Have the 50mm f/1.8, which one next? Help!

[kristin_trummer1]

<p>Hi. I am rather new to photography and am excited and learning a lot. I realize equipment does not make a photographer, but I am curious about lenses and what would best suit the kind of things I'd like to capture.<br /> My interest/focus/passion is mainly in capturing the beauty of people. I'm interested in taking lots of creative natural light portraiture in rustic/modern/urban settings. I really love the 50 mm I have, but I'd like to have something more versatile (a zoom?) as well, for getting shots with more architecture in the background along with the person. I do like having a prime lens because it is teaching me a lot about composition, but its also limiting when I have to walk so far away to get the background & then lose out on details in the person's face...plus I cannot really shoot incognito/candid with having to get so close. I hope that makes sense.<br /> I also have a sigma 18-125 mm, which I am not that crazy about. Its probably me, not the lens, but again, like I said I am just starting out.<br /> That being said, if you were to recommend a zoom (or not), what would it be? Thanks so much.<br>

Also, if it makes any difference, my camera body is a Canon Xti.<br>

~Kristin</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Kristin,<br>

I've had my XSi for about 3 weeks now. I love it, but have much to learn.<br>

I bought the EF 24 2.8 for street and nature use. I like it for nature, but it seems a little wide for a lot of street shots.<br>

I bought the EF-S 55-250 too. I like it for those incognito and candid moments. It is a little big for street use here in Brazil, so I don't use it as much. I'll attach a shot I took with it this week.<br>

My other use for the 55-250 is to explore which focal lengths I use for different types of photos. I would suggest you use the 18-125 for that purpose. Grab a friend and the 18-125 and take an afternoon and just shoot the types of photos you want to shoot. They may all get deleted in the end due to not being the quality level you want. However, you may find the focal lengths you really need. From there, ask what is available in that range.<br>

My next lens purchase will probably be the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as the 24 that I have is not quite meeting my needs in that focal length range. If I were going for portrait zoom only, I'd look at the Tamron 28-75 2.8. The Canon L glass would be nice, but too steep for me on the prices as a beginner.<br>

I hope my limited experience helps you.<br>

DS Meador</p><div></div>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>It sounds like you need both a wide angle and a telephoto, Kristin, so a "normal zoom" is the obvious choice (although you already have one, the Sigma 18-125). There are two I would recommend: the EF 24-70/2.8 L and the EF 24-105/4 IS L. Both are expensive, the 24-70 is heavier and has less reach, and only the 24-105 has IS. So the 24-105 would likely suit you better. Incidentally, what is it about the Sigma that you're "not that crazy about"?</p>

[matthijs]

<p>In your situation the the Tamron 17-50 2.8 would be a good bet. It is fast and delivers a high quality picture. You might even have a look at the 18-55 IS kitlens and the 55-250 IS kit tele. (This is not from personal experience though.)</p>

<p>Of course L zooms are cool and of course the 17-55/2.8 IS is great but these are big money lenses. First you must be sure that you really want to spend that kind of money.</p>

<p>It would be great if you could borrow or rent a few different lenses to get personal experience with them.</p>

<p>Kind regards, Matthijs.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I'd start with the two IS zoom kit lenses (18-55 and 55-250). Cheap, light, stabilized, versatile, with good IQ and good value for money.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

[les]

<p>What Yakim says: on 1.6x crop sensor the 18-55 (or 17-55/2.8) lens is about the most useful for the purpose you stated (OP)</p>

[oofoto]

<p>Sounds to me like you need a zoom that is in the wide to normal or short telephoto range and for a Xti that means about 16-50mm. It also sounds like you enjoy the wide aperture of the 50mm f/1.8 so you should be looking for something that is at least f/2.8.<br>

So the lenses suggested above - Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS - sound ideal. Try to limit the zoom range you go for or you'll have another experience like with your Sigma 18-125mm.</p>

[kristin_trummer1]

<p>Thanks for all the responses, guys.<br /> Mark: I don't know, with the Sigma (especially after using my 50 mm and seeing the sharpness of it), it just seems like I never get really crisp shots from it. Obviously my technique of shooting is at its earliest stages, but the images tend to look flat to me, especially when cropped up close for head shots, etc.<br /> Do you have any experience with the sigma 18-125? Or why that might be so? Or is it sheerly because I have not mastered exposing correctly?<br /> ***<br /> I had a friend recommend her 18-200mm IS 3.5-5.6 lens to me. She is shooting weddings as well as portraits, etc. Any ideas about that one? I guess that range for me would be redundant as I have the 18-125 mm and am focusing mainly on portraits. The IS is some thing my sigma does not have, however.<br /> <br /> I guess whatever I consider getting, I'd like to spend the money on a range that I will likely use the most (ie. not interested in zooming that praying mantis on that branch way far away!)<br /> Thanks for the input.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>I had a friend recommend her 18-200mm IS 3.5-5.6 lens to me. [...] Any ideas about that one?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">The <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/400-canon_18200_3556is">PZ test</a> is not very favorable. But then again, hyperzooms rarely get favorable reports. You want to get a lot of focal lengths in a light and cheap lens? Be prepared to pay with IQ.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>The 10-22 and/or the 100/2.8 macro.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Kristin, it's not surprising that you get sharper images with your 50mm than with your Sigma zoom. I get sharper images with my EF 50/1.4 than with my EF 24-70/2.8 L. That's the nature of primes compared with zooms. If it's sharpness you're after, pick up another prime or two. </p>

<p>Having said that, though, you can probably improve on the sharpness of the Sigma with an EF zoom. I've never used a Sigma lens, but haven't heard that they are particularly good compared to EF lenses.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Just look at the pictures your friend produces with the superzoom.</p>

<p>Do you think you'll be happy with that quality than by all means get the versatile lens.</p>

<p>Yes, there are some image quality issues but most of them aren't that bad in real life.</p>