EF-S 10-22 plus what?

<p>Hi,<br>

After agonizing a lot about what to buy with my 550D, i finally bought an EF-S 10-22.<br>

Initial plan was to buy a 70-200 F4 IS with this, plus a low light standard prime.<br>

I am loving 10-22. It turned out to be bang on in terms of being bought as a first lens as against buying something<br>

in the standard walk-about range of 28-80....so well, i'm happy.<br>

But,<br>

What do you think i should buy next, to compliment this one....should i stick to the initial plan of buying a 70-200, where i will probably miss out on the very important middle ranges of 35mm to 105mm.</p>

<p>Or, should it be all primes: 35 F2, 50 1.8, 85 1.8 (not telephoto here though)</p>

<p>Or, should it be a standard zoom like 15-85?</p>

<p>What do you guys think?<br>

thanks,<br>

anurag</p>

<p>I used my 28-135 from my old film camera, plus they're dirt cheap now. I have 100-300mm 5.6 l and 200 2.8 that I hardly ever use.</p>

<p>Do get the 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4 . . . "Everyone needs one!"</p>

<p>So what if you miss a little focal length!</p>

<p>Go for the 70-200 with IS</p>

<p>You didn't indicate what type of shooting you do, but . . . I wouldn't trade my 100-400 for any other lens!</p>

<p>Primes vs. zooms is very subjective. I personally lean towards zooms to reduce lens changing, but primes generally have wider apertures and the fixed focal lengths encourage the photographer to move around more to compose. Your call, depending on shooting style.</p>

<p>I use a tele-zoom quite a bit for nature photography, but again it's your call depending on what you photograph and what your current system is most lacking.</p>

<p>Get the lens you want most and add on later.<br>

For what I do I seem to spend most of my time with the 10-22 and my 100-400L. I have a 24-70L for those times I need to cover the middle.<br>

I'll go against the grain and tell you to not bother with the 50 1.8 and put that 100 dollars toward something else. I never use mine... I think too many people get it because they can afford it and everyone is always saying how great it is. Get it if you "need" it... if you are finding yourself wanting a 50mm for 100 dollars.</p>

<p>Second thought . . .</p>

<p>Richard is right . . . about the only time I use my 50 is when I'm shooting film. My 17-50 or the 100-400 is whats usually on my 50D.</p>

Think carefully about what you really like to shoot. And how close you like to get.

 

I shoot on the street and also do street portraits of strangers. I wouldn't know what to do with a 70-200. But use my 10-22

a lot for some kinds of urban shots - it's a great lens. A 50 on a crop body feels like a telephoto, so that rarely gets used

(other than on my FF cam). On my crop body cam, my 17-50 f/2.8 is ideal. But again, that's me. What you like to shot

may be different.

<p>This is what I use with the 7D. Lenses have to meet your personal needs. This is just a suggestion.<br>

Canon 10-22<br>

Tokina 35mm F2.8 macro<br>

Sigma 50mm F1.4<br>

Canon 135mm F2</p>

 

<p>"Think carefully what you like to shoot"<br>

In my case this is little tricky. I have mostly shot wide and normal perspectives, mostly people and street. But i'm not sure that was my choice. This was dictated by the equipment i had, and i never had a tele lens, never used one. <br>

<a href="http://www.flickriver.com/photos/agnihot/popular-interesting/">http://www.flickriver.com/photos/agnihot/popular-interesting/</a><br>

So i have shot something and i know 10-22 will do that, which is why i bought it right away. Now there's something i have never done, and want to do, just to see how it turns out...which is using a tele for whatever purposes.<br>

anurag</p>

<p>Have you thought about the 70-200 because you have had situations where it would genuinely have been useful, or are you thinking of the lens because you feel you should have it?<br>

As an alternative I would be tempted to go for the 15-85 which would give large overlap or maybe the 24-105 f4L for a more useful range. Only you will know if you want to go to real telephoto lengths.</p>

 

<p>In day to day life, NO. <br>

But sometimes, like when i am in the hills struggling to compose, trying to select, isolate something with a 24mm :) YES. <br>

Largely, the feeling is that this is something i've never used, and lets see what comes...</p>

<p>Well, personally I'd feel lost without something in the more-or-less "normal range". I'm a big fan of the 15/17-85mm IS lenses, but even the very inexpensive kit lens (the EF-S 18-55mm IS) would be something in the normal sort of range. For a prime and for low light, consider a EF 50mm f/1.8, a tremendous bargain.</p>

<p> </p>

Maybe the 100L macro?

 

A fast 50 for in between and you're set.

 

And how about the 24-105/4 IS? That complements your 10-22 nicely too.

 

Too may great options to list I'd say.

<p>On my 550D I use the 17-55mm most of the time with the 10-22mm second. If I was buying today I would get the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non VC version as the most useful lens on the crop camera. Take a look at what you want to shoot and what range is important to you.</p>

<p>If I were you I'd consider picking up the very inexpensive (but still decent) 18-55mm and use that for a while. If you decide you like that range, you could then pick up something better with a similar range....if not, you could keep it and get something longer as well.</p>

<p>I also have and like the 10-22, but the 24-105 is what's on my 50D most of the time. It has a lot of range and is a great lens. In the end it's all about what kind of pictures you want to take.</p>

<p>I have always considered the EF-s 10-22, the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 ISL to be the "foundation trinity" lens kit for any APS-C camera camera. You might substitute something else for the big 70-220, like the 70-300 DO IS lens for a foundation kit, but a fast zoom will grab your attention one day in the end.</p>

<p>The most core lenses in the kit to me are the 10-22, and the 17-55. They are the most often used, and there is nothing else to surpass them (in my opinion) for the APS-C camera series to this day. Those two would be the absolute core of my kit again, even if I were starting from scratch right now. Expanding from there, the EF-s 60 f/2.8 macro is pure joy (pictured here), and the EF 50 f/1.4 is a classic for being able to see in the dark, and deliver razor thin DOF (not shown here). Lots of choices have been offered for you to sort through, but considering what you already own, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the perfect next step.... It is a beautiful, ultra-high performance standard zoom that is also tough as nails. By the way, whatevewr you get, buy a hood for it, and always use it (except for macro duty). The lenses pictured here all have hoods, and are rarely seen without them in place. Aside from the obvious reasons, they will protect your gear better than a bodyguard for years to come.<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4588086650_2cf32dee1b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="473" /></p>

<p>choice is between a standard zoom like 15-85 or 17-55 and a tele 70-200 F4....</p>

<p>1) 70-200 F4 + kit lens (is 15-85 that better than the kit lens?)<br>

or<br>

2) 17-55<br>

or<br>

3) 15-85 with 50 1.8<br>

or<br>

4)<br>

24-105 (38-170)</p>

<p>My suggestion is<br>

70-200 f/4 IS<br>

Tamron 17-50<br>

and 50 1.4</p>

<p>:)<br>

can't escape having too many of them :)</p>

 

<p>My first choice, since you have the 10-22mm would be the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L. If that's out of budget, either the 15-85mm or the 17-55mm f/2.8 depending on if you want speed or range. The 17-85mm is good too, and is pretty cheap used. The 70-200mm is a must as well.</p>

<p>I love my 70-200 f4L IS USM and I'd say its probably the best lens in my kit. But I'd be inclined to get either the 24-105 f4 IS USM or 17-55 f2.8 IS USM first.</p>

<p>Despite my love for the 70-200 the 17-55 is permanently attached.</p>

<p>In my indecisive mind the 70-200 always makes me find a different perpective and shoot something new with spectacular results.</p>

Again, <b>think carefully about what you really like to shoot. And how close you like to get.</b><P>

 

A bunch of lens recommendations like what's found in many of the above responses, without any context, are

meaningless. And then it is more about what others have happened to purchase and have in their bag (or on a shelf), and

not knowing what they like to shoot. Or from what distance. Or in what environment. Or how important creative DOF is.

Etc, etc... How can you make a purchase decision based on that? I suspect for many that have been shooting for a few

years, there's probably just two lenses that are used 99% of the time.

<p><strong>Brad,</strong><br>

<strong>think carefully about what you really like to shoot. And how close you like to get.</strong><br>

<strong><a href="http://www.flickriver.com/photos/agnihot/">http://www.flickriver.com/photos/agnihot/</a><br /></strong></p>

<p>Anurag Agnihotri, thanks for the visual treat! What a wonderful series of shots.</p>

<p>Brad, the context is in the description of the various photo tools described in direct answer to the question asked. It is true that only the OP can decide which photo tools to choose, but it is likely that the effect of various focal lengths is already well understood, so there is real value in reading the personal opinions that people have formed about specific lens examples. From looking at the photo set linked above, I am even more enthusiastic about the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens, but again, it is up to the OP to decide.</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, do you only use two lenses 99% of the time? I'm seriously curious, and it's not a trick question. I wish I could settle on just two lenses for 99% of my shots.</p>

<p> </p>