Lens Package

[laura_brugger]

<p>I am looking at a few packages to go with a 50D camera.<br>

1. Includes 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS.<br>

2. Includes 24-105 IS USM and 100-400 IS.<br>

3. Includes 24-70 USM and 70-200 IS USM.<br>

My photo interests include landscapes and wildlife. I also have a big need for an everyday lens...especially good for travel purposes (a lens I don't have to switch around a lot). I am for sure going to be getting 10-22mm lens. I am also looking for a Macro lens. I am considering the 100mm Macro or the 50mm Macro. The reason I was considering the 50mm Macro was because I figured I would have more versatility in low light situations and portraits as well as the Macro capabilities.<br>

What do you all think about these choices?</p>

 

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>Sounds like #2 would work well along with the 10-22 for what you shoot, the 24-105 is a great all around lens that is very sharp.</p>

[shambrick007]

<p>#3 w/the 2.8 version of the 70-200.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I would start with just 1 and go from there. These are all different lenses and you should see what you like shooting most before you invest in a kit. Maybe get a mid range zoom and then go from there.</p>

<p>My kit of lenses is the 10-22, 24-105, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, 70-200 2.8 ( non is ) and 100 2.8 macro. I love all of them but I have no idea what is most important to you. For example the 24-70 is big and heavy compared to the 24-105. both are great lenses and both have pros and cons.</p>

<p>I can say for certain if you want to shoot wide a 10-22 will be a lot of fun. I really enjoy this lens and I find its on my camera most of the time now with the 50 1.4 a close second followed by the 24-105. But I mostly shoot indoors, people etc. </p>

<p>some other good advice is if you can try them out in a store first.</p>

<p>good luck</p>

<p> </p>

[photodiscoveries]

<p>Well...I shoot very similar to you. First, the only lens for wildlife in your suggestions is the 100-400. None of the others are long enough. So that is a given IMHO. You are getting the 10-22, which you will really enjoy, and that covers the wide end. So, what do you want for the middle, AND cover the travel aspect of life...I would suggest that the very best travel lens is the 18-200-. I just took this lens to China, and used it for 80% of my shots. If you still need another, get the 24-105, I have all of these lenses, and they will cover your bases. If you still want a close-up, buy the canon 500D, 77mm, and use it with both your 100-400 and your 24-105. You'll get great results with less expense and a lot less weight...it is an often forgotten lens for close-ups.</p>

[claytontullos]

<p>2 seems the best to me along with the 10-22.</p>

[m._scott_clay1]

<p>Option #2 for what you are doing. I'd also go for the 100mm macro. It's just a bit long for portraits on a 50d unless you have a lot of room, but gives you more working distance as a macro IMO. The 24-105L will take care of any portraiture needs unless you just must have 2.8 type bokeh. Package #3 is a really good, but not going to do what you want it to do for wildlife.</p>

<p>The 24-105L is a great walk-around lens on a FF camera and will certainly work well on a 50d, but most of the photographers I know use the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS on a cropped camera for a walk around. It's "L" quality optically, but no red ring and not weather sealed.</p>

<p>That's a lot of money for lenses and a huge step from package #1 to packagte#2 and #3. Is this a wish list or are you really considering the difference?</p>

<p>Scott</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>In my view all three of those sets are odd choices for someone with your particular interests - odd in terms of focal lengths and odd in terms of the mix of lenses you are looking at.</p>

<p>Are you new to all of this or do you have a lot of experience? If you have a lot of experience already and are interested in these particular lenses, well, I guess its not my place to tell you what to do. ;-) If you are new to this and/or just getting started with DSLR photography, I'm going to urge you - very strongly! - to slow down a bit and get some shooting under your belt before you start investing a lot of money in very expensive lenses. So let me go forward with the assumption that you are new to this. Feel free to stop reading here if I'm wrong.</p>

<p>24 mm as your shortest focal length would be a very unusual choice for someone who wants to do what I'll call typical landscape work. 24mm in not a very wide lens at all on a cropped sensor camera body. A more typical wide lens - and even this doesnt' get into the ultrawide range - would be roughly 16mm or 17mm.</p>

<p>I notice that in terms of functionality and quality levels your choices are, uh, a bit all over the map. At one end you have the EFS 17-85 which is, to put it gently, not exactly a spectacular performer. (Yes, I owned this lens at one time for about a year.) While it is the one option that gets you into the 17mm wide range, it does so at the expense of the sort of image quality that one would lead one to include the L lenses in the list.</p>

<p>Then I see that your longest focal lengths vary from 200mm to 400mm! What longest focal length do you need/want? After you decide that, the lens choices should fall into place as a result - in other words if you need 400mm then you have little choice but to go for the 100-400 among the lenses you consider. But if you don't need 400mm, you would not likely include this on your list.</p>

<p>Finally, a strategy to consider - with a bit of background for this strategy. There is no "best" or "right" choice of lenses in a general way. There are many, many different options that could be the best for you. But in order to figure out what they are it is very important to develop a baseline of experience that will guide you in discovering and understanding how different lens options do and do not fit with your style of shooting and your subjects.</p>

<p>If you are just getting started, I strongly urge you to put the credit card away and start small. Get the 50D - though the XSi could be just as good a choice at this point - with the EFS 17-55mm variable aperture image stabilzed kit lens and shoot at least several thousand frames. (10,000 might be a good target if you shoot a lot.) This lens is almost free in kits that come with these cameras, and it covers the core focal length range that most cropped sensor shooters need - and its image quality is actually quite decent.</p>

<p>After you shoot with this lens for some time, the answers to many of these other questions will begin to become a lot more obvious to you. For example, you'll begin to understand the tradeoffs with a lens like the 17-85mm EFS lens, and you'll be better able to determine for yourself whether they will or will not be right for you. The questions about such things as the need/desire for a 50mm macro will also be clearer after you see what you can and cannot do with a "normal" range zoom. You'll also have a better idea of what you will do with your photographs, whether you prefer the larger aperture of the 24-70 or the larger FL and IS of the 24-105, etc.</p>

<p>It would be a very dangerous thing to make your specific choice among these lenses based on some advice in a forum absent some strong background experience that will allow you to interpret such advice.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[rddelliott]

<p>Listen to G Dan Mitchell. Sound advise.</p>

[matthijs]

<blockquote>

<p>landscapes and wildlife</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Landscapes can be shot with any focal length. You are the only one that can decide what you need for that. That said: a 10-22 is a very specialized lens. I would only buy that if I was sure I needed that wide a lens.</p>

<p>Any lens that starts at 17 or 18mm and zooms to 50 or more is usable for walkaround. So EFs 18-55 IS (kit), EF-s 17-55/2.8 IS (big, expensive, purrfect), EF-s 17-85/IS (compromise but good), EF-s 18-200 IS (bigger compromise but not bad) should do fine.</p>

<p>Wildlife typically needs the longest you can buy. EF-s 55-250 IS is the most affordable, EF 70-300 IS is not too bad though it's performance drops at the long end. However serious wildlife shooting with a zoom is done with the 100-400 IS when shooting Canon.</p>

<p>As for your other wish, the macro, the 50 with the life size converter works good with the added plus that the LFC can be used with nearly any Canon lens as a tube and x1.4 in one. The 100/2.8 gets great reviews everywhere with relatively slow AF as it's only -but logical- flaw.</p>

<p>Have fun! Matthijs.</p>

[alan_myers]

<p>Hi again Laura,<br>

<br /> I answered your questions on the other post asking the same, that you started back on Feb. 10th.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>After looking this over again, I think G Dan put it best. However I believe the lens he is referring to is the 18-55 IS kit lens not the 17-55 2.8. Thats great advice. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Yes, Tommy, you are correct. I did indeed mean to refer to the <em>18-55mm kit lens</em> when I wrote that.</p>

<p>(I plead exaustion. I had just returned from the third day of chasing and photographing the Tour of California in the rain. Although I looked at the 17-55 working and thought "something isn't right here," I hit the submit button anyway.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Just for proof, one of the Tour shots...</p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2645-3/LanceArmstrongTourOfCal20090214.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[tdigi]

<p>Nice shot, I assume that was not shot with the kit lens</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>Nice shot, I assume that was not shot with the kit lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh, no... ;-)</p>

<p>Handheld EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS at 400mm on a EOS 5D II. The shot was part luck and part planning, but turned out nicely I think.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>Laura, if you want good IQ and shoot wildlife and lanscape and have the money, you don't need f2.8 and stay away from variable aperture kit lens's. 17-55 f2.8 is nice. Good luck. Ross</p>