What lens/lenses to buy?

[chelsea_timmons]

I just bought a 40d and have no lens.

 

I have about $700 to spend. Any suggestions?

 

I'm leaning toward a tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and a ef 85mm f/1.8.

Puts me at about $750

[chrisjb]

Your choices are excellent, thats if you want a general purpose fast zoom and a fast short tele for portrait and low light events :)

[chrisjb]

BTW, also allow for a hood on the 85mm, the tamron comes with one :0)

[chelsea_timmons]

I mainly plan to take pictures of people. Plan to do weddings in a few years but I want to build a portfolio. Just starting out and taking pictures of some of my friends kids. And couples pictures too. Doing it all for free right now to get more experienced.

[sattler123]

Sounds like you'll need a flash too!

[William Michael]

> Plan to do weddings in a few years but I want to build a portfolio. <

 

***

 

Option 1 (Best bang for buck and want most extensive capacity, immediately)

 

EF35/F2 + EF50F/1.8MkII + EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5 - F5.6IS + 430EX.

 

***

 

Option 2. (Buy once only with the intention of the lens likely being very useful, later)

 

Get the 35/F2 and the 50F/1.8 and the Flash, start building the portfolio. Save like crazy and buy the EF-S 17 to

55F2.8IS. (or the Tamron)

 

***

 

Rationale:

 

On a very tight budget, Option 1 is both a more flexible and a more expansive kit with which to build a Wedding &

Portrait slanted Portfolio.

 

The Tamron 17 to 50F2.8 arguably has better IQ than the EF-S18 to 55, but how much better at around F7 / F8?

which is where I would be working the EF-S 18 to 55, and it is still very useful wide open, though not as fast as the

Tamron. But EF-S 18 to 55 has IS, which is an advantage.

 

On and APS-C body, the 35 and 50 Primes, as a pair, are relatively inexpensive, and more flexible than the 85 alone

for: available light; Shallow DoF Portraiture; and general Group Portraiture. Both are more flexible for Available Light

inside work (e.g. `No Flash` Wedding Ceremony).

 

The 35F2 and the 50F1.8 provide more than modest system redundancy, should the main working zoom fail.

 

The EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8IS is more expensive than the Tamron, but arguably the Canon has better IQ than the

Tamron, and it also it has IS, and it focuses (and zooms) in the same direction, as other Canon lenses.

 

If the EF-S 18 to 55IS is bought, and later a faster main working zoom is purchased, the minimal outlay on the EF-S

18 to 55, would surely allow it to be carried as a back up zoom.

 

It is very likely you will need a Flash, to build your portfolio and very likely that if you continue to use Flash, the

430EX will serve as a good slave.

 

WW

[david_john_appleton]

I think you have made a good choice i have the canon 17-55 F2.8 IS and is spot on for no flash weddings i can hand hold down to a fifteenth of a second

BUT what i did and will tell anybody when starting a new system just buy a ef 50mm F1.8 or the 50mm f1.4 (i get the F1.4) the F1.8 is very very cheap and faster than any zoom and produces very very good results and will get you taking photos today for 60 pounds (UK)The 50mm focal length = approx 85mm an a cropped 40D spot on for portrait work , i bit long for every day use granted but soon seems OK. do this for few weeks get some experience then you are better qualified to know what you want and still lots af money left but i warn you the the fast F1.4 and F1.8 wide open make you get used to lovely out of focus background making your subject stand out and often getting rid of messy backgrounds this puts you on a path of very expensive lenses, because lenses with a min of F4.5-F5.6 just wont cut it any more hope this helps Dave

[chelsea_timmons]

I guess I should have mentions that I already have a 430ex flash and a 4gb ducati edition compact flash. And also a Kata r-102 bag. I plan to buy a tripod after the lens situation.

 

I really do want the ef-s 17-55mm but it is just out of budget right now. Maybe in the future.

[arie_vandervelden1]

Go for it - excellent choice. I have those two lenses and they are superb.

[tdigi]

I say get the Tamron for now, its very good. When you have a budget for a $1000 lens get something that will work on a full

frame camera as well and get a 24-70 or 24-105 and a 5D.

[g dan mitchell]

I usually have two recommendations for people with a new Canon cropped sensor (1.6x) DSLR.

 

If you are new to DSLR photography and have not yet developed enough experience to evaluate your lens needs against

available lens features ( e.g. - you are stuck asking others what lens to buy because you can't figure out what you need)

a very good place to _start_ is with the EFS 18-55mm IS kit lens. This lens can produce quite decent results, it is very

inexpensive, it covers the core focal length range that most need, it includes image stabilization... and it is a wonderful

lens to use as you shoot a few thousand initial frames. By the end of this process you will likely have a much better idea

of what your specific needs are, and you'll be a much smarter shopper when you start to acquire additional lenses.

 

If you already have a pretty decent idea of what you are going to do, and if you are certain that you will need a higher

quality lens for general use (and you can clearly articulate how and why that "quality" will actually make a difference in

your photographs) then the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is often the most appropriate lens. This lens has excellent optical

quality, also covers the core focal length range that most cropped sensor DSLR shooters need, goes to f/2.8, and

includes image-stabilization (IS). In functional terms it is arguably the best lens for those who need a high quality and

versatile lens that provides this type of feature set. It is considerably more expensive than the "kit" lens.

 

Note that it is not an automatic decision to buy the more expensive lens. This lens in not necessarily the right lens for all

crop sensor DSLR shooters. If you aren't sure you understand why or if you still need to determine whether or not your

needs fit this lens, then I urge you to shoot with the 18-55 kit lens for awhile.

 

Regarding primes, unless you already are firmly convinced based on your own extensive photographic experience that

primes are a better option for you I strongly recommend that you simply start with one general purpose good quality

zoom (either of those I mentioned) and shoot with it. For the vast majority of photographers who are just starting out the

zoom will be more flexible, provide quite excellent results, and will generally make shooting a more enjoyable process.

This is not to say that primes are not worthy lenses - I own a number of them and use them a lot. It is to say that most

people starting with a new DSLR would be better served by zooms. You can always add primes later if you feel the need.

 

Dan

[david_john_appleton]

Just to add, full frame cameras will come much cheaper now. i wish my 17-55 F28 will fit my 5D as i sold a canon 24-105 f4IS to pay for the 17-55 thinking i can never afford a 5d, last week i paid 150 UK pounds less for a second hand 5D than i paid for my 20D new (850 GBP) so may be an idea to keep in mind future body upgrades so the 24-105 F4 IS my be option at a later date as i think list price is cheaper than the 17-55

i did find the 24mm end just wide enough a 28mm-80 i had i found i was constantly swapping for my 17-35 F2.8L

and back as the 35mm end was not long enough to keep on but with the 24-105 it stayed on 95% of the time

also i have a feeling the IS is a little better in the L glass and is a lot more robust

[arie_vandervelden1]

I disagree with GD Mitchell. I urge folks who are interested in portraiture to get a fast prime. It allows experimentation with dof though aperture selection. This will teach you a lot about photography. Kit lenses are fine, but in essence they turn an SLR into a point-and-shoot camera.

 

As for 18-55 IS vs Tamron 17-50. The larger aperture of the Tamron lens makes for more flattering flash portraits. Less of a deer-in-the-headlights look. Great lens for indoor shooting, as well as general outdoor shooting without flash. Mine gets a lot of use. Good value for the money, IMO.

[paul_m__austin_]

I like my Tamron 17-50. It's not razor sharp at f/2.8, but it's still sharp...definitely sharp enough for portraits. I don't

hesitate to shoot at f/2.8 when it's needed. But, I still plan to buy a 50/1.8 soon. It's so cheap, why not? The f/1.8

makes a big difference with DOF and low light capabilities. I suspect it would be a better portrait lens than the

Tamron, although it's obviously not as flexible as a zoom.

[nrb]

My kit on a xt is a 24/2.8, a 35/2 and 50/1.8. Plus the kit lens, a 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM II and a Cosina 19-35/3.5-4.5 clone. Also a Canon 80-200mm. All these lenses are relaitively cheap but all perform well too.

[sarah_fox]

Start with a cheap zoom (e.g. 18-55 non-IS) and the excellent but cheap (under $100) 50 f/1.8. Buy the 50 new and

the zoom used off of Ebay. Use both lenses, and find out whether you're a zoom sort of photographer or a prime sort

of photographer. If you don't mind the inconveniences and inflexibilities of a prime, then collect some primes. If

you're like me, you'll love the zooms. If that's the case, keep the 50, because it's useful even to a zoom

photographer, and re-sell the 18-55. Then consider:

 

17-40 f/4L

 

28-135 IS

 

Regarding primes vs. zooms: Primes will generally give you *slightly* better image quality and larger aperture for a

lower price, but they're enormously inconvenient to use, not to mention inflexible. Zooms offer almost the same

image quality, and the slightly higher price buys you enormous functionality.

 

The 28-135 is one of Canon's most underappreciated lenses, turned out in mass as a kit lens for earlier film

cameras. The used market is now flooded with them, and they sell very cheaply (supply vs demand). Perhaps

$250? Optical quality is quite good for a consumer lens. Lots of bang for the buck. I have one and use it on my

boat. (My 24-105L stays on land.) The focal length range on your camera would be mild wide to moderate telephoto

and would be a good portrait length.

 

If you want to buy a top-notch lens that you'll still use as a pro, the 17-40 f/4L is a good value (even though it's more

expensive than many of your other options). You can use it instead of the 18-55 IS, and it will only cost you a few

hundred more. It won't give you IS, but he IS isn't as useful on the wide angle end anyway. It's an amazingly sharp

and contrasty lens, and you can use it on a full frame camera too.

 

Finally, I'd be remiss in not telling you it's hard to earn a living in professional photography. (That's an

understatement.) It will be all the harder if this recession lasts as long as I think it might. Consider career options

very carefully. I'd advise doing pro photography only on the side. Plan to make a real living some other way.

[Brad_]

Forget the 18-55 (IS or non-IS).

 

Go with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

 

It offers superior image quality, will let you shoot in more areas with low light (with subjects that move), and the wide aperture will

give you more creative control on subject isolation through depth of field control.

 

This is from someone who owns the Tamron and uses it all the time. As well as the 18-55 non-IS from long ago, and who briefly

owned the IS version.

[tdigi]

1 thing to keep in mind about the tamron 17-50 to the canon 17-55 is the size and weight. if your using this lens for

weddings or pro work then I would go with the Canon but as a general walk around lens the small Tamron is very nice. Its

almost the size of some primes.

[chrisjb]

Tommy, why would you not use tamron for pro pics, My wife & I make our living as Pro photobiz and the tamron has been our main workhorse for bout 2yr. It`s lasted longer than the sigma 15 30`s. We also use 28 135 for some events (ol folks) even then smoothin the wrinkles. A freind of ours (pro) uses a 350d with non IS 18 55, and has won some of the top AIPP awards, I did not like the 17 40 distortion for people closeups, but granted if you`ll use IS the canon 17 55 is a better long term option, tho it hasn`t had the test of time. The build of my 24 70 f2.8 just keeps going but my partner hates the size and weight. Still gotta start somewhere without spending more than necessary :)

[tdigi]

Chris, I am not saying you can't use a Tamron for working an event. I did for a few years and it performed very well most

of the time but I do find the Tamrons focus hunt much more then the Canons L's with USM. I see many photographers

and its funny but most ( I would say 75% ) are not using L quality gear. just last night the photographer had a 40D with a

28-135 for a wedding and I have also seen some wedding photographers with kit lenses so I am sure it can be done.

 

But back to the point. I like the Tamron as a walkaround lens because its small light and very good optically. Thats all I

am really saying, I think its a better choice for casual shooting because its close to the 17-55 Canon quality while still

being small and in expensive.

 

I agree about the 24-70, its to heavy so I ended up getting a 24-105 which I use most all of the time on a 40D. However

for me I use my camera about 80% of the time just for fun.

[chrisjb]

Thanks Tommy, must have a good 17 50 ours focusses fine even in niteclubs, also guilty using 28 135 for weddings on film and D30, just had it serviced after 8yr, tight and no creep, but am considering 24 105 4 IS as yours and others enthusiasm is growing for it.

 

cheers

[tdigi]

I was not a fan of the 28-135. I got it with my 40D and I really wanted to like it but I ended up selling it and keeping my

Tamron 28-75 2.8. I thought the tamron was much sharper then the 28-135 and since they cover a similar range I kept

the Tamron, sold the Canon.

 

I since moved to the 24-105 to get a bit wider, the 24-105 is also built much better, better color, IS, You will like the 24-

105, its a great do it all lens.

 

Honestly I think most people get a little to caught up in gear ( me included ) I would be willing to bet a good

photographer can make a Rebel and kit lens work as was mentioned above. I think the better gear helps the lesser

photographer more ( me included again :-} but good gear will not make you a good photographer.