Yet another newbie who's confused about lens choices

[howard_smith3]

Greetings. First of all, I'd like to thank you all for the free education I've

been receiving through this forum. This site's become my favorite. Now, if

only I could receive free lenses with this free education! On to my dilemma...

 

I have a Rebel XT with the kit lens (and Speedlight 420ex). Like a lot of

newbies, I'm confused about which route to take with lens upgrades. I've spent

a lot of time lately reading threads on this forum, reading reviews at Fred

Miranda, and looking at lots of posted pictures at various retailers sites. As

a result, I am now confident about one thing... I have information overload! As

the Python boys once said, my brain hurts!

 

My situation is that I have 4 young (ages 10 and under) and mostly will be

taking pictures of them... candids, birthday parties, indoor/outdoor

activities/sports, and vacation pictures. I'd prefer to use available light

indoors as much as possible.

 

Of the pictures I've taken with the kit lens, my favorites are usually

close-ups. I'm much better at such shots than wider group pictures, landscapes,

etc. Obviously, composition is something I will need to (and intend to) work

on. I like close-ups to capture the emotions of the subject/person. Chances

are, even with a good zoom, I would be trying to get as close to the subject as

the lens permits when at a distance.

 

After viewing lots of posted photos taken with Canon lenses, I find that I like

bokeh... a lot... and want lenses that will allow me to explore its use. It's

this effect that I find most lacking (along with the need to use flash indoors)

in my kit lens.

 

My budget is not limitless (those darned kids actually like to have luxuries

like clothes and food and that ever-meddling government might consider it

neglect if I refused them these things in order to finance lens purchases). I

need to stay around $1000. Here are my initial thoughts on lens combinations:

 

Primes: I'm leaning toward primes because I want to learn composition,

visualizing photos before shooting, preparation, etc. I'd rather be a smart

photographer than a lucky one. I have a feeling that I would become lazy with

zooms and be tempted to employ the scattergun (scatterbrain?) approach... shoot

a bunch of pictures without really thinking about them and hope that some come

out nice. I know that using primes with kids can be frustrating because kids

tend to move around but I don't feel any urgency to photograph every moment of

their lives. If I miss some shots, so be it. One good photo is worth 10

blurred ones. I'd be happy with a few keepers initially (like in the days of

film when it was expensive to snap off 200 pictures per day) but improve the

ratio of keepers as my skills improve. I'm not really worried about the

inconvenience of switching primes rather than using a single zoom; chances are

great that I'll be in one particular setting when I'm shooting and won't need to

frantically switch lenses. So, my thoughts are to buy a combination of primes -

35/2 (or 24/2.8 or 28/2.8... I admit I don't know which is "best" for this

range), 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 135/2.8. The whole kit'n'kaboodle will run me about

$950 (w/o filters and hoods). Would 4 primes be overkill for a beginner? With

the 1.6 Rebel factor, I'd have a pretty good range from standard to long... at

least, that's my guess.

 

Second option: 28-135/3.5-5.6, 50/1.8, and 70-200/4L. Lots of overlap between

the two zooms and not as fast for low light. Total price - about $1200.

 

Third option: Buy the 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L and tell the kids that we

won't be going to Disney in their lifetimes, but I'll have lots of crisp photos

of our vacations spent at home because we're too broke to go anywhere! Not

really an option.

 

I know you're all probably tired of advising new guys like me but I'd really

value your advice. I tried to delay posting until I felt I had done my homework

and couldn't figure it out on my own. I don't have any good camera shops near

me with all the above lens, so trying them out isn't viable. I deeply

appreciate any advice and apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to

be as complete as possible.

 

Regards,

 

Howard

[davyjo]

If you're thinking you'd like primes buy a 50 f/1.8 and give it a try. It's inexpensive and very nice and sharp. <P>

Give that a try for a couple weeks, if you like shooting with a fixed focal length buy something else like a 20mm (I have the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 which I find quite nice but gets mixed reviews.) Then add the 85mm f/1.8 ?<P>

If you don't like the 50mm then try a better quality zoom.<p>

Good Luck!

[roger_smith4]

Try bobatkins.com and read the reviews of different lenses. If you want portraits and blurred backgrounds you need a longer and relatively faster lens (the 70-200/4L could be a reasonable choice but I haven't used it).

[dan_roche]

Your question is perfectly legitimate. You obviously want to spend your money wisely and get the right gear. IMHO, a really nice three-lens combination for the XT is a 17-40 f/4L, a 50 (1.4 or 1.8) and a 70-200 f/4L (IS if your budget will allow). You'll have excellent glass that covers a nice range. The best one-lens solution would probably be the 24-105 f/4L. It's over a thousand bucks but from what I've heard and read, well worth it. One word of caution...Canon's "L" lenses are EXTREMELY addictive. Once you use one, you'll be hooked.

[leopoldstotch]

<p><i>"Python boys once said, my brain hurts!</i></p>

Ahhh! Good ol' <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIlKiRPSNGA">Mr. Gumby</a>, I hope we won't have to anestetize you in that way from the overload:) On a relevant note, the prime route is a good choice, but since kids tend to be unpredictable, a fast zoom would be a better option, such as the 24-70 f2.8L, or a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Either of those will give you versatility and speed, and fewer lens changes.;

[gdanmitchell]

"I'm leaning toward primes because I want to learn composition"

 

<p>I don't agree with that "common wisdom" about primes and zooms. I think you can

learn a lot about composition using a zoom lens - in many ways I think you can learn

more. For example you can easily try different approaches to framing your subject with a

zoom and learn by comparing the different effects. As well, you can alter the size

relationships between the subject and other picture elements, for example, in the

background by trying different focal lengths.

 

<p>If anything, I think that zooms are <b>more appropriate for beginners</b> than

primes.

 

<p>I don't have anything against primes per se. I use them along with zooms. The specific

advantages they provide <i>may</i> include: (sometimes and sometimes not) better

optical performance, larger apertures for low light or narrow DOF, lower cost, lighter

weight and smaller size.

 

<p>Also, please indulge me as I carry on with my obsessive responses to obsessive posts

recommending that owners of crop sensor cameras start out with a 50mm prime, usually

the very sharp and inexpensive Canon f/1.8 version. For most people this would not be a

very useful <i>only</i> lens on a crop sensor body, where it is a moderate telephoto

"portrait lens." Fine if that is your primary type of photography, but not so fine if you

shoot other subjects. If anything, in order to more or less replicate the effect of the old

"50mm normal" (or thereabouts) 35mm film lens, you would want a focal length of about

30mm on a crop sensor camera.

 

<p>Regarding the zooms you mention, I think you are perhaps not going wide enough.

Most folks who like normal wide angles of view want to get to around 17mm on crop

sensor cameras.

 

<p>One approach might be to combine zooms and primes. One or two zooms will cover a

lot of ground. The 17-40mm f/4 is a fine lens at a quite reasonable price, the EFS 17-55

f/

2.8 IS has a <i>lot</i> going for it for the kinds of shots you describe. (In fact, that lens

plus a 70-200mm f/4 could make a dynamite combination.) I like the 24-105

in combination with the 17-40, but you recognize that this is a pretty expensive lens.

 

<p>Dan Roche mentions a common solution - the 17-40, a 50mm prime, and one of the

70-200mm zooms. I've used that combination on the XT and I have to say it is very cost

effective and provides excellent quality. While I love the 24-105 on the XT, I wouldn't call

it a one-lens solution; for me, at least, I couldn't get along with only 24mm at the wide

end.

 

<p>Good luck with your shopping... and those <b>four</b> young'ns!

 

<p>Dan

[images_in_light_north_west]

17-40 f4, a 50mm 1.8 prime, and one of the 70-200mm f4 zooms

 

around $1200 or $1700 with the 70-200 f4 IS.

[lou_miller]

My one caution is related to your comment that you like bokeh. I own the 50 1.8 and it is a nice lens for the money, but if you are looking for smooth, clean out of focus background, you might need to consider one of the more expensive 50's. Also related, the out of focus highlights will be pentagon-shaped instead of the nice circles that you get from the more expensive lenses. The following article might be helpful http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

 

I also have four little ones (all under 7!) and while you can't beat a good prime for top quality images, I find the zoom to be very valuable in framing a good shot of restless kids. I have the 24-105 f4L and would highly recommend it or the 24-70 f2.8 L.

[eos 10 fan]

1st off - Good luck with the kids!

 

Have you reviewed your shots to see what focal lengths you are using with the zoom? It might be a good idea to see what you like with what you have.

[howard_smith3]

I appreciate your quick responses. Wow, if only my kids were as responsive! I know well enough to not make any comments of this nature about my wife.

 

You've all really helped me to clarify best options. Dan, your point about beginners and zooms makes good sense. The 70-200 f/4L seems to be a consensus choice so far for a longer range lens. Will a 17-40 f/4L be quick enough for no-flash indoor shots or would it be better to wait until I can better afford a 24-70 f/2.8L? Of course, David's suggestion about proceeding slowly also makes sense without denting the pocketbook as severely.

 

Lou, now that you mentioned it, I do recall the review about the 50 f/1.8 and the pentagon highlights. Thanks for the reminder (and, also, good luck with your kids... whew, 4 under 7? I was there three years ago... lotsa fun!)

 

Roger, thanks for the tip about Bob Atkins.

 

Leopold, I hope I won't need a lobotomy when all is said and done!

 

Thanks!

 

Howard

 

 

Hmmmm...

[roger_smith4]

I personally decided upon a Tamron 17-50 with my 20D as I like having f2.8 for blurred backgrounds and the price is right. I'm in the market for a longer zoom now. If I were to get a prime it would be the Sigma 30mm 1.4. I'd prefer a slightly wider fast lens but the faster 24 and 28mms don't get good reviews and cost a lot.

[alexdi]

Two lenses:

<p>

Canon 50mm f/1.4

<p>

Canon 70-200/4 L

<p>

That's about $800. I wouldn't deal with the 17-40/4; it'll be just as miserable indoors as the 18-55. If you want to replace the kit lens, move to the Tamron 17-50. Noisy AF, but light, sharp as the L, a stop faster, and $200 cheaper. I wouldn't bother right away, though. It's just a somewhat better version of what you've got already, save that upgrade for later.

<p>

Try the kit at 50mm; if you like that look, the 50/1.4 is <i>exactly</i> the kind of portrait lens you're looking for. The 50/1.8 is plasticy and weak below f/2.8. If 50mm is too short, move to the 85/1.8. The 100/2 is too long. I don't think you need two portrait primes. I almost exclusively use my 50/1.4. I forgot to bring the 100/2 to a wedding recently, but didn't miss it at all.

<p>

<b><a href=http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveindech/464818315/in/set-72157600092944084/>Sample, 50/1.4 @ f/1.8</a>.</b>

<p>

Canon's 70-200/4 is sharp, light, and cheap for what it offers. Metal build, quality indistinguishable from the 50/1.4. You won't use it indoors, but it'll be truly great outdoors. Don't buy a prime in the longer range. I have a 200/2.8; excellent lens, but very inflexible. If you're on the sidelines, you want the ability to reframe. The 70-200/2.8 is big, heavy, and expensive.

<p>

DI

[howard_smith3]

Dan,

 

Ooops, I was writing my last post at the same time you posted your question.

 

I have the 17-55 kit lens and am usually shooting best between 35 and 55mm. Of course, I don't yet know what I might do with a better quality lens (and better skills). I haven't had a chance to experiment with anything above 55mm.

 

Howard

[howard_smith3]

Ooops, again... I meant 18-55 in my last post.

[robert lee]

"I have a Rebel XT ... I have 4 young (ages 10 and under) ... my favorites are usually close-ups ... I like bokeh ... use flash indoors"

 

Okay, I know exactly where you're coming from.

 

I have and use most of the lenses mentioned here. Go with the 50mm f1.8 and in particular, the 85mm f1.8.

 

Borrow a 85mm if you get a chance. Find some nice window light. Focus on the eyes at f2. The image will resolve to the pin sharp tip of each eyelash; the other facial features, hair, and everything else blurs to a buttery abstract. It's as if you're looking into your subjet's soul.

 

I don't like zooms for tightly cropped portraits. The lenses are relatively slower, and tends not give adequate background isolation.

 

Neither would I recommend the 24-70 f2.8L. My copy anyways, is noticeably softer at f2.8 than any of the (much less expensive) EF primes.

 

As for flash, I've found this is _exactly_ what's called for with kids that won't stay still. The key is to use at least two well diffused strobes (pick up a few used Sunpak 383's at $60/each, and some $16 peanut optical slaves.)

 

The flash duration is short enough to even sharply capture kids on sugar highs, handheld with a 100mm lens. The strobes provide enough high quality light (bounced and diffused) for shooting at 100ISO out to f11.

[gdanmitchell]

I shoot f/4 lenses (17-40, 24-105, and 70-200) and they are not that bad in low light with

DSLRs. You can shoot at higher ISOs with these cameras and get decent quality images.

 

My view is that if you really need wide apertures for your available light work you probably

eventually want one or more primes - they open up several stops more than even the f/2.8

zooms. Another thing to think about is that the f/2.8 zooms do get you an extra stop over

the f/4 zoom... but only one stop.

 

However, having at least one prime (and here is where the 50mm could be useful - I use

the f/1.4) for low light is a good backup.

 

Dan

[amol]

Depending on how active your kids are, a zoom may come in more useful than prime lens. I think, the above suggestion for the Canon 17-40, Canon 17-55, and Tamron 17-50 are right on.

 

Also, for me personally, a 24mm or 28mm lens (zoom or prime) does not seem wide enough on my Rebel XT. Another reason, why I would consider looking at the 17mm range zooms.

 

The Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 can be found for about $440, leaving some money for a tele-zoom. Sigma has a 50-150mm F/2.8, going for about $680. This is just a little over $1000, but you end up with two nice fast 2.8 lenses, that complement each other very well.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF17-50mm-Aspherical-Canon-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9541783-3792828?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1177478210&sr=1-1

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-50-150mm-Telephoto-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HPOQKS

[nilantha]

I got a used Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (not the ATX version) for my Elan II. Now I am using it on 10D and results are very good. I would not consider it as a wide angle lens for 10D due to 1.6 crop factor. However, that is the normal walk around lens on my 10D. Got it from keh.com for less than $120 including hood and caps. I use Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM also and works quite well. The only prime I use is 50 mm f1.8. Above set up covers all my shooting habits.

[g_guhan_gunaratnam2]

I'm with those who suggest the 50 1.8 and 70-200 f/4. I think the 50 has a great perspective on cropped DSLRs and the 70-200 is a great lens and comfortable to use. I have found that choosing the wide prime perspective is harder, there is a great difference between 35, 28 and 24 and I'd suggest trying to borrow primes of all these focal lengths before choosing which you like. I personally enjoyed wider primes when I was a newbie, and have found I now prefer the 35mm (35mm equiv) focal length now, though these things might be ever-changing. I think just the 50 1.8 will bring lots of fun, and hey, you might be able to hit Disney twice! hth

[beaglefur]

Another vote for the 85/1.8 here. I like the 85 a LOT better than the 50. Granted, there is a difference in price there, but the AF is considerable better. Image quality is fantastic. The extra 2+ stops of available light will definitely come in handy for the type of photography you're talking about.

 

I'd say you could even get the 85, try it out, and then decide what else you need later. It seems like exactly what you need, in my opinion (take that for what it's worth) ;-)<div></div>

[howard_smith3]

Thanks to you all for your great responses. You've certainly helped me narrow my choices. I appreciate your time and suggestions and hope to be posting some great pictures soon after I take the leap and purchase some new glass!

 

Regards,

 

Howard