Looking for another workhorse lens

<p>I'm not a professional photographer by trade, but I love the hobby. I'm at a lens decision and could use some expert's weight in on what kind of workhorse lens upgrade I should go to. Current Gear :<br>

RebelXTi -2nd/backup body<br>

40D -main body<br>

Sigma DGSuper 530 hotshoe flash w/ diffuser<br>

Tamron 18-250 f/3.5<br>

Canon 85mm f/1.8<br>

Canon 17-55 f/4.5 (stock lens) - not used as much currently<br>

The XTi and Tamron combo paid for the rest of the gear I've purchased. (plus a lot of other goodies like some studio lights and radio transmitters ...ect)<br>

I know that investing in the glass will eventually pay for itself. Where I need assistance is with the next workhorse lens purchase. I shoot both body's at weddings and I find that both those lenses give me the superb spectrum and style of shot's I'm looking for.<br>

I want the next step up in crispness and versatility. I don't want someone who likes to hear themselves talk try to sell me on a $4,000 lens b/c they feel it's far superior than anything else on the market. I'm budget minded, but I also understand, seeing first hand, that what I buy will eventually pay for itself + more! (so I'm willing to plop down some cash-ish to get there) I'm thinking under $1,000. Thoughts??</p>

<p>Charles - I'm neither a Canon shooter (any more) nor a wedding pro (although I've shot as a guest), but I can guess the first question people will ask - where is your current kit limiting you? I'm not quite sure what you mean by "workhorse lens".<br />

<br />

Were it me, for weddings, I'd be wondering about an ultrawide (for bridal preparations in confined spaces), a macro (decorations/rings) or a fast aperture big zoom (aisle/dance), or possibly a portable speedlight or two (if that doesn't describe your studio rig) and reflectors. Possibly also something fast for hiding ugly backgrounds (here Canon has the advantage of the f/1.2 glass, but not within your budget). But then, because I've never been the main shooter at a wedding, I've always been shooting candids from a distance and trying to complement, not replicate, the pro's shots - so I may over-prioritize lenses that aren't "workhorse", and mid-range zooms have never been my thing.<br />

<br />

For what it's worth, I got married at the start of the year, and the (Canon) photographer seemed to be mostly using a 24-70 and a 70-200 (f/2.8 IS), which is a combination that didn't surprise me (I bought myself an 80-200 f/2.8 Nikon lens while out there for a friend to use as backup). That was on a 5D2, though, so they may not suit an APS-C sensor so much.<br />

<br />

Of those, I'd expect to worry most about the long end, partly because you may well be close enough to use flash with a shorter zoom, partly because depth of field control is more useful for longer lenses. I suspect a 70-200 f/2.8 might be pushing your budget and be a bit longer than is useful for APS-C, but photozone seem to like the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 (if it's still made). I was going to suggest a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, but the photozone review isn't all that complimentary about it. If course, if you feel you never go longer than your 85mm, that may be poor advice; on full frame I'd be thinking about the 135 f/2 as well, but I'd be very worried about that being too long for APS-C use (unless, like me, you lurk and take candids).<br />

<br />

I hope that gives you some thoughts, anyway. Good luck with whatever you get.</p>

<p>Andrew G : Thank you for the mention of a few you enjoy and a few I could use!<br>

I do have the APS-C sensor in both my body's, but I honestly am not going to let that stop me from buying a good lens. So many people buy the "best lens for their sensor" and find that when they upgrade their gear, they have to literally upgrade ALL of it. (NOT a fan of that) If that means I have to adjust my shooting style to accommodate a lens that may not give me the best quality with my current gear, I'm ok with that, I'll adapt. I do hope to one day move into the full frame world and I'd like to transfer most of my gear with me to it. <br>

What I mean by "workhorse" probably shows my amateur-ness..... I use one of 2 lenses to gather most of my shots; the 18-250 being the bread winner. Two body's = 2 lenses; I have learned the art of 2 lenses, but I'm trying to get out of my comfort zone and into a better quality photo via a better quality lens. So something that will be similar to my 18-250, but maybe a better f/x.x ? I'm thinking in the 2.x range. Doesn't necessarily need to be that wide a range, but similar in that I can get a wide variety of shots with equal or better crisp clean finish. (no I'm not describing beer)</p>

<p>Charles - you've made money from your photos, which is more than I have, so please none of the "amateur-ness" concerns (although it might be a reason for you to doubt my qualifications to comment). Knowing how to use two lenses properly is more than many people can claim.<br />

<br />

Regarding my APS-C comments, they were based on field of view for typical shooting scenarios - not anything to do with whether full-frame needs "better" lenses. For example, you already have an 85mm f/1.8; on (say) a 5D, that's a shortish portrait lens (like setting your zooms to 55mm on your cameras), which is a popular focal length for full body to upper body shots at a reasonable (not looking distorted) working distance. On your cameras, that 85mm is very close to the field of view you get from a 135mm lens on a full-frame camera - popular for tighter cropped portraits, but you're a long way away for a whole body image. Were you shooting with a 5D, I'd recommend such a lens, especially since Canon's 135mm L lens is very well-regarded. However, on your cameras, 135mm is very long if you want to communicate with your subjects (try it with your zoom), so it's probably not so useful. [You <i>can</i> do this, and I take a lot of portraits with a 200mm lens on a full frame camera that has a similar field of view to your APS-C cameras paired with a 135mm, but it's awkward - and possibly more useful for candids where you don't want to disturb the subject.]<br />

<br />

That said, there's an argument for having a full-frame camera and a crop-body camera as back-up - it effectively doubles the number of focal lengths you might have in your bag.<br />

<br />

Back to your needs. The problem is that the 18-250 is a superzoom - it covers a very wide range of focal lengths, but there are two compromises: the sharpness and contrast are never as good as a simpler lens, and the maximum aperture is limited. Nobody makes an 18-250 that's much sharper or much faster. To fix either of these things, you need to give up on some of the focal range - that's why, for example, Nikon's pro zooms (14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 200-400 f/4) only cover a shortish range and meet at the ends (Canon's are similar, I just don't know them as well).<br />

<br />

The same is true, but more so, of prime (fixed focal length) lenses. Nobody makes an f/1.8 zoom that can do what your 85mm prime can do.<br />

<br />

What should you do? It depends where, in the zoom range, you think you could do with more. If you're often bouncing off 18mm, I'd suggest an ultrawide zoom (like Canon's 10-22mm), although that's a specialist lens that I wouldn't consider if you're <i>not</i> often using the 18mm end.<br />

<br />

If you want aperture and sharpness in the zoom range, I'd vaguely expect (because it's harder to use a longer lens in the dark and because longer lenses are better at isolating the background) that it would be better to aim longer rather than shorter, and the zoom of choice is whatever f/2.8 70-200mm you can afford (possibly the non-IS with a monopod to hold it still). But it's big, so be ready for that. The f/4 70-200 is much smaller and cheaper, and optically fantastic, but it won't get you as much aperture over your current lens. The shorter lenses I mentioned might be better on APS-C if you find that the 70mm end is already the longer end of what you need and you'd be switching between lenses every shot.<br />

<br />

If you're more in the mid range most of the time and don't use the long end of your zoom, possibly an f/2.8 mid-range zoom would give you some quality benefit. Bear in mind you're already at the faster and sharper end of your 18-250 with that, though, so there'll be less of a step-up compared with the 70-200 options. This is why I don't own a mid-range pro zoom, but a lot of people are happy with them at weddings. You could always add a faster (f/1.4), shorter (35mm or 50mm) prime to complement your 85mm instead.<br />

<br />

Finally, the macro option would let you take shots that you can't already do (get very close), and would give you a 100mm f/2.8 lens (if you go with Canon's obvious choice - the Tamron 90mm is possibly a bit of an overlap with your 85 f/1.8, but Tokina and Sigma make decent 100mm and 105mm options, or 150mm if you feel rich). These lenses would all double as a half-decent portrait lens as well as macro use, so if you want an f/2.8 lens that's longish and don't want a 70-200, they'd do dual service.<br />

<br />

Sadly there's no such thing as a perfect lens that is fast, covers a wide zoom range, and is optically good. At any price. I'm afraid you have to pick your battles.<br />

<br />

On the plus side, you already have two bodies - this means that you're less likely to be stuck with the wrong focal length on the camera when something critical happens, because you could always have the 18-250 on your backup. The trick is not to throttle yourself with two camera straps.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and I hope that's more to consider.</p>

<p>I'm even less of a Canon expert, but just a simple thought: check from the EXIF data of your current photos which focal lengths matter most to you, and then start searching specifically for those. As Andrew said, the 18-250 is a compromise lens - very convenient, but also very f/6.3 at the long end. Try to split that lens in 2 better lenses, that would make most sense to me.<br>

My experience with weddings is purely unpaid work, but the little experience I have, I used mostly relatively short lenses, most used was a 18-70 I had, and 35 and 85mm primes (all on APS-C too). Given you already have the 85mm, maybe something like the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 lenses would made a good option, probably.</p>

If I was going to shoot weddings with a 40D, I would buy a Canon 17-55 f2.8 EFS IS, for about $1,000, or similar lenses made by Tamron or Sigma if I wanted to spend less. This lens, the 85mm, and another fast prime, between 30-50mm, should handle most situations.

<p>If you want a fast zoom you'll have to accept a shorter zoom range. That's just the nature of the beast. I also think that a Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 would be a good choice. You have the 85mm f/1.8 and the 18-250 if you need longer. I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non VC) in Nikon mount. It's very sharp, but the focusing is slow and it sometimes hunts in low light. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM has the HSM motor. I have two HSM lenses and they focus quickly and quietly even in low light, so the Sigma would be my choice.</p>

<p>If you want a longer zoom range, consider the Canon 18-135 IS. It's slower, but it's supposed to be a good lens. I'm a Nikon user so I'm going by its reputation.</p>

I am not sure what you think you need but if I were in your position I would like a fast wide angle. Something around 35

mm full frame equivalent. If you like zooms then perhaps the 17-55 f2.8 - primes start to get expensive but Sigma makes

f1.8 20 and 24 mm

<p>It doesn't really look like you know what you want, so my advice would probably be to save your money.</p>

<p>That said, if you want more "crispness" from your outfit, you will need to sacrifice the versatility of your superzoom (18-250), in favor of high quality lenses with smaller zoom ranges. Because you don't want to talk about thousands of dollars in lenses, I won't even go there with you. Perhaps an intermediate step would be to acquire a couple of Canon's bargain performers:</p>

<p>EF 28-135 IS<br /> EF 70-300 IS</p>

<p>You can get the two for maybe $700 if you shop carefully. I own both of these lenses, and while I prefer my 24-105 and 70-200/4IS, I have to say these two lenses do a pretty decent job for the money.</p>

<p>If you want fast lenses, be prepared to pay. Also be prepared to carry around some weight.</p>

<p>As a wedding shooter, I rely on the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 almost exclusively, but I shoot FF. I don't think I've ever heard of the 17-55/4.5 (?) but maybe you mean the 18-55/3.5-5.6 ? which was the 'kit' lens on the XTi.</p>

<p>Lens wise, I would probably recommend buying a used tamron 17-50/2.8 to cover the wide end, and a used Tamron or Sigma 70-200/2.8 to cover the long end. Used, you should be able to get both lenses for about your budget.<br>

These lenses are all very good. The tamron 17-50/2.8 is as sharp as the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 (albeit w/o the IS or USM), and routinely can be had (used) for ~$350-400.<br>

The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is alright, it seems pretty good optically speaking, but it is slower to focus than either the Canons or the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM. The tamron, NEW is ~$750<br>

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM is a bit better - still remarkably sharp, and fast to boot. I found a used copy for $500 a couple of years ago (as a backup for my 2.8L), and occasionally still see them go for about that.</p>

<p>The IQ difference between these guys and what you are shooting w/ now is like night and day. If you actively are making money now, it'd be a good idea to get some better glass sooner rather than later.</p>

<p>Wide angle/standard angle options that I would consider, around $1000 USD: Canon EF 17-40/4 L, used Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L, used Canon EF 24/1.4 L, or used Canon EF 35/1.4 L.</p>

<p>Portrait lens options that I would consider, around $1000 USD: Canon EF 50/1.4, Canon EF 85/1.8, Canon EF 100/2, used Canon EF 85/1.2 L original, Canon EF 70-200/4 L IS or no IS, or used Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L non-IS.</p>

<p>I would probably put a prime lens on one body and a zoom on the other.</p>

<p>You already have the 85/1.8 so I'd be inclined to add a high quality wideangle zoom, but you say that you don't use the 17-55 that you do have. Do you not use it because of the focal length or the quality? </p>

<p> </p>

I love the results of the 100L macro on al my camera's. (XTi, 50D, 5d2)

 

If it's a focal length you like it might just be perfect to combine with the superzoom.

 

(it might also be worth a little of your time to check if the Tamron 18-270 VC PZD or the Canon 18-200 IS are an

improvement on your 18-250)

 

Good luck and have fun,

 

Matthijs.

<p>I would go in one (or two) of the following three directions:</p>

<p>i) Canon 17-55/2.8 IS. Very good image quality - 2.8 and IS is very useful in dark places - best all-around lens</p>

<p>ii) Canon 10-22/3.5-4.5. If you would like to go ultra-wide - which you are lacking in your kit. Very good image quality, however going ultrawide may fit very well with someone's vision or not. Whether this is the way to go is a very personal and subjective decision. As someone suggested before - make a scan of the EXIF data for the most used focal lengths</p>

<p>iii) Canon 70-200/4L (IS or no IS if budget is tight). Very good image quality. Again whether this option would be better than the ultrawide or not depends wholly on your shooting style. E.g. I tend to use the 70-200 much more often then the ultrawide - however there are many people who have just the opposite preferences..</p>

<p>There may be good third-party alternatives - I am not mentioning them as I do not have them..</p>

<p>Charles, how about the Canon EF-S 15_85mm IS f3.5-5.6?</p>

<p>The 24-105L IS, is a highly regarded lens for wedding shooters, when using full frame cameras. This lens can be used on all EOS cameras, both full and crop, so somewhat future-proof. Plus it is L quality, and expensive to boot.</p>

<p>The equivalent lens for crop cameras is the EF-S 15-85 IS. It's optics are on par with the 24-105L, not L quality built, but it's cost is considerably less.</p>

<p>BTW, I do not own this lens yet, though it will be my next purchase. This lens will replace my current Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, used on a 7d. I will keep the Tamron, it seems my Daughter has already spoken for it!</p>

 

Kenneth, I agree that Canon 17-55 f2.8 can handle most situations at weddings - it so happened that I have used this lens on 500D to capture many big indoor events!<div></div>

<p>Wow a lot to digest here, I truly appreciate the insight from all persons; trust me, if you took the time to give advice, I'm not going to take it lightly. I like the idea mentioned of splitting my 1 "workhorse" lens into 2 lenses respectively; that makes the most sense to me.<br>

I just need to look back through my history of shots to determine where I like to "play." My initial guess is that it's going to be from the 18-70mm range, seeing as I usually am less than 12' from my subjects. My initial thought is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 (brand is yet to be determined) will fulfill my needs quite nicely but the more I look at some of the other suggestions, you're all making this quite difficult to choose!<br>

I'm probably going to end up at Cord Camera with my camera taking pictures of strangers to see which ones will produce the best quality / sharpness / low light ability. I hate to say it, but clear low light shooting is a must. I do too many shots that end up in b&w or sepia b/c of the low light noise acquired from my 18-250mm. (another reason I wanted to go to a f/2.8 "something"from my current f/3.5) The depth and field are what I'll be investigating next @ the camera shop! I appreciate the input and will use the wisdom toward good only! No bad pictures!</p>