Lens Recommendation Needed

[courtneykahn]

I'm traveling to India, Bhutan and Nepal in March. I just purchased my first SLR - a Canon EOS 40D with a Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens. Would someone be kind enough to recommend a second lens that will

enable me to take closeups of people from 20 to 30 feet away?

 

Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help.

 

Courtney

[tridakfoto]

Well I don't know your budget but if you do NOT need fast glass for low light shots or indoors shooting then the Canon 70-200mm f/4L ($540) is excellent. You can go up from there with the 3 other L 70-200mm's but this is the budget one and just as nice with excellent optics.

 

Other options for a prime (fixed) zoom would be the Canon 85mm f/1.8 ($315) OR 100mm f/2 ($390).

 

One other zoom is the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6IS ($550) which will give you the extra 100mm and IS over the 70-200mm f/4L but nothing can compete with the build and image quality of the L lens.

 

Enjoy your trip.

[lauren_macintosh]

You might look at or think about the Tamron newist lens with Vibration control would give you a lot of range: just my thoughts:

good luck and get a lot of good fotos

[bob_osullivan]

"but nothing can compete with the build and image quality of the L lens."

 

Jay, I have to respectfully dissagree at least on the quality. That 70-300 is damn close to "L" quality on IQ. It's a very nice sharp lens. Yeah the build quality isn't up to L standards but the images it makes are outstanding. I'd put it's IQ in the same league as the 17-55IS and the mid priced primes like the 85 1.8.

[jonny_mac]

Bob, what you are saying isn't consistent with the majority of opinions/reviews on those

lenses. Also, the 17-55 2.8 outperforms the L lenses in some respects.

[alan_myers]

Um, Jay, there's no such thing as a "prime (fixed) zoom"!

 

It's either a prime lens (fixed focal length, i.e. not a zoom, such as an 85/1.8 or 50/1.4 etc.) or it's a ...

 

Zoom lens with a range of focal lengths (i.e., 24-70, 70-200, etc.).

 

Pretty sure you meant a prime (fixed) telephoto, since the examples you gave are of this type.

 

70-200/4 IS is a nice compact and very capable lens for travel.

 

In a pinch, you could put a 1.4X teleconverter behind it for even more reach. (Auto focus will slow down a bit and will only be possible with the center focus point on some cameras. Not sure about the 40D, which has a nicely upgraded AF system.)

[shuo_zhao]

I'm not sure how much you'll get to spend. But if you're on a budget like me, here are a few good and relatively cheap choices:

 

70-200 f/4L ($540) (non-IS) - excellent but relatively cheap L lens

85 f/1.8 ($315) - fast prime lens

100 f/2 ($390)- fast prime lens

135 f/2.8 softfocus ($280) - fairly cheap prime lens

 

I doubt whether you will need the extra reach of the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS ($550), if you don't need the IS, you're better off w/ the 70-200 f/4L.

[alan_myers]

Some say the 17-55/2.8 EF-S would be an L-series lens, except by Canon's own definition it can never be designated as such.

 

Canon's statement that "all L-series are fully compatible with all EOS cameras means" that no EF-S lens can ever be labeled an "L".

[mattcaplin]

I have just got back from Nepal, and bought a 70-200 f4L IS for exactly the reasons you outline. I also looked at 70-300 DO IS, and 70-200 f2.8.

 

I made my choice based on speed and weight, and have had some great results with candid street shots.

 

I also carry a 1.4 extender, which I used for some wildlife shots where I had plenty of available light.

 

I had some concerns about being conspicuous with the white lens, but in reality, pointing a camera at people can be disconcerting whatever the colour. I found sitting in a cafe or on a street corner and sniping shots to be most effective.

[zigzag]

After a month backpacking around Thailand/Laos with the Canon 17-85mm, a Canon 70-200mm f/4 and a Canon 10-22mm, I can tell you the lens I missed most was a fast prime for low light/indoor shots. Do yourself a favour and buy the (cheap) 50mm f/1.8 lens so that you can shoot indoors without flash. This is your first and cheapest option but there are others with better build quality.

 

As for the zoom lenses, the advantage of the 70-300mm are that it is black and has IS.

 

Robert Capa (war photographer) famously said "If your pictures aren't good enough, you ain't close enough." I don't think those guys used zooms much.

[anthony_zipple]

I completely agree with Glen. Closeups of people from 30 feet away? are they behind some sort of wall that prevents closer contact? If not, get closer. You will be amazed by how much a smile and good will gets you when you photograph people. I have never traveled in Nepal, but in South America, China, Africa this has been my consistent experience. And if they say no to a photo you can afford (and should) be respectful and thank them anyway and move on. There are lots of other people to shoot. The results are far better that distant shots that you try to take without the other party knowing. A 17-85 on a cropped sensor is just right. Add add a fast 50mm for low light and it is all the "people" lenses that you need. The only thing that I use a longer lens for on these trips is for detail on ruins, buildings, landscapes, etc.

[arie_vandervelden1]

I'd go for Canon 100/2. Fast, light, affordable, under-the-radar look compared to the big white 70-200 variants.

 

I travel with a Tamron 90/2.8 macro for portraiture. 85-100 mm allows much better dof control and blurs distracting background much better than a 50 mm lens.

[William Michael]

>>> Would someone be kind enough to recommend a second lens that will enable me to take closeups of people from 20 to 30 feet away? <<< (CK)

 

If `close up` means around an half shot of one person or two people; then at 20 ft you will need a 300mm lens and at 30 ft you will need a 400mm lens.

 

A 300mm F4L IS with a x1.4MkII converter would be efficient and budget wise, IMO.

 

WW