Need hlep to decide what lens to buy?

<p>Hi Guys,</p>

<p>I am new to photography and i bought canon 5d mark ii and 50mm f1.8 lens. <br>

<br />I have some coupons ( $1000) and i need to use those coupons ASAP. Please suggest me what lens i need to buy.<br>

<br />I am interested in portrait and Landscape photography.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

 

<p>Your needs will be covered by what is called a "normal zoom": that is, from moderate wide angle to moderate telephoto. Aim to get the fastest that you can afford.</p>

<p>Get the Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS lens. It's a great all-purpose lens that is good for landscapes up to portraits. It's in your price range.</p>

<p>I like the 24-70L.... but probably the 24-105 is more popular and in your budget. That is is the one I'd get with your budget.</p>

<p>I agree with the 24-105. It's an excellent general-purpose lens that does most of my "heavy lifting." It's not your only choice, though. </p>

<p>If you like prime lenses, you could also start collecting those. You could start with a better built and optically somewhat better 50/1.4 (about $400) to replace the 1.8. Then sell the 1.8 for roughly $100 on ebay. Then pick up the 100/2 (an excellent portrait lens) for $464 (B&H price), and maybe pick up some assorted small items (e.g. a GOOD circular polarizer) for what's left. I'm not saying a prime route is better than a zoom route. (I use mostly zooms, myself.) However, I'm just saying you have options.</p>

 

Second the 24-105mm lens. You are getting L quality at an affordable price. I have found it performs at all apertures but much improved

by f8. Not too heavy to carry and with weather protection and 77mm filter size.

<p>If you're interested in doing outdoor portraiture, Chaitanya, I'd recommend the 70-200/4 L IS. It gives you more reach than a standard zoom, which is useful if you want to be a little removed from the "action": for example, while photographing children. And optically it is superb. It's my "standard" walkabout lens on both my 5DII and 50D.</p>

<p>The 24-105/4 L IS is also a good lens, but I never found it to be quite as good as the 70-200, particularly in less than optimal light. I now use all primes in the wider and normal focal length ranges.</p>

<p>Just to note, beware of those who say you need an ultrawide angle lens to shoot landscapes. Landscapes can be effectively shot with a huge range of focal lengths, from ultrawide to telephoto. My personal range is 24-300mm; I'm not a "really wide" kind of photographer, preferring to isolate details rather than capture sweeping vistas.</p>

<p>One of the benefits of using zooms is that they enable you to create your personal shooting style and to readily determine which fields of view best suit it.</p>

<p>So, like Sarah says, you have options.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you already got a 50/1.8, a 24-105/4 is a good all purpose lens, not the greatest, but given your interest level, and experience, probably a good choice.</p>

<p>However, 28-75/2.8 + an 85/1.8 or 100/2 could be had as well for your budget, and give more effective portraiture 'chops'. DOF plays a huge role in portraiture, and @2.8 vs. @f4 makes a significant difference.</p>

<p>Another alternative is the 17-40/4 + an 85/1.8 or 100/2 - be a smidge over your budget, but it would give a great lens for landscapes (even out to UWA if you so desire), and the 50/1.8 +85/100 would give a good combo for portraiture.</p>

<p>I'd join many of the above in recommending the EF 24-105mm IS L f/4 lens.<br>

For the 35mm-format of the sort you have (the 5Dii body) it is quite simply the best in resolving all the contradictions that go into a lens covering the wide to short telephoto range. Whatever you get, I'd strongly recommend <strong><em>I</em></strong>mage <strong><em>S</em></strong>tabilization - it is a wonderful tool.<br>

No lens is perfect, and no lens is great for every conceivable use, but the 24-105 is so very <em>handy</em>.</p>

<p>By all means keep the 50mm f/1.8. It's cheap and not quite as good on the larger format as on the APS-C format cameras, but it will be great for really low light situations. </p>

<p>If you want more than one lens for your coupon money, consider the slightly less capable EF 28-135mm IS lens (very decent and a nice range, too) and the IS version of the 70-300mm zoom (not the L version, that's altogether more expensive). However, if it were my choice, I'd still choose the 24-105.</p>

 

<p>I agree on the 24-105mm lens. It's been my primary lens for over 6 years now. I am looking at the new 24-70 that is supposed to ship (hopefully) in September as a replacement, but that's way outside the price range you talked about.</p>

<p>A used Canon EF 17-40/4 L and a used Canon EF 70-200/4 L. Or, a Canon EF 20/2.8 and Canon EF 100/2.</p>

<p>One further note if you're interested in the 24-105: If you team up with someone upgrading to either a 5DII or a 5DIII, you could buy the kit together and divide up the body and lens. The two paired together in a kit come at somewhat of a savings. Then you could use your entire $1000 coupon to apply to the kit and get back a bit of cash in the deal.</p>

<p>Something a lot of people don't mention that is of major concern to me is trying to keep a consistent set of filter sizes on the lenses I buy. I actually use three now (58mm, 67 & 77), but I'd prefer to keep it at two or even one.</p>

<p>Another set of questions are a) are you ok with buying used lenses, b) will you consider lenses based on decent quality yet somewhat out-of-date designs, c) will you consider good-quality 3rd party lenses, d) does your coupon(s) limit you to a particular store, and e) do you happen to live in the US? If the answers are yes, no and yes, look into buying from keh.com (aim for 'bargain' rated lenses that include the hood in the selling price). So, some other **options** not yet mentioned (none really better than the others) are:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>52mm filter size: Canon 28mm/2.8 lens + keep your 50mm/1.8 lens + either the original 100mm/2.8 macro lens, or the 135mm/2.8 soft-focus lens (least expensive option). Note that all these are fixed focal length, non-USM, non-IS lenses.<br /><br /></li>

<li>58mm v.1: Canon 24mm/2.8 lens (non-USM) + 50mm/1.4 lens USM (sell or return your 50mm/1.8) + either the 85mm/1.8 USM, 100mm/2.0 USM or 100mm/2.8 macro USM (make sure you get the USM and non-L 58mm filter model) lens. All these lenses are non-IS.<br /><br /></li>

<li>58mm v.2: Canon 24/2.8 + 50/1.4 + 70-300mm/4.0-5.6 USM IS zoom lens.<br /><br /></li>

<li>52mm + 67mm: Canon 24-85mm/3.5-4.5 USM lens + keep your 50/1.8 + 70-200mm/4.0L IS USM zoom lens. This option will run over your budget. You could also save money by buying the non-IS 70-200/4, but once you get this long of a telephoto, IS becomes more important.<br /><br /></li>

<li>52mm + 72mm: Keep your 50/1.8 + Canon 28-135mm/3.5-5.6 IS USM zoom (VERY inexpensive -- a good temporary measure while you figure out what you REALLY want). Also, if you go a little over budget, you can add a Canon 20mm/2.8 USM and a Canon 200mm/2.8L USM (no IS), then save up for Canon 1.4x and 2x teleconverters AND a decent tripod.<br /><br /></li>

<li>52mm + 77mm v.1: Canon 20-35mm/3.5-4.5 USM lens + keep your 50/1.8 + either a new Tamron 70-200/2.8 zoom (no USM or IS) or a Sigma 70-200/2.8 zoom (USM equivalent, but no IS -- see <br />http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-CE09999102840R?r=FE)<br /><br /></li>

<li>52mm + 77mm v.2 (over your budget but maybe worth saving for): Canon 17-40mm/4.0L USM lens + keep your 50/1.8 + either a new Tamron 70-200/2.8 zoom (no USM or IS) or a Sigma 70-200/2.8 zoom (USM equivalent, but no IS)<br /><br /></li>

<li>52mm +77mm v.3: As many others have suggested, probably your best bet for the time being -- keep your 50/1.8 + Canon 24-105/4.0L IS USM.</li>

</ol>

<p>Sorry, I'm ending here. I've spent way too much time that I don't have trying to brainstorm ideas.</p>