Which lens should I get

I've got the Canon 1000d and am looking at getting a new lens. I had this idea in my mind that I should buy for the future so I've been

getting L series lenses where possible. This is because I plan to upgrade to a full frame camera in a few years time. What I was looking

at buying was the Canon 24-105mm L lens. The issue I've got is that because I do not have a full frame DSLR I would not the the wide

24mm it would more likely be around 36mm. So my other alternative is the 18-200mm which would give me a wide angle but it would not

work when I upgrade my camera. What would you do?

<p>If you're seriously planning to upgrade to full frame - no question about it, you're going to do it no matter what,, then stick with full frame lenses.</p>

<p>What lens do you already have? If it's a standard 18-55 EF-S lens the 24-105 is a nice addition but there are other options, depending on your needs. Think about a tele (70-200/300). But first decide what you need.</p>

<p>If I were you, I'd ask myself how long I would put up with having no really wide angle (the consequence of using only FX lenses on a DX body (Nikon terms, but you know what I mean)).</p>

<p>My personal feeling is going to 'full-frame' is not an "upgrade" but simply a change in format. I shoot with both APS-C <em>AND</em> 35mm-sensor cameras, each for its own benefits. IF you keep your APS-C when you get the 'full-frame', you'd still be able to use any EF-S lenses; if you don't keep it, then sell off the EF-S lenses too. Meanwhile, you'd have lenses made to work with what you're actually shooting.</p>

<p>The image quality of the 18-200 is not as good as the 24-105, I believe, although of course it lets you get some shots the 24-105 wouldn't. Check out the new 10-18 EF-S zoom, it could accompany the 24-105. You would have to sell the 10-18 if you move to full frame but since it is quite cheap this might be okay.</p>

<p>If you burn with desire for a red ring on your lens then the new 16-35 f/4 zoom might be good, but it is more expensive than the 10-18.</p>

<p>If it was me I wouldn't cripple myself with a focal length that wasn't particularly suitable until maybe 2 years off. I'd get the very fine Tamron 17-50mm non VC constant 2.8 lens that is relatively inexpensive and will certainly take professional grade pictures in the (27.2mm to 80mm full frame equivalent with the 1.6 factor) with your current camera. When you are ready to buy full frame you can get the 24-105mm with the FF camera in a kit for a ridiculously small additional cost. Meanwhile you will be taking great pictures indoors and out with you current camera and you can sell the Tamron lens for enough to justify the 2 years of use. Good luck!</p>

<p>ok so what I was looking for on a lens was just an everyday lens that can allow me to take pictures of things that are in front of me to things that are a little in the distance. Which ever lens I copse it is going to replace my kit 18-55mm lens. </p>

<p>While I cannot comment in depth on the specific Canon lenses: +1 to what JDM wrote. Why cripple yourself today for something you may do in the future? 24mm on APS-C isn't ideal, really. Check for yourself how often you use between 18 and 24 now with the kitlens you have, and then wonder if you would want to be without that range.<br>

Maybe a contrarian advice, but take it easy with all the "upgrade" ideas. First figure out what needs updating or upgrading, and why. Sometimes, the best investment is not a new camera or lens, but a book, tripod, flash or a workshop.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is because I plan to upgrade to a full frame camera in a few years time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A very first thing to ask yourself there seriously is: why? What are the exact advantages of a full frame camera according to you, and how will that benefit your photography? No doubt there are advantages, but full frame is not a "must" to seem a serious photographer, nor some holy grail of "image quality" (whatever that means) or a means to itself. It's a different format, as JDM said. The internet is good at making people believe they ought to have full frame, but realistically, ask yourself why, because it isn't a cheap move to make.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>replace my kit 18-55mm lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, why? What is wrong with the lens? Its internet reputation might be so-so, but in reality, it is a pretty capable lens. Anything 18-200 or 18-270 is not going to be better in the 18-55 range. Maybe add a 55-250IS instead?</p>

<p>I will not argue it is really nice to get new gear, the smoother, solid feel of higher-end lenses and so on. But it is easy to spend a fortune that way, and the returns are only there if that gear actually fits your style of photography. It's easy for us to empty your wallet and say "get that 24-70 f/2.8L", but in reality it's useless advice until we understand in which way your 18-55 isn't working for you.</p>

<p>I not buy used for now and get a lens that matches your current body, planning to sell that in the future, after you move up to a full-frame body. You will have very little exposure to loss if you buy a good used lens.</p>

<p>My advice is that you don't buy anything yet. first, figure out what you need a lens to do that your current lens won't do. Do you need a lens that is longer? Faster? If you can't answer that question yet, you are likely to waste your money.</p>

<p>As someone who has both FF and a crop sensor, I agree with JDM and Wouter. People starting out are often convinced by the internet that it's essential to get a full frame camera, but both formats have advantages, and often it makes no difference at all. If you look at my photos, you will not be able to tell which I took with which format. If you are going to be printing very large or need good images in low-light conditions, full frame is a bit better, but it costs more, weighs more (the lenses too), and provides less reach for a given focal length. Unless you have a reason to worry about that, I wouldn't. I would just get lenses that let you do what you want to do. You can sell them down the road if you change formats.</p>

<p>Also, there are lots of lenses that are not Ls and work just fine with full frame.</p>

<p>Personally, I wouldn't get the 24-105. I have one, and I use it a lot on my full frame camera, but it is simply too long at the short end to serve as a good walk around for a crop sensor camera. If I were in your shoes and wanted a faster lens, I would consider the Tamron and Sigma 17-50s. (There are lots of posts about their strengths and weaknesses.) If you don't want speed but want an ideal walk-around lens for a crop sensor, the EF-S 15-85 is a reasonable choice, among others.</p>

 

<p>Ok so to respond to some of the points thats been raised I want to have a lens that is able to give me a bit more zoom. I don't have a particular style of photography I want to do with this lens as I say its going to replace my 18-55mm and offer me that bit more. I know that I would get more zoom but should I compromise on the wide angle?</p>

<p>What you should do is determine if the wider angle is going to get used or if the telephoto end is going to be used more. Some people love wides, others never use them - same for telephotos. Understand, though, that in general, the greater the zoom range in a consumer grade lens, the less likely that lens will have high IQ across its entire range - especially at the extreme ends of the zoom range. When you get into pro grade lenses things even out a little more.</p>

<p>Aleina, instead of replacing the 18-55, why not consider <em>adding</em> a lens for the longer end? The advantage of a DSLR is that you can change lenses according to need; fitting a single lens that does all invariably leads to compromises of some sort or the other (be it zoomrange, aperture, price, weight etc.).<br /> The 15-85 makes a nice suggestion if you really feel the 18-55 needs to go; it's about as far as one can stretch zoomrange without making too big a compromise on optical quality basically.</p>

<p>I have a 7D and my 24-105 f/4L is without a doubt my most used lens. It's what I use as a standard walk-around lens and I have no issues at all. I will say that I usually shoot outdoors where distances are typically a little longer and light is good. I also have a 10-22 EF/S in case I do need to go wide. But on balance, I use the 24-105 most of the time. It will depend on your personal preference and what you're shooting, but I don't feel at all limited by that focal length on my 7D.</p>

<p>+1 to Dan M.<br /> Don't buy anything yet - Figure out what you need a lens to do that your current lenses won't do.<br /> Find what you need and THEN get what you really need. I am merely attempting to give you the benefit of my experience - having bought (because I thought I needed them) 6 Camera Bodies and over 30 lenses - Then I had a large 'garage sale and Christmas gift extravaganza to pare down to only an APS-C sensor (7D) and FF (5D Mk II) and a smaller (and easier to lug around) stable of lenses.<br /> I agree with Dan, JDM and Wouter. People starting out are often 'seduced' by the internet that it's essential to get a full frame camera, but both formats have advantages, and often it makes no difference at all.<br /> Also - look at used lenses for the (recently OBE'd) EOS Film Cameras. As an example - I have a Sigma 18-125mm lens that works on both FF and APS-C sensor bodies that I bought for my Elan 7E - and it works great for my needs.<br /> Regards - Derek</p>

<p>Its true that lenses are in doubt the better invesment for the future and planning ahead isn't wrong either.... But: you "plan to upgrade to a full frame camera in <strong>a few years</strong> time". - I don't know how wildly you are(n't) shooting, but: zooms wear out! As a college kid I ruined mine over 2 to 4 years. lensrentals.com blog theirs survive less than 2 years till they need a repair.<br>

If possible I'd try to safe my pennies to get the 24-105 later together with the 5D Mk5 or whatever will be around then. The rest varies. - I've been around for a while so I managed to acquire more than one camera body and am able to carry up to 3 for an entire touristic day (without further baggage) - So my suggestion would be to either give the 18 -135 a go, if it has to be a single lens kit, or rather get the 55 - 250 since the 18 - 55 should be as good as the other zooms with more range. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Z]ooms wear out! As a college kid I ruined mine over 2 to 4 years. lensrentals.com blog theirs survive less than 2 years till they need a repair.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I've had my EF 70-200/4 L IS zoom for five years, shoot thousands of frames per year with it, and it isn't even close to wearing out. In fact, the images it produces now are every bit as good as those it produced when it was new.<br>

<br>

If you need to zoom beyond the range of your 18-55, Aleina, I couldn't think of a better lens than the 70-200/4 L IS.</p>