )</p>

<p>Thanks Dan, some food for thought there. Replacing 17-85 is definitely on the cards, but the question I think is should I replace it now or delay it for my next upgrade. The rationale behind going for Prime was that I take most of my portraits 50mm and above (I guess). I should do more research about what's the gain I get going for the prime over 17-55 f2.4.<br>

Going back to replacing my 17-85, I had my eye on the 16-35 f2.8L lens for a while as well. What are your thoughts about this combined with my Prime? (this option is about 800bucks more exp)<br>

I take your point about my usage of landscape vs wildlife/outdoor. This is one decision I have to make. <br>

Cheers...</p>

<p>What you'd have to ask about the prime is whether it will be any better than the 17-55 and/or whether a prime would be better enough (in terms of effect on your photos) to trump the other advantages of the zoom which include flexible FL and image stabilization.</p>

<p>Contrary to what some will tell you, you don't necessarily want to shoot portraits at the very largest apertures primes can provide. You are actually more likely to stop down a bit - perhaps even f/4 or so - in order to expand the DOF sufficiently so that you don't, for example, get focus on one eye but not the other. (Which is not to say that there are no situations in which you might want to get that very "one eye in focus" effect.)</p>

<p>I would not recommend the very excellent 16-35 in the situation you describe. I think it is a fine option on a full frame camera for a photographer who does a lot of hand held low light work at f/2.8. However, on the cropped sensor body the EFS 17-55 does the same thing with reportedly equivalent image quality... and it throws in a larger FL range and IS. (My favorite ultra-wide for my own shooting is the 17-40 f/4, but I would not recommend that in your situation either.)</p>

<p>Be cautious about automatically favoring an L lens over a non-L alternative. The L lenses are undeniably fine lenses (I have a few...) but in some cases for some uses they are not always the best choice. One "thought experiment" you can run is to imagine what you would choose if both the 17-55 and the 16-35 lens had the L designation, or if neither did.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I own the Sigma 50 1.4. It is a very good lens on my full frame camera. However on your camera you don't see the edges of full frame lenses. Under those conditions the Canon 50mm 1.4 might be a better choice. In fact, when stopped down to F4 or more it out performs the Sigma in terms of resolution. However the Sigma does have better build quality and bokeh than the Canon 1.4.</p>

<p>For a telephoto I would definitely get a lens with IS. The only lens I own that is on your list is the 70-200 F4 IS. It is a very good light weight lens. Great for the long Landscape hikes. For Landscapes I would serously consider the a wide angle lens like the Canon 10-20mm. Full frame wide angles such as the 17-40 and 16-35 offer little to no advantage over the 18-55 or 17-55 EFS lenses.</p>

<p>To compare lens quality I would read reviews at <a href="http://www.DPreview.com">www.DPreview.com</a> or <a href="http://www.photozone.de">www.photozone.de</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks vW, Steve and Dan again. If you're interested in a somewhat similat thread about 50mm and 17-55mm check this. <a href="../portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00TrbT">http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00TrbT</a><br>

17-55mm sounds interesting and I continue my research on more comparisons of that to the 50mm f1.4. I know it's comparing an Apple to an Orange but I want to know owning 50mm f1.4 with breathtaking bokeh to combine it with a quality standard zoom lens down the line is worth the extra money I pay on it now. <br>

As for the tele, I reckon I should proceed with Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM referb offer for 1400. Although, I'd like to hear your views on Image sharpness of this compared to the f4 version (which is only 1025). Also from someone who has used both lenses about the mobility of the two (I know the latter is half the weight of the prior)<br>

Cheers! </p>

<p>I have the cheapest of the 70-200Ls, the f/4 without IS, and I love it. It is insanely sharp. I don't think you need to worry too much about which of the 4 are the sharpest lens, they are all plenty sharp. When choosing between the 4 options that Canon provided us with in the 70-200 L's, you have to consider the following:</p>

<ol>

<li>Do you need f/2.8? If you shoot mainly outdoors and in daylight, you most likely don't. If you shoot indoors, or outside at night (e.g. artificially lit stadiums), that extra step would help you.</li>

<li>Do need IS? Most of the members here would tell you to get an IS version if it is within your budget. I agree. It wasn't within mine, but it sure would have been nice. From what you wrote, most of your shooting involved stationary subjects, and here IS will come in handy.</li>

<li>Is weight an issue? I sometimes leave my f/4 at home because I find it adds too much weight for an entire days worth of sightseeing, it would be even worse with an f/2.8</li>

</ol>

<p>Thanks Henrik. On the trot with the points there, I reckon. I've somewhat decided on the IS as it seems like a very desirable thing to have. I'm also a bit lenient towards the f2.8 over hint of drop of sharpness compared to the f4. However, the size and the weight of the f2.8 worries me a bit. I'd love to hear from some one who uses it day to day. Like covering events (wedding, halls, fashion etc). </p>

<p>Coming back to the standard lens range, I'd also love to hear your opinions about the Canon 24-70 f2.8L lens?</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>Some of Canon's more recent EF-S lenses – the 17~55, the 10~22, and the 60/2.8 – have set a standard that does make the 17~85 look a little off-the-pace, and the IS version of the kit lens has added to that by acquiring a reputation for its optical quality that is better than the 17~85. It's possible that Canon themselves may realise this, and with the late-summer round of Canon announcements due in just a few weeks it may be worth waiting that short time to see if anything new emerges that might be relevant to your needs. IS on anything significantly beyond standard focal length is something that I would not be without. I share your concerns about size and weight, from the practical experience of using the 100~400, which is comparable in that respect with the f/2.8 70~200 zooms. I carry the 100~400 only when I know I am going to need it, whereas the 70~200/4IS, an absolutely outstanding lens, is compact and light enough to be part of my carry-round kit, and works extremely well with the Extender 1.4x when I need just a bit more reach.</p>

<p>I would go with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS and Canon 24-70 f/2.8 since you never know when you need the fast lens. Would help you in a dark forest. </p>

<p>I<em> take a lot of portraits, landscapes but few (occasionally) wildlife.</em><br>

I suggest buying lenses for specific purposes, specific subjects you like to shoot. Then get the best you can afford.<br>

<strong>Landscape</strong> : Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16. I have the Sigma and I like it.<br>

<strong>Portraits</strong> : 50/1.4 is indeed a good choice. Maybe consider a hoeshoe flash as well. Are you interested at all in a macro lens? With primes there's a choice of large aperture vs close focusing.<br>

<strong>Wildlife</strong> : 100-400 IS is the cats meow but it's expensive. Canon 70-300 costs less. Then there's primes like Canon 300/4 IS or third-party zooms like Sigma 120-500 OS. Or you could go 70-200/2.8 IS with teleconverters - expensive, but you'll get a killer portrait setup at the same time. Many folks agonize over 100-400 vs 70-200 with teleconverters (have a search, hundereds of threads), and what it boils down to is if you shoot mostly wildlife and the occasional portrait then get the 100-400 and if you shoot mainly portraits and the occasional bird then get the 70-200 with teleconverters. Personally I shoot 200/2.8 with teleconverters - works great but not as convenient as a zoom.</p>

<p>This is a very big question, both for you and responders. I don't think you can resolve it in one shot, nor is it prudent. I'd change one (or two at the most) lens in your line-up at any one time. All of them have pros and cons. Some thoughts:</p>

<p>1. the much maligned 17-85 is a decent lens, I think it main downside is speed. Why do you need to ditch it? Just keep it around. I keep buying this lens for people, 3 to date.</p>

<p>2. I went with the Canon 50mm f1.4, over third party. I'm mostly satisfied with it, main downside is build quality: it feels cheap and clunky. Also, it's closest focus is mediocre.</p>

<p>3. I have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS, which I purchased before the f4.0 was available with IS. If I had the choice to make today, I'd be on the fence: the f4 is a <em>half </em>the weight, very sharp, much more compact. The only downside is it's odd filter size, 77mm is my norm.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks again all for some interesting input. </p>

<p>Mendel, About the 70-200 f2.8 IS vs f4 IS, if I intend to do more portrait work (indoor, such as events) as opposed to wildlife shots with it, which one would you prefer? Sharp images, and its mobility or the better bokeh? </p>

<p>I used the EFS 17-85mm lens for the first year that I owned a DSLR. It can be a fine lens if your expectations are limited to perhaps sharing photos online and printing letter size and smaller and if you really want a "one-lens solution" on a cropped sensor body.</p>

<p>But beyond that use it has real problems - not just in my opinion but in the opinion of many others who have used it and many who have tested and reviewed it. The issues include:</p>

<ul>

<li>Not very sharp in general. (I could not consistently get 12 x 18 inch prints from mine - but I did consistently get images using different lenses on the same camera that would print at 16 x 24.)</li>

<li>Significant problems with corner softness.</li>

<li>Significant problems with "vignetting."</li>

<li>Significant CA.</li>

<li>Significant barrel/pincushion - described by one reviewer as the worst seen on such a lens.</li>

<li>Limited apertures - especially at 85mm.</li>

<li>Limited usable apertures between largest (e.g. f/5.6 at 85mm) and smallest typical at f/8</li>

<li>Build quality is so-so. I'd put it in the same category as the 18-55mm kit lens.</li>

</ul>

<p>Again, this can be a fine lens for certain users who will not push the boundaries of print size and so forth. But if you are concerned with IQ issues there are better options. For less money you can get better image quality from the EFS 18-55mm IS kit lens. For more money you can get really, really fine performance from the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I think it is a good idea that you are upgrading in the focal lenght you shoot the most. It's also good that you've been asking yourself questions about what you want to photograph, etc. Personally I wouldn't spend the extra money on the 70-200 f2.8 but instead get the 4L with IS. If your subject is anywhere near you the shallow depth of field f2.8 gives you will render most everything out of focus. If you tend to shoot low light and your subject is far away then it might be useful. The money you save I'd instead reinvest into a good 17-40L. Then fill the middle gave with the best bang for the buck 50 1.8 lens. At some point if you like taking portraits you might want to then get an 85 f1.8 lens which would be lighter then your 70-200.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Firstly keep that 17-85 IS USM lens. It is a great lens. You can read Bob Atkins review here<br>

<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-85_review_5.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-85_review_5.html</a></p>

<p>It appears that some of the posters in this thread are confusing it with the 17-85 kit lens which is not all that great.</p>

<p>For a longer zoom, you really cannot beat the EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM for general work. Although the USM is not ringless, it is fast and I use it a lot for birding.</p>

<p>Graham.</p>

 

<p>Firstly keep that 17-85 IS USM lens. It is a great lens. You can read Bob Atkins review here<br>

<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-85_review_5.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-85_review_5.html</a></p>

<p>It appears that some of the posters in this thread are confusing it with the 17-85 kit lens which is not all that great.</p>

<p>For a longer zoom, you really cannot beat the EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM for general work. Although the USM is not ringless, it is fast and I use it a lot for birding.</p>

<p>Graham.</p>

 

<p>The best compromise:<br>

2. Canon 70-200 f4L IS USM<br>

Sharp wide open, light weight, image stabilization</p>

<p>I've finally placed my order on B&H for the new lenses and anxiously waiting to get my hands on these much talked about glasses... So finally I decided to go with the Sigma 50mm f1.4 over the Canon 50mm f1.4 (fingers crossed that I get a good copy, as I hear Sigma's bad copy-good copy ratio isn't as good as Canon) and Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS over the other mentioned.</p>

<p>As for reasons, I thought I'd enjoy the wider aperture, low light shooting capability and suitability for indoor more than the f4 version, over f4 talked about sharpness, light-weight and of course, the $650 I'd have saved.</p>

<p>I will be looking to upgrade my kit lens in the future to either a 17-55mm or a 17-40mm. The decision would probably base on if I want to go for full film cam later on..</p>

<p>Thank you all for your reviews/thoughts on this.. till I write something of my own experiences, Cheers to all!</p>