Another walk-around lens question...

[brian_wallace5]

<p>I know similar questions have been asked numerous times but each situation is different - so I come to you looking for help and promise you I have read past posts. Here goes...<br>

I have five lenses which pretty much have me covered for what I shoot (indoor sports, outdoor sports, toddlers, DSLR video) except for one category - outdoor toddlers :-) I own the <strong>Canon T2i</strong> Those little buggers are cute as anything but simply not conducive to any lens I have right now which are...</p>

<ul>

<li>Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC</li>

<li>Tamron 28-105 f/2.8</li>

<li>Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM</li>

<li>Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM</li>

<li>Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 VC USD</li>

</ul>

<p>The ground rules for my last lens are as follows</p>

<ul>

<li>Must be purchased from eBay (I have a $40 coupon)</li>

<li>Would prefer it to be new with a warranty</li>

<li>Must have 18mm as a minimum focal length</li>

<li>Must go to at least 135mm</li>

<li>Does not need to be "fast" - this lens will be used exclusively outside. </li>

<li>Less than $300</li>

<li>I have no problem with 3rd party lenses OR EF-S/Di II lenses as I won't own a full frame anytime soon. </li>

</ul>

<p>The two that I've come down to are the Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 or the Canon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6. Both of them get decent reviews. Here's what I see as the pros and cons to each<br>

Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3</p>

<ul>

<li>Cheaper ($209)</li>

<li>Comes with longer warranty (6 years)</li>

<li>Comes with hood</li>

</ul>

<p>Canon 18-135 f/3.5-6.3</p>

<ul>

<li>More expensive ($280)</li>

<li>Shorter warranty (1 year)</li>

<li>No hood</li>

<li>AF is reportedly accurate and relatively fast - although not USM</li>

<li>Has image stabilization. </li>

</ul>

<p><strong>Basically is a shorter warranty, no hood, but better autofocus and IS worth $70?</strong></p>

[brett_w.]

<p>You have a nice set of lens, why would you consider buying the 18-135 or the Tamron 18-200?<br>

<em><strong>The lens you are buying are worse than what you already own!</strong></em> see www.photozone.de or other comparison sites. The lens you have will allow you to get nice photographs of toddlers outdoors. If you feel the urge to buy something look at lighting equipment, e.g. flashes, off-camera like a shoot thru umbrella, softbox, etc. </p>

<p> </p>

[brian_wallace5]

<p>Brett - believed me I've wrestled with that question. The problem is that none of the ones I own meet my criteria. The 17-50 doesn't go far enough (as much as I love it) and the 28-105 isn't wide enough. I do a lot of DSLR video of my kids and that turns a 28mm into 52mm (28*1.6*1.17) lens and I just can't get back that far from small children playing. <br>

Indoors isn't the issue - my 17-50 is perfect for that - its outside on the playground, family vacations, etc. I guess I'm less worried about image quality because being outside I can stop it down to f/8 or f/11.</p>

[danield]

<p>Well, this is a bit odd, but I could see why this would be what you want, you want to quickly cover a wide FOV range without changing lenses and you also want fast AF to focus on a fast moving toddler. And you find that your current lenses are not up to the task.</p>

<p>Probably your best bet is the old Canon 28-135, as it has ring USM and is probably a bit faster to focus than the 18-135, although I would not think that would make a major difference.</p>

<p>But I think what you need is a camera with a faster frame rate and better AF system (like a 7D or 1 MK IV) and a good fast telephoto like the 70-200 f/2.8. Anything else is probably not going to give you much better results than what you already have.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>I still don't understand. <br>

With that camera and your lens you can find plenty of great children pics if you don't believe your equipment can handle it. Simply do a search on www.flickr.com or look at the T2i (550D) section at http://photography-on-the.net/forum or look at the lens sample archive area in that forum<br>

Maybe video could make a difference in lens choices but for photos you don't need a higher "FPS" rate camera or more expensive lens for great active toddler pics. Other people can do it, - so can you!</p>

<p> </p>

[brian_wallace5]

<p>Daniel - you're suggestion of the 28-135 IS USM is a good one but 28mm is too narrow a field of view. I originally had the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and ended up selling it to get the 17-50 f/2.8 because I was having to step back so often and when I took video it was even worse. <br>

As for changing bodies? I'd love to.... but the ole budget doesn't think it's a good idea. </p>

[paddler4]

<p>deleted post</p>

[david.wagle]

<blockquote>

<p>As for changing bodies? I'd love to.... but the ole budget doesn't think it's a good idea.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My $.02 for what it is worth. Both your 28-105 and the 17-55 are excellent walking around lenses. If you're on a budget, then USE ONE OF THOSE. If you find you can't choose between them, get a belt pouch and carry both. But because you are on a budget, don't spend money you can't really afford on glass that is worse than what you already own!</p>

<p>I understand that you're saying that you don't have a lens that does everything you want. Well, d'oh! The reason we have multiple lenses is for that reason. A walking around lens is not a lens that makes every other piece of glass we own obsolete. Rather, it is a middle-of-the-road "good enough" lens in terms of focal lengths that lets us take pictures in a wide variety of conditions. You have two lenses that fit that description.</p>

<p>But if you insist on putting great glass in your drawer and walking around with a poor immitation, then I think the Canon is a better bet. But I would strongly suggest you consider what you're giving up by doing that. If you use either of your existing lenses then you have a walking around lens that is also a great piece of glass for any shot that is within that focal range.</p>

<p>Personally, I can't see giving up so much light and creative options in terms of DOF just to get a bit more reach.</p>

[brian_wallace5]

<p>This is helpful - you're making me think things through a bit. Really this is a "convenience" lens I know that either of my two options aren't as good as other ones I have. <br>

Would the EF-S 18-85, albeit shorter on the far end, be a better option? It tends to get better reviews. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>When I'm photographing my kids outdoors (with my full frame bodies), I almost exclusively use my EF 70-200/4 L IS. I used to use my 24-105/4 L IS for that purpose, but often found myself running out of reach.</p>

<p>So if I were you and were happy with their IQ generally, I'd just use your Tamron f/2.8's and Sigma 70-200/2.8. As the others have said, they are more than adequate for your application, and are better than the lenses you're comtemplating buying. And the extra speed never hurts, either, even for outdoor shooting. Believe me, I've been tempted by the EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Instead of sacraficing quality with a superzoom, you may consider purchasing a 2nd body. You could put the 17-50mm on one and the 70-200mm on the other. Shoot with one and hang the other around your neck with the strap. This way you get from 17-200mm (with a small gap) and don't have to sacrafice quality. The AF speed will also be faster with these lenses, which is a big deal in photographing moving kids.</p>

[brian_wallace5]

<p>I have to say that all this discussion has been less than helpful really - I mean I had actually limited my budget and now you've got me thinking "wow, I should get a second body...." (sarcasm duly noted)<br>

In all seriousness - I do appreciate all the input so far - thank you. I am very interested to see what I end up deciding to do come April.</p>

[rob_mulligan1]

<p>This may also not be the answer for you, but it is for me.<br>

I use a Sigma 24-70 F2.8 as my walkaround. Why?<br>

A fast lens is always a plus. Shallow depth of field for isolating people against often uncontrollable backgrounds is important to me.<br>

Yeah, it's big, and fairly expensive too, but on my cropped sensor Nikon it goes from medium wide to portrait. That's mostly all I need.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>One thing to remember about video and "bad glass": when shooting video your camera becomes a "zero megapixel" machine. High definition video uses very little resolving power.</p>

<p>Another one: get a stabilized lens if you handhold.</p>

<p>That said, I heartily agree with David Wagle's 2 cents.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Get the Canon 18-135mm. I just got one and no lens has felt more natural to me in years. It has your 18mm requirement for wide and the 135 end zooms in for head or distant shots. It has a great zoom range and it just does what you want. Plus, it has IS. It is a good user's lens although maybe not a great pixel-peeper's lens.</p>

[adamczyk]

<p>Get another body, Tamron 17-50 on one, Sigma 70-200 on the other and you are set. Why go for lesser quality lens if you are already using good ones. The price will be a bit higher but if you get second hand camera you can save some money. That is my 2C.</p>

[adamczyk]

<p>I guess Nathan G already said the same thing. Reading the entire post helps. </p>

 

[philip_wilson]

Brian. The problem you appear to have is that you cannot find a lens with a very wide focal length range that also

gives fast AF on the T2i body. While you may not think people are being helpful In Suggesting a second body they are

trying to help. The simple fact is that wide range zooms have lower image quality and AF than the lenses you have.

What you are being told is that the lens you want does not exist

[petrana_batik]

<p>Get a used S90/S95 and enjoy a walk around camera you can take anywhere, with a fast lens and IS, for the same price.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Brian, you have good lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 17-50 doesn't go far enough (as much as I love it) and the 28-105 isn't wide enough.<br /> As for changing bodies? I'd love to.... but the ole budget doesn't think it's a good idea.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So going to a 5DMKII isn't in the budget...</p>

<p>Sounds like you are looking for a real wide angle telephoto. You really aren't asking for much, are you? :)</p>

<p>Maybe a 11mm-400mm f/2.8 L ....lol and with eBay too, please. If Canon is reading this, I want one too! Please get right on building this for us, oh and if we are think tanking this wonder lens that could replace most photographers arsenal of lenses....let's price it under $600. If I could only find that magic lamp.</p>

<p>Just kidding around Brian. I realize you are asking a legit question. The 18-200mm may be good doing just HD Video for play back on the HD TV. It will give you more range which is what I think you want without swapping lenses. It will do OK doing photos too. But you do have better lenses for that already. Go down to the local camera shop and ask if you can put one on your Camera body to make a few test shots in the store. Then take the camera home and see if the video quality is acceptable.</p>

<p>The other alternative is to swap lenses, take a little more time setting up your video shoots.</p>

<p>All the best, and good luck.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>The do-it-all kit you seem to want (and it is a very common urge!) comes I think from a desire to capture everything you possibly can in pictures, and/or a fear of missing that 'one shot in a lifetime' that you will regret for, oh, two days at the outside? With your kit I would take either the 28-105 or the 70-300 and leave the rest at home. I found that after a few times making that decision, I felt no problem if my choice was too long or too short - I knew that in general I would get a chance at an equally good shot sometime later. And working with a limited lens choice can be liberating in a way.</p>

<p>So on to your prefered solution. A second body is nice but it all depends on how keen you are to go for a stroll down the park with 2 bodies loaded with 2 lenses? That would not be for me, especially if having to carry things for the kids (toys, food, drinks) as well - though you may well be using a backpack anyway.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Get a used S90/S95 and enjoy a walk around camera you can take anywhere, with a fast lens and IS, for the same price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was going to suggest exactly the same thing. Do you need fast AF/focus tracking when they are close up? Probably not with the DOF the S90 gives you, and if they are posing for you, you have time to stand back with the DSLR. My regular kit when I am out with the dogs has become my 30D/70-200f4L IS for the dogs running around plus my S90 ready in my pocket for scenics; and the FOV of the two cameras overlap nicely. </p>

<p>An alternative way of looking at it is this. People were happy as a kid in a sweetshop with 8MP (even 6 MP) EOS camera only 5 years ago. You have a 18MP camera, so you have more resolution to play with wich means crop options - the 17-50 on the T2i would allow you to crop to the equivalent of 80+mm lens on a 30D and probably more without losing image quality on screen or printed to about 10x8. Given that I have cropped my 30D image to about one half size (linear = 1/4 area) and it is still pretty good at full-screen on a 17" monitor I am sure you can afford to do the same with your T2i.<br>

Of coure, you can choose to spend a few hundred dollars on a new lens but for the sake of a few minutes computer work I would prefer to spend that money on other accessories. Take your choice.</p>

 

[brian_wallace5]

<p>Just a quick update for anyone coming to this thread late...</p>

<ul>

<li>I can't use my 28-105 - 28mm, especially when used for video, is too close up for my taste or use. So that option is off the table (I actually tried is last night and was reminded that it's too close up for my use)</li>

<li>A S90/95 is not an option either - far too limited in the video department</li>

</ul>

[juan_caballero]

<p>I have a new Voigtlander ultron 40mm F2 for my Canon 5D mark II and fit perfect for walk around lens.</p><div></div>

[david.wagle]

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>I can't use my 28-105 - 28mm, especially when used for video, is too close up for my taste or use. So that option is off the table (I actually tried is last night and was reminded that it's too close up for my use)</li>

<li>A S90/95 is not an option either - far too limited in the video department</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>So why not put the 17-50 on the camera. Get a belt pouch for the 70-200, and you're solid for everything but 50-70?</p>

[brian_wallace5]

<p>I'm thinking Mike had the best suggestion - to just rely on cropping shots I take with the 17-50 f2.8. As for the 70-200 - it's far too big and heavy to be used for the type of applications I'm thinking of. </p>