Good Travel/Street Lens

[jasna_hodzic]

<p>I am most interested in street/urban/travel photography, photos such as the majority of ones in one of my flickr sets.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/betsyandleonardo/sets/72157606323331095/<br>

I'm going on a month long trip in Europe starting this August, and am looking for a very good lens which will be best suited to this kind of photography. Currently I have a Canon 40d with the kit lens 17-85mm f/3.6 i believe, and a 70-200mm f/5.6 L series lens. Both are pretty good lenses that have done me well in the best, but I am really looking for a very good lens to purchase that is not ridiculously expensive. <br />I was looking at the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens, which has gotten stellar reviews, but found myself wondering if this was a good focal length for the kind of photography I have mentioned. <br>

Any tips?<br>

Also, are lenses such as Tamron etc. good as well? I have always stayed with the Canon brand and never thought of branching out.<br>

Thanks<br>

-Jasna</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Normally I'd suggest reviewing the EXIF data for your photos to identify which focal range you use the most. But your portfolio shows a lot of diversity. I'd think your best lens is what you already have. Stick with a good midrange zoom.</p>

[jasna_hodzic]

<p>Thanks for the answer, Lex.<br>

My problem with only having my mid-range lens is that it doesn't have a good aperture range (it's f/5.6, not f/3.5 as I incorrectly stated above), but I was definitely going to use it as my main lens when traveling. Generally, I find many people coveting the standard 50mm lenses, I'm just curious as to what the big hubbub is about ;)</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I think you will find the kit lens you have is: EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM</p>

<p>If so, that lens is a <em><strong>varying maximum aperture zoom lens,</strong></em> which means at 18mm it has a maximum aperture of F/4, but at 85mm it has a maximum aperture of F/5.6.</p>

<p>My guess is: at about 24mm the maximum aperture is about F/4.5 and you max out at F/5.6 at around 45mm.</p>

<p>RE the 50mm lens: I think that the “coveting” might be about the "speed" of the 50mm lens. "Speed” meaning it has a large maximum aperture, which means several things, three of which are:</p>

<p>> the ability to take images in low light without Flash<br>

> the ability to use shallow Depth of Field creatively<br>

> the ability to freeze subject motion.</p>

<p>There are many more reasons why Photographers covet fast lenses, but these three seem to get the most airplay.</p>

<p>Also a 50mm lens is not a "standard" lens on you camera, it is a short telephoto lens: the EF35F/2 would be closer to a "standard lens" for your 40D.</p>

<p>If you want to have a read of these general terms and how they apply to lenses, grab a coffee and read where I went quite verbose answering a similar question here: <a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Tmzu">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Tmzu</a></p>

<p>As to a recommendation for another lens for travel, street etc, on a 40D, I suggest you look at a fast prime from between 24mm to 35mm, fast meaning F/2 or faster to use with the zoom you have, if you see an advantage to you, in the points I made about fast lenses.</p>

<p>OR replace the zoom you have, with the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS. This latter suggestion might be "ridiculously expensive", but this zoom is an exceptional lens.</p>

<p>Tamron make a similar F/2.8 zoom - it is not as expensive as the Canon and it does it have IS. I have not used the Tamron lens.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[michaelging]

<p>I like your photos and whatever lens you have been using is the right one. I have lots of 50 mm lenses, for lots of different cameras. When I travel I would say that I take 2% or less of my photos with a 50mm lens. Its not wide enough for some things and to wide for others. If I am shooting in Europe I want something that is a wider than a 50mm to place what ever I am shooting in the context of the place where its shot. My 2 favorite lenses for street are a 24mm or 28mm and a 180mm lens. Haveing the kit lens is not the fastest lens, but you can boost up the asa when you need to with your digital camera. Good shooting. </p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Two things to bear in mind are the senor you are using and how you will view the pictures.<br>

Many lenses are differentiated by their performance across the frame and it is the IQ and distortion at the edges that can give advantages of one lens over another. If you put on a APS-C camera (such as the 40D) a lens designed for a 35mm sensor, you are using the centre of the lens where differences may not be so apparent unless you are a critical pixel peeper. This is not to say that more expensive lenses don't have advantages (focus speed, contrast) just that they may be reduced on a 40D.<br>

The other factor is how do you view the pictures? On screen? Off the web? Printing - and if so how large. If you are printing smaller than 18x12 you may not see much difference between lenses.</p>

<p>From your portfolio I think the 50mm could be a good prime lens for you - on the 40D it falls into the range of classic portrait focal lengths. But if you want to improve the quality of the zoom you could spash out there and get the 50mm 1.8 which is ridiculously cheap for the quality you get and there are a few threads on this forum discussinfg these two. The advantage of the 50mm 1.8 is that it is so cheap you can try it out and see how much you use it and then make as decision on the f1.4 - losses on resale on a lens like that will be very low. Check out the comments on Amazon:<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Standard-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/product-reviews/B00009XVCZ/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_img?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1">http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Standard-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/product-reviews/B00009XVCZ/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_img?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1</a></p>

<p>If you want to upgrade the wide zoom, I would say you have 2 options: replace the 17-85 or add the 10-22mm.<br>

For the 17-85 the obvious step up for me would be the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS (which probably falls into your 'ridiculously expensive' category) or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 whose quality is very close to the Canon, has no IS but is half the price (a few pros on this forum swear by it). And I would not worry about the gap in focal length to your 70-200 zoom.<br>

The 10-22 is a stellar lens that would enable you to do scenics and urban landscapes but you don' t seem to have many of those in your portfolio.</p>

<p>My personal choice? The Tamron for the low light street stuff (or the Canon if you can afford it for the IS) plus the 50mm f1.8.<br>

Whichver you get, enjoy your trip!</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>If you want to travel light and bring one versatile lens, then the Sigma 18-200 OS or new 18-250 OS is a good choice. OS is Sigma's version of Canon's IS. They are in the $500 range. They cover wideangle to telephoto and the OS gives them a low light capability. I have a Nikon 18-200 VR which is similar, and it's great for travel and street use.</p>

<p>If you want to carry several lenses, then I would just add the 50mm f/1.8 to give you a high speed lens. Your other lenses are fine.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For what you are doing, I'd second the suggestion that you keep the 17-85. It's an ideal range for the APS-C cameras.</p>

<p>For faster, buy primes such as the 35mm f/2 (maybe), 50mm f/1.8(definitely), and the 85mm f/1.8 lenses for much of the same working range from "normal" to short telephoto. These are relatively cheap to downright ridiculously cheap (the 50mm).</p>

[jasna_hodzic]

<p>Thanks for all the responses<br>

I'm only 18 and about to start University so I don't have a WHOLE lot of cash, (the parents are obviously funding the Europe trip :P) but I appreciate all of the lens recommendations. The 17-85mm is a good lens and has served me well, I don't think I'll be replacing it any time soon.<br>

Everyone seems to be recommending the 50mm f/1.8, and the reviews make it sound like a good lens. However, I wonder if the f/1.4 is not worth the extra couple of hundred bucks? I just don't want to find myself in a situation in which I purchase a lens of lower quality because I believe myself to be an amateur, and then pine later on for the higher quality lens I could have just purchased in the first place. (I find myself in this situation a bit haha) I'm not about to shell out a thousand bucks for the f/1.2, so really it's between the f/1.4 and f/1.8. Honestly, as someone who has only been working with f/4 as my lowest f-stop, either sound extremely fast to me. What I'm concerned about with the reviews of the 50mm f/1.8 is the plastic mounting-sounds like it could break pretty easily.<br>

William, thanks for the tip about the Tamron lens. It looks like a good lens for my circumstances. The one question I have after reading all of these thoughtful answers is concerning lens performance on prime lens vs. zoom lenses.<br>

In a more specific question, I know that 18mm is considered to be "super wide angle," yet when I am completely zoomed out on my 17mm-85mm lens, (at 17mm) I never really get the feeling of a "super wide angle" effect. Is this just me, or is it something to do with the lens and the fact that it is not fixed but rather is a variable zoom lens?<br /> <br>

I assume lens performance is better on prime lenses because of glass quality-correct me if I’m wrong.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>18mm is only "super wide angle" on a 24x36mm sensor camera. It's just ordinary wide angle on a xxD camera, as you have discovered. To get "super wide" on your camera you need one of the zooms starting at 10 to 12 mm. They are called ultrawides, and I like my older model Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 very much.</p>

<p>Only you can answer the choice between the 50mm lenses. f/1.4 is not all that much faster, so it really comes down to what somewhat better out-of-focus highlights (aka bokeh) are worth to you. I've been on this website for 4 long years*, and have looked back farther in the archives, and the only instance of a broken f/1.8 that I remember was one dropped down stone steps, or some such. It does look cheap, but there may actually be some reason to think that the f/1.4, nice as it is, may be mechanically more fragile. After all, isn't the B2 bomber made out of plastic too?</p>

<p>_____<br /> *that's 28 people years.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>“Everyone seems to be recommending the 50mm f/1.8, and the reviews make it sound like a good lens. However, I wonder if the f/1.4 is not worth the extra couple of hundred bucks?”</em></strong></p>

<p>I did not necessarily recommend that lens, nor that focal length – I am also not DIS-recommending it either . . . I am merely saying if you buy a Prime Lens, be sure it is the Focal Length you want.</p>

<p>As you first question mentioned a “normal lens” I wanted to establish that you understood a lens with a FL of 50mm is not “normal” on your camera- it is a short telephoto lens.</p>

<p>There are 70 zillion threads comparing the 50F/1.8 to the 50F/1.4 - have a search in the Canon EOS Forum.</p>

<p>I bought the 50F/1.4. The reasons being in no particular order:</p>

<p>> I could afford to buy it<br>

> it has FTM (Full Time Manual Focussing) – the F/1.8 does not<br>

> I do use that extra bit of speed because I shoot a lot of available light<br>

> the F/1.4 “feels” sturdier and is heavier in my hand, and I like that.<br>

> I could not afford the F/1.0L at the time - if I could have I would bought it</p>

<p>That said, there are noted issues with the AF mechanism of the F/1.4 – which seem to be related to it sustaining an impact front on – you can search that too – but mine is several years old and works well.</p>

<p>I have no desire to sell my F/1.4 and buy a F/1.2L, as what I have is doing fine and I can do other things with the money – in that regard I a not a techno-head who needs the latest gear.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>What I'm concerned about with the reviews of the 50mm f/1.8 is the plastic mounting-sounds like it could break pretty easily.<br /><br /></em></strong><br>

Well as I mentioned, bang the F/1.4 on the end and likely you’ll be up for a couple of hundred to get the little cam replaced . . . I mean what is your fear real? Do you play football with your lenses or are you taking too much on board of what others are writing and how they are scaring you?</p>

<p>I believe you should look at and hold both lenses – the F/1.8 gives very good quality and do not underestimate that - the proof is in the pudding – and it is substantially cheaper – but if you don’t like the “plastic” feel and the plastic mount, then I suggest you do not buy it – you will not “learn to like” it, IMO.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>The one question I have after reading all of these thoughtful answers is concerning lens performance on prime lens vs. zoom lenses.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

As a general rule if you spend exactly the same $ on a zoom and on a Prime of similar focal length you will get:<br>

> a Prime that is faster (larger max. aperture)<br>

> Better IQ from the Prime</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>“I assume lens performance is better on prime lenses because of glass quality-correct me if I’m wrong.”</em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

Zoom lenses are a compromise – they need to be able to do all things at different focal lengths – that is why Primes usually exhibit better IQ, even if the glass is the same quality.</p>

<p>***<br>

<br /><strong><em>In a more specific question, I know that 18mm is considered to be "super wide angle," yet when I am completely zoomed out on my 17mm-85mm lens, (at 17mm) I never really get the feeling of a "super wide angle" effect. Is this just me, or is it something to do with the lens and the fact that it is not fixed but rather is a variable zoom lens?</em></strong></p>

<p>I think you are confused with the meanings of “fixed” and “variable” - - - perhaps because I earlier mentioned this:<br>

I think you will find the kit lens you have is: EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM If so, that lens is a <strong><em>varying maximum aperture zoom lens,</em></strong> which means at 18mm it has a maximum aperture of F/4, but at 85mm it has a maximum aperture of F/5.6.</p>

<p>Let me clarify:</p>

<p>“Fixed” and <strong><em>“varying”</em></strong>, refer to the maximum aperture of the lens as it is zoomed to different FL.</p>

<p>The Focal Length and the camera format determine if the lens will be a super wide angle or not.</p>

<p>Have you read the other post I linked to?</p>

<p>A 17mm lens <strong><em>on your 40D </em></strong>is not a super wide angle it is just a wide angle.</p>

<p>Just as a 50mm lens <strong><em>on your 40D</em></strong> is not a “normal lens”, but a short telephoto lens.</p>

<p>A 10mm lens on your 40D is a super wide angle lens.</p>

<p>So the 10 to 22 zoom mentioned by Mike, would be a super wide angle zoom for your camera.</p>

<p>WW<br>

<br /><br />PS: As it relates directly to this last question and the confusion over what is "wide" . . .<br>

Michael Ging, could you please clarify this comment:</p>

<p><strong><em>“My 2 favorite lenses for street are a 24mm or 28mm and a 180mm lens” </em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong></p>

<p>On what camera format?</p>

[William Michael]

<p>" <strong>*that's 28 people years.</strong> "</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>WW</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>The f/1.4 is 1/3-1/2 stop faster than the f/1.8. The f/1.8 is plasticy but so are many other lenses and cameras. The plastic is plenty strong for normal use. I'm a Nikon user so I have no experience with Canon lenses, but I've heard from many Canon users that the f/1.8 is very sharp. Given this, only you can tell if the f/1.4 is worth the extra money.</p>

<p>My opinion is that it's not worth the extra cost especially if money is tight.</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>In addition to the 17-50 f2.8 Tamron also make a great 28-75 f2.8. I often find the extra reach useful. William- how's the espresso today? lol</p>

[William Michael]

<p>(Aside) Mark, I am on Peppermint tea . . . the machine at my office is broken . . . repair man coming - situation serious, (all true). Thanks for asking. WW</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Tea is better for you anyway.</p>