Lens walk-abouts and more

[steve_dimond]

As most of you already know, it can challenging to find a lens or series of lenses that properly encompass the range

of photographic opportunities or preferences that we would like. For instance, I have finally decided on the Canon

EOS Digital Rebel XSi as my first dSLR. Not my first SLR, just my first dSLR. Anyway, after much research etc., I

learn about "cropped" camera 'bodys' and so on and also about the full range of Canon lenses available including the

new series EF-S that are made exclusively for the cropped body. Then I begin comparing reviews about all these

lenses and all the EF lenses, with or without IS, and, well, you know how mind boggling it can be. Analysis

paralysis doesn't take long to set in.

 

Anyway, of the EF-S lenses the one that clearly stands out in the reviews of many different professionals is the 17-

55mm, f2.8, IS. Not only do most knowledgeable persons compare the quality of this lens to the Canon Pro level 'L'

series lenses but they also note that it is most likely one of the best "walk-around" lenses a photographer could

have. Of course, I like this. Who wouldn't. However, because of the dreaded crop factor of APS-C sensors, the true

effective focal range of this lens on the crop-body camera is 27.2mm x 88mm. I like shooting wide angle and I like

shooting 'people' pictures and portraits. So, you might ask, just what the h... is my problem? To me, wide angle is

either of the three following focs: 20, 24, or 22mm with 28mm and 35mm actually being moderate wide angle focal

lengths. So if I want these capabilities on the cropped camera, I have to go to the EF-S 10mm x 22mm. "So now

what's the problem", you might ask? Well, nothing really, I guess. Afterall the 10mm x 22m meshes nicely with the

17mm x 55mm and the 10mm x 22mm is an okay lens, but what do I do for the next range up? I really do like the

idea of IS because I have a tendency to "quiver" somewhat when I shoot. That leaves me with the EF 24-105mm f4

IS 'L' series USM which is truly a remarkable walk-about lens and much, much more. But look at the "small" end. I

end up with an overlap of 55/24 when placed next to the 17 x 55. Seems silly when you think about the money

involved. My other choice would be the EF 70-200mm, f4, IS, 'L' Series USM. A mighty good lens. However, now I

have two issues in my mind: (1) I like low-light photography and f4, though not "bad", is certainly not as good as

f2.8, and (2) I now have a focal length "gap" of 70/55 that I haven't filled if I stick with the EF-S 17x55 lens as my

general "walk-around" lens.

 

After all of this, here's where I'm at and I look forward to your experienced input.

1) EF-S 10x22mm, f3.5/4.5 (non-IS) USM with a 17x55mm, f2.8 IS USM and finally the EF 70x200mm, f4, IS,

USM 'L' Series. OR...

2) EF-S 10x22mm, f3.5/4.5 (non-IS) USM with an 'L' series 24-105mm, f4, IS, USM 70x200mm, f4, IS USM 'L'

Series (remember, I need IS on the medium and long focal lengths). Remember, f4 doesn't provide "great" low-light

capability, normally, without the use of a tripod but the 3-4 stop advantage of IS when applied on the shutter side

could off-set the challenge. (Any thoughts?)

 

Okay folks, I know this is all overkill, but I would really like your input on this. What Would You Do?

 

Thanks,

Steve

[sheldonnalos]

I vote for option number 1.

 

The extra aperture stop of the 17-55 will mean a lot when you need it. The 17-55 is smaller/lighter. Even though

it doesn't go really wide like the 10-22, it goes a heck of a lot wider than the 24-105. This will mean less lens

switching when you want to go medium wide. A little focal length overlap on the wide end is not bad and the

55-70mm focal length gap is not a worry at all.

 

Don't forget get to get a fast aperture lens like the 50mm f/1.8.

[steve_dimond]

Thanks, Sheldon.

[Jeff Lear]

I agree with Sheldon. I think your option 1 is definitely the most versatile of the two, given your photographic preferences. Adding a fast prime to that list is inexpensive.

[matthijs]

I'd say option 1 with the addition of a F1.4 lens. (If you want low-light f2.8 is still lacking a bit.)

 

For me the 50/1.4 seems ideal but YMMV.

 

I wouldn't sweat the gap in mm's, that's what foot-zoom is for.

 

(The past weekend was a busy weekend but we didn't want to leave the camera at home. We took it with us with only the 50/1.8, had great fun and took great pictures without missing our other lenses...Lots of footzoom was used.)

 

Kind regards, Matthijs.

[rainer_t]

-- "I now have a focal length "gap" of 70/55"

 

That is just a few steps walking, or a bit of cropping. I wouldn't exclude a choice just because of this gap.

 

On the other side, if you're not bound to buy Canon glass, there are the Sigma 50-150/2.8 and the Tokina 50-135/2.8.

 

I would personally choose your option 1, because for me the 17-55 would be a much better standard zoom on a

crop-1.6 body than the 24-105.

[stamos]

"..and I like shooting 'people' pictures and portraits"

Forget the zooms (IMHO).

[ralph_jensen]

Having three lenses in your basic kit doesn't really solve the "main walk-around lens" issue.

 

The point of a "walk-around lens" is a lens that you rarely have to change. In other words, it's the lens that covers most of the photographic situations you face, the way you want them covered.

 

For most people, 28-90 and its equivalent (17-55) usually covers both what is considered "wide-angle" and what is often used for "portraits."

 

If you're going to say that "wide" for you is 24mm or wider and you still want the same lens to do portraits, then no, you're not going to find a single answer in the crop format that matches the 24-105.

 

For me the 17-55 is a dream lens, so good that I routinely choose it (w/40D) over my 24-105 w/FF body. But only you can know how important it is to routinely shoot at 24mm equivalent or wider; you may have to make the 10-22 your walk-around and put on something in the 50 or 70-plus range when you want to do portraits.

 

P.S. If you're coming from film SLRs larger than the film Rebel, make sure you *hold in your hand* the XSi for a good five minutes, and then hold the 40D (or 50D!) for the same amount of time. I like the XSi images very much but found I just couldn't live with its tiny grip, and like-new 40D's are selling for $800 or so at fredmiranda.com's Buy and Sell forum.

[dogbert]

I have the EF-S 10-22 and 24-105 f4L. It took a long time to get there but very happy with it and covers 90 per cent of my photo needs. Throw in a fast cheap prime or two for when you want bokeh.

[tdigi]

Seems there are 2 basic rules of general good lens kits

 

1. - 10-22 ( or some uw ) and a 24-105

 

2. 17-55 and 70-200

 

I agree with the poster who said that a walk around lens is one that rarely needs to be switched so I am not sure either of these

options really apply.

 

When I think walk around I think of something small so the Tamron 17-50 comes to mind. I have the 24-105 and a 70-200 2.8. I love

both lenses but they are not small. I am planning on picking up a tamron because its small fast and not super expensive.

 

The 17-55 is a nice lens but so over priced in my opinion. I see and know many pro photographers and I almost never see one with

an 17-55. I either see a 24-70 or a 24-105 even with cropped bodies.

[arie_vandervelden1]

I think that maybe you're thinking a bit too much about seamless coverage of focal lengths, rather than buying lenses to suit specific subjects and interests. Don't worry so much about small gaps or overlap.

 

Overlap is ok if you got several subjects that fit the same focal lengths (e.g. at 20 mm; landscape with a 10-22, and cityscape with a 17-55). A bit of overlap lets you get away with fewer lens changes.

 

Small gaps are ok if you can manage to take a few steps backward or forward - e.g. don't worry about the gap between 55 mm and 70 mm. Folks who shoot primes have to deal with gaps, and we manage.

 

So, back to my thesis, buy lenses for specific purposes and interests, rather than just focal length coverage.

 

Landscape: 10-22. Great choice, awesome lens.

 

People pictures: lots of choices, depends on what focal lengths you like. You can go 17-something or 24-something depending on your tastes.

 

Portraiture. 70-200 zooms are popular. Also consider primes like 85/1.8 or 100/2 - they'll give you your low-light capability as well as thin dof.

[marc_bergman1]

So you are looking at a Canon XSi and 3 lenses to meet your requirements for a walk-around camera and lens combo. It meets your wide angle and portrait needs. This combo cost over $3000.

 

I think I would rather have a Canon 5D with the 24-105 L lens. It cost about the same. You don't have to worry about changing lenses.

[geoffm]

It looks as if Canon are about to announce an EF-S 18-200 IS, so your problem might be solved here! Except it isn't f/2.8, more like 3.5-5.6. Ah well!

 

Personally, I use 10-22/24-105/100-400, but then, I'm not a low-light afficionado!

[bob_king2]

Hi Steve

 

I also vote for option 1. I have the same lenses but my 70-200 is the f/2.8 IS version. The gap between 55-70 is not really a problem. Up until recently I used these lenses on a 400D but I now have a 40D. I kept the 400D as a backup and acquired a used 17-85 for it as a "walkaround". The 17-55 lives on my 40D for when IQ is important and size & weight is less so. The 400D/17-85 combo is for the reverse situations. I personally find 24mm is not wide enough for a walkaround. For a while I tried a 24-85 lens paired with the 10-22 and found the 24mm end field of view of the 24-85 lens too narrow resulting in a lot of lens swaps with the 10-22. But that's just my opinion!

 

Cheers, Bob