Help me pick a new lens!

[elizabeth_l.]

<p>Hello,<br>

I have a Rebel XTi with the kit 18-55 (non-IS) lens and a recently purchased 50 1.8 that I love. I mostly take pictures of my two small kids. I prefer to take photos outdoors, and take more candid shots than posed portraits. As I mentioned, I love the quality of the images taken with my 50 1.8, but I do at times miss having a larger range. (When I'm inside & want a full-body photo, or when I'm outside & the kids are further away than I want.) I also would love to have an ultra wide-angle for landscapes, and a telephoto zoom lens for travel. Given the amount I have to spend (around $800), which lens or lenses do you recommend?<br>

I had considered the 70-200 2.8 as my dream lens for candids of the kids playing at the park or beach, or for performances where no flash is allowed. However, I recently held one and decided it is too heavy for me. <br>

I looked online at the 18-200 for a one-lens walk-around travel solution. (Although I might still want a Sigma 10-20 for some shots.) I was able to find the 18-200 for $455 new, but then read some reviews here where people recommended getting two lenses instead of this one. These comments were made before the 18-200's release and when it was said to cost around $700. <br>

Some of the lenses I have seen recommended were the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM (I found one for $980), the Canon 24-105 f4 L (cheapest I saw was $1000), the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (found one for $459) . . . <br>

The Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM seems very expensive to duplicate the range I already have, although I know it would have speed and shallower DOF as an advantage, and quality, which is becoming more & more important to me as I learn more. <br>

I'd love for the 18-200 to be good enough to buy to cover almost everything. Or if there are 2 lenses that would total around $800 to cover just about everything. <br>

Another thought is to get another fast prime for inside plus a zoom. <br>

I know I am all over the place here. I'm definitely overwhelmed with the choices since I'd like to do some of everything. Thanks in advance for your help!</p>

<p> </p>

[rainer_t]

<p>From what you write, it appears you're aware of the drawbacks of the choices you mentioned.<br /> So, bring an order into your priorities, that will bring you a better feeling for the right choice.</p>

<p>Sidenote: If you love the quality of your 50mm f/1.8, a 18-200 might impress you with its versatile range ... bit it will disappoint you with rather mediocre image quality ... but again, this is a question of your personal preferences, and nothing anyone else could help you with.</p>

<p>Are you satisfied with what you already have ... if no, replace the weakest piece of your existing equipment (which might be the 18-55-nonIS) ... if yes, extend with a lens that matches the point you gave the biggest priority.</p>

[dschuleman]

<p>I do not know how to handle your specific problem because it seems like you really do not know where you want to go with focal lengths, but I can suggest some excellent lenses that you should look at. First, the Canon 70-200mm f4L (non IS), which can be had for about $500-550 used, I think would be a perfect compromise for you because it is lighter and smaller than the 2.8 version and has about 97% of the same image quality. For very wide angle, the best cheapest option is the Tokina 12-24mm f4, which new is $400. These two lenses, if purchased, could lead to a significant gap in your kit. Another suggestion is the canon 17-85mm f4.5-5.6 IS, which is the medium quality walk around lens being a step up from your kit lens and a step down from the L series. That lens is $400-600. Some others that you could look into in that lens bracket are the: 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 (not the 4.5-5.6) and 24-85mm f3.5-4.5. The tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is also very good. Finally, the only 18-200mm I would consider is the Canon version, the 18-200mm IS, but I would suggest that you only get this if you really need an all in one solution, otherwise having multiple lenses will give you much better picture quality.<br>

Good luck, and you may want to try buying used to save $$ on nicer lenses.<br>

/D </p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>My impression of your shooting needs is that (1) you don't intend to ever use a body with a 35mm sensor, (2) light weight is important, and (3) you still want better image quality at a low price point.</p>

<p>My suggestion based on these needs is to consider EF-S lenses first, followed by EF primes. Sadly the selection of EF-S lenses is rather small. The 17-55/2.8 IS would give you a tiny bit more reach in the wide angle but it is the improvement of image quality over your existing 18-55 that is important. I recommend that you borrow a copy and test it out before you make any further decisions.</p>

<p>That said, provided you do not want the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS, I advise that you consider the 10-22/3.5-4.5 to cover the wide-angle focal length range. Due to the difference in sensor sizes, there are no EF lenses remotely in your price range that would give you that reach. On the other end of the scale, you could probably do well with the EF-S 60mm macro, which is highly regarded and has a bit more telephoto than the EF 50/1.8 you have already. It also has the added bonus of being a macro lens, which I am sure you will find ways to utilize.</p>

<p>I don't really get the sense you want a superzoom. The image quality is just not there. On the other hand, I am hesitant to suggest an EF telephoto zoom, because they are (1) heavy (2) expensive (3) waste of glass if you never plan on going 35mm full frame and (4) may be *too* long for your needs. But if you do want a long focal length you might want to consider the EF 85/1.8 or 100/2.8 macro.</p>

<p>Above all, it may be worthwhile to rent/borrow these lenses and test them out to see how they work into your shooting needs, and how they might change the way you shoot.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>If small light weight high quality is what your after and your budge it around 800, I would suggest the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and either the 85 1.8, 100 2.0 or 100 2.8 macro.</p>

[elizabeth_l.]

<p>Thanks for the well thought-out recommendations. Your assumptions are correct, Peter. As for longer telephoto, I would like one for traveling when I might like to get a close-up of an animal, but since I don't travel often (not nearly as often as I'd like!), I could probably rent one when I do travel.<br>

I will look into the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS and the Tamron 17-50 2.8 lenses as upgrade walkaround lenses. Am I correct in assuming the main differences between these are brand name, IS, and price? Any recommendations of one over the other would be great!<br>

Also the 100 2.8 macro sounds great because I'd love to try some macro photography.<br>

Any recommendations for something longer than 100 with a decent quality that's not horribly expensive?</p>

[tdigi]

<p>The 55-250 is supposed to be pretty good for around $250 but I would spend the extra money and get the 70-200 F4. <br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>About two years ago I was in the exact position you are now in re the Xti and the same two lenses you mention. But things have changed a bit since then with the release of the updated 18-55 which now has IS built in and the EF-S 55-250 (again with IS) which has been well regarded particularly as a mate for the 18-55 IS. So I say get what you can for your current kit lens (or keep it if you like - when you sell your Xti down the road you can give the old 18-55 with the Xti). The pacakge of those two lenses are about $410 at B&H Photo, probably around the same at Adorama, both fine places to buy.<br>

Do you have a flash (other than the built-in one on the Xti)? You'll notice a big difference in portrait quality with a separate flash. Get a Canon that ends in EX such as the older 420EX, the newer 430EX or the update to the 430EX which I think is a 430EX II ($270 AT B&h). Any of these are well within what's left of your budget. Or pick up another and better portrait lens the Canon 85mm f/1.8. That's a bit more than the flash will cost but not that much more. ($379 at B&H).</p>

 

[nathan_meador]

<p>Given the budget, it will be hard to find lenses at both ends of the spectrum. Do you really want super wide (10-20mm, 11-16mm)? I'd suggest the sigma 30mm 1.4, not a super wide, but more of a normal lens on a crop body, plus it is under $400. I'd actually suggest getting an inexpensive hotshoe flash (Vivitar 285HV if you can find one that doesn't have the voltage issue), a 10-15' pc cable or one of the $40 radio triggers and a light stand with umbrella and bracket...should be able to get all for under $200. These things make a world of difference in your portraits, and I'd suggest spending money on them rather than a telephoto lens. Though, the 100mm f2.8 is a good recommendation. You might also look at the 200mm f2.8L, which would max out your budget by itself, but has great optics.</p>

[claytontullos]

<p>For when the kids are far away or if they every start playing sports, the 70-200F4L is a fantastic lens. It is <strong>considerably</strong> lighter than the 2.8 version. It weighs about half, depending on which 2.8 you handled.<br /> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p>With your budget and quality desires two lenses for $800 is not really going to happen.</p>

<p>I suggest going with the 70-200f4, the image quality is fantastic. Perhaps later buying a quality wide angle. Or reverse your purchase, buy the canon 10-22 or equiv then the telephoto. <br /> The wide angle lenses are more for landscape photography than pictures of the kids (though you can use them for that purpose).</p>

<p>If you are serious about a good zoom portraiture lens the 24-70 is the one of the best.<br /> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

[fmueller]

<p>You already have a mid range zoom and a fast prime for portraits. What you need are two more lenses - a wide angle and a tele, and I would recommend zoom lenses for both purposes:<br>

Canon EFs 10-22 - this lens is still available new for around $700<br>

Canon EF 70-210/3.5-4.5 USM or EF 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM - these are older lenses, and you have to buy used, but it's well worth your effort tracking one down, since they are head and shoulders above similar later offerings. Optically these lenses come close to the current 70-200L lenses. They don't quite have the built quality, but they are a lot lighter - which is a plus - and they come at a fraction of the price. KEH currently has a 100-300 for $144. That's a great price, and puts you just slightly out of your budget.<br>

Frank</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Elizabeth,<br>

I have the EF-S 55-250 IS. Outdoors, in good light, it works for me. When the light gets lower I get more frustrated. Last week I took some dusk shots of my sister with her two kids and my daughter having a silly string fight. Pretty much all the shots had motion blur, but in this situation it added to the fun of the visual story. The lens has a minimum focusing distance of about 1 meter and I can take nice pictures of larger flowers with it just fine. Not true 1:1 macro, but still close ups.<br>

If you really need f/2.8 in a telezoom, you might want to look at the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 or the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. I have never used either and so can't personally recomend them, but they might be options for you since the EF 70-200 f/2.8 is your too heavy dream.<br>

I don't know what to say about ultrawide zooms, so I probably ought not say anything. Nonetheless, do you shoot your 18-55 at 18 stopped down on a tripod? Shoot that way and use RAW for a while so you can correct lens weaknesses in DPP. That should help you decide if you need wider than 18?<br>

I hope this helps a little.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>If you are buying lenses that go to 200mm this is giving you an effective 320mm lens. At this length handheld you probably need IS. I am not an Is fan and always shoot full frame but while i do not have IS on my 70-200 f2.8 I do on the 300 F2.8 and it is a lifesaver for handheld shots. While the lens you are looking at is not as large and thus easier to handhold it has a much smaller maximum aperture so I would consider IS essential if you plan to shoot at a 300mm effective length. try a few shots in the store to see what the non-IS lens looks like. I have also heard reports that some of the cheaper IS systems (e.g. Sigma) on long lenses never give a really sharp image - even at very fast sppeds and tripod mounted. You may want to consider deciding which lens you really want and just spending all of the $800 on that. To get a good wide angle that is wider than the effective 28mm of your kit lens will be expensive. Similarly a zoom can be expensive - while i have never used it (as I shoot full frame) the EFS 55-250 got good reviews and has IS so this lens may meet one of your requirements. Going wider than an effective 28mm on an APS-C body is difficult - the only cheap options are zooms, expensive Canon optics or a sigma 10mm. A friend of mine recently evaluated all of these options (except he is a Nikon user) and came to the conclusion that the Tokina 10-17mm F2.8 was easily the best affordable option. I have seen the results and it is a pretty good lens so you may want to take a look at it.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Sorry Elizabeth I mean to say the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 (they don't actually make a 10-17mm F2.8)</p>

[fmueller]

<blockquote>

<p>If you are buying lenses that go to 200mm this is giving you an effective 320mm lens. At this length handheld you probably need IS.</p>

</blockquote>

<div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>For the long, the EF-S 55 to 250 S is worth a look. It is very good value for money. IS is surpisingly good for a "value"lens. Makes a good mate for the 18 to 55 kit lens.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[lawrence_li]

<p>Just a few comments from my experience. Firstly, I started off with an XTi kit with the same 18-55 (non-IS) and I bought the 18-200 IS from Sigma for around $400ish CAD. As already mentioned the 18-200 isn't a great lens in terms of IQ, focus speed or lowlight work. But it is an awesome jack of all trade, master of none lens that allowed me to explore my newfound hobby and let me decide what kind of photography I wanted to pursue. When I'm out and about, I keep this lens on my XTi all the time. (Well that might be because I can't afford any other lenses either hehehe)<br /> Now, I've tried my friend's 24-70 f/2.8 L, very nice lens but on a crop body, I miss having the versatility of the wider range especially in indoor situations. The price is also a little turn off.<br>

<br /> Basically you have to prioritize what you want more and spend your money that way (yes it's a sad truth):<br /> 1. If you want to shoot your kids farther away, 200mm might not be good enough especially when they're way up there on the stage. While a 100-400 L lens would be awesome, I think a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ($530) would be my pick. You'll just have to up the ISO to keep the shutter speed up for your moving kids.</p>

<p>2. Get a fast prime like 24mm f/2.8 ($300) or 28mm f/1.8 USM ($450) for indoor work. I think you've already found the 50mm to be way too long in doors. I have a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 but that kind of range doesn't make for very flattering single person portraits ;)</p>

[swede_spoltore]

<p>Hi Elizabeth,<br>

I went through a process to determine if I wanted the Canon 70-200 f:2.8 IS lens or the Canon 70-200 f:4.0 IS and I chose the f:4.0 for seveeral reasons. First of all its size was so much smaller and more manageable than the f:2.8, it was less in cost by about $500, with a subject not up against a background but rather a backgroung in the distance - the f:4.0 throws the background very nicely out of focus and I can increase my ISO to compensate for the one stop difference. I also find the IS feature to work very well on the f:4. I was als truly impressed with the sharpness, contrast and saturation.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>First, a question... Aside from having a larger maximum aperture, what specific differences are you seeing in your photographs from the 50mm prime versus the 50mm focal length on the 18-55 zoom? If both lenses are used well, they should both produce fine results in web size jpgs and prints up to at least letter size and perhaps a bit beyond. The 18-55 IS kit lens really isn't a bad lens at all.</p>

<p>Second, I think that it is first important to come up with a specific lens strategy and then start thinking about how to execute it. The choices can be overwhelming, so take your time thinking this through - and don't buy until you feel pretty confident about the decision. (A good policy is to make the decision and then wait a couple weeks - often after making the decision you'll look at the issue a bit differently.)</p>

<ul>

<li>Do you want a "better" lens with similar coverage? If so, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is an outstanding lens for your camera in just about every way: excellent IQ, f/2.8, image-stabilization, good "normal" focal length coverage. The price is a bit higher than your figure...</li>

<li>Do you want a wider lens for general use and perhaps landscape sort of stuff? The EFS 10-22 is an excellent lens and probably the safest high quality choice.</li>

<li>Do you want a one-lens-for-everything solution (and you are happy with slightly less optimum IQ)? Some of the options you mention like the 18-200 range could be fine.</li>

<li>Do you want to simply add a longer zoom lens to what you already have? There are a ton of options here. If you are pleased with the results you generally get from the EFS 18-55 kit lens, many people like the companion EFS 55-250 IS zoom. There are, of course, many other expensive options including the 70-200mm L zooms.</li>

<li>Do you want a longer lens that overlaps your current lens, leaving the current lens to cover the wide range? The 24-105 could be a good option. It is certainly a fine lens and the 105mm focal length on the crop body does provide more "reach" than what you have now.</li>

<li>Do you just want a longer prime? Since you seem to like your 50mm prime, perhaps an additional longer prime could be useful. Something in the 85mm, 100mm, or 135mm range might work nicely.</li>

</ul>

<p>Decisions, decisions...</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Well... the more you read the harder this one becomes.</p>

<p>So I'll try to make this post definitive. After that you should stop reading and do something. If you don't you'll only miss out on photo opportunities because you do not have the lens and because you're behind a screen surfing the internet.</p>

<p>That said: the other posters said some wise words and some less wise.</p>

<p>1. You have the non-IS kitlens which is according to all reviews mediocre at best.</p>

<p>2. A few lenses are mentioned more often than others. Lenses like the 55-250, the 70-300, the 18-200 and several different 70-200's. If you have the possibility to borrow, rent or otherwise try out a few of these that would probably help tremendously in making up your mind.</p>

<p>3. Do not believe the superzoom bashers. I have one of the worst reviewed superzooms and am still able to create a nice picture with it. (I also have a 70-200/4L IS and a 50/1.4 so I know what the other end of the spectrum looks like.)</p>

<p>4. If you've played with a few lenses (or can't play with them) and still don't know what to do, try to rank your wishes.</p>

<p>Wide aperture, small size/light weight, superzoom - zoom - prime, color/contrast, straight lines, sharpness, feel/ease of use/buildquality.</p>

<p>Wide aperture is always handy. But do you really need it for your shots.</p>

<p>Small size and light weight is always nice but if you do not travel or travel by car they're overrated.</p>

<p>Superzooms are ultra flexible but they have serious straight lines issues that are hard to fix in postprocessing.</p>

<p>Zooms have slight issues with straight lines, the more expensive the smaller. Zooms are slower than most primes but are more flexible.</p>

<p>Primes tend to have no issues with straight lines, tend to be smaller and faster than zooms. They force some creativity in composing but a lot of photographers like that.</p>

<p>Color and contrast are partly depending on the glass and partly on postprocessing. The differences caused by the glass are subtle but visible. This might be researched by viewing an enormous amount of pictures taken with different lenses.</p>

<p>The feel / ease of use / build quality can influence how you feel while out shooting and can have an impact on the lifespan of the lens.</p>

<p>If I were you (which I'm not of course) I'd probably get the Canon 18-200. It's better than the kitlens you use, the zoom range is immensely practical when shooting kids, it's stabilized and has a nice tele range. The only thing you might need later on is a fast prime between 20 and 35 mm to use indoor when your 50mm is too long.</p>

<p>Now stop reading.</p>

[lizweisiger]

<p>I am not as knowledgeable as these folks who've commented, BUT: <br>

I do use the Rebel XTi; I have the kit lens, which I haven't used in over a year; I have a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, which is my everyday, every need lens; plus I have the 50mm f/1.8 II for portraits and closer up shots. I shoot a lot of things, and feel very versitile. I want a macro lens as my next big purchase. This is just my two cents.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>The Canon EF-S 10-22 and EF-S 55-250 should fit within your budget and cover your needs. I have them both and am very happy to recommend them. The EF-S 55-250 is quite good as a travel lens due to its small size and good quality.</p>

[elizabeth_l.]

<p>So much great advice! Thanks everyone for all your help. Per Matthijs' advice, I did try to stop reading, make a decision, and sleep on it. Here is what I'm thinking for now: Either get: <br>

1) a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to replace my kit lens (around $415) and a Canon 55-250 IS (around $230) and maybe have enough left over for a flash<br>

or<br>

2) a Canon 70-200 4L USM (~$5-600 used) or try somehow to find the IS version under $1000. If I get the non-IS version, I could either use my kit lens or 50 1.8 for inside or try to find a used 24 prime.<br>

I'd like to get my hands on all these to try some practice shots. I'd hate to buy the Tamron, which basically duplicates the range I currently have, unless the quality is significantly better than my kit lens. Any comments on that? Can anyone reassure me that it's much better? <br>

From everything I've read, the 70-200 f4 is a fantastic lens. I just don't want to spend all my money on the longer lens and then be lacking the quality in the shorter range, since I think that's what I'll use more.<br>

Reviews of the 55-250 IS are great, too. And it's much cheaper! Will it still work well for outdoor sports?<br>

Decisions, decisions!</p>

 

[mike_hitchen]

<p>You haven't actually criticised the quality of the pictures from the 18-55 so I am going to make the assumption that you are basically happy with it but are wanting to know how good/bad it is. Is the Tamron better than the 18-55? Yes. Significantly better? It depends partly on how you view the pictures - web, screen or print? Sit and look at the pictures you have and see if there are any particular aspects you are unhappy with (probably not many). But there is more to a lens than sharpness - colour rendition, tonal gradation and so on and those are things that test charts rarely tell you.<br>

If I got the Tamron 17-50, I know there would be a shot that I missed because I did not have a long enough lens and I would wonder why on earth I spent my hard-earned money duplicating what I already had (but that is my masochistic streak showing) and end up getting a longer lens anyway.</p>

<p>So it is the longer focal lengths that are missing from your kit. When I am buying another pirce of kit I believe in getting the best I can afford, so in your shoes I would get the 70-200 f4L. I have the 17-55 and the 70-300 and have no problem with the gap in focal lengths so I would have no urgency to 'fill the gap' with the 55-250. And how the quality of the 55-200 would compare to the 70-200 you will have to check - if you are seriously considering changing the 18-55 I really wonder if you would be happy with the 55-250. I think that you will spend a lot of time shooting the kids with that one as well and appreciate the quality.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>What ever you decide I suggest getting 1 at a time. Decide what you are most lacking and address that issue. It gets addicting because no lens is perfect for everything ( IE. the 55-250 is nice for travel, the 70-200 is higher quality etc. ) </p>