elizabeth_l.

<p>Clayton, is your 70-200 f4 L the IS version or non-IS? I have a tripod, but plan to hand-hold 98% of the time.</p>

<p>Thanks, William. I'll look into that one, too. I think everything I have read points me to the 70-200 f4L as the highest quality lens of the telephotos I'm considering. What I'm concerned about is that the one I can afford right now doesn't have IS, and since I've never used a telephoto, I don't know if I can hand-hold it without camera shake. But I think I will mostly be using it in good light outdoors, so that should allow for a fast enough shutter speed to not have shake, right? Since I know that my kids move so quickly, the quicker the lens, the better! There might be times when I need to take photos indoors with a telephoto & no flash is allowed. In cases like that, would it be better to have one of the IS lenses like the 55-250 IS or the 70-300 IS USM? Obviously I need to find a camera store where I can hand-hold these & maybe try some test shots. Barring that, maybe I could rent them to try them out. Someone mentioned the 70-300 IS USM. How does it stack up to the other two? I definitely need to get my hands on some telephotos to test!</p>

<p>Mike and William (Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8 vs Canon 18-55)<br>

My interest in the Tamron was for a better quality photo & for the shallower DOF. I would mainly use it indoors with low light. My 50 1.8 is great for the DOF/background blur & quickness, but a little long for some shots indoors. The kit lens seemed fine until I saw what I could get sharpness-wise & background-wise from the 50 1.8. Now I'm thinking that at some point I'd like similar quality in a zoom lens that I can use when the 50 1.8 is too long. <br>

I look at my photos on the computer mostly, but I recently ordered a bunch of 8x10s of photos I took of the kids with my 50 1.8. I have gotten some good photos with my kit lens, but I'd like to get sharper ones with better color & background blur with a lens with the same range. </p>

<p>I agree about getting 1 at a time. It will take some time to get used to using them. Might as well concentrate on 1 at a time. Which I guess means I should choose between the 55-250 IS & the 70-200 f4L first, and then think about upgrading my kit lens. Does anyone have specific experience with the 70-200 f4L USM (non-IS)? Anyone with experience with both the 55-250 IS and the 70-200 f4L?</p>

<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>

 

<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>

<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>

<p>This one was 2.0 1/1000 portrait mode, ISO 100:</p>

<p>The above photo (very out of focus) was 2.0 1/800 ISO 100, portrait mode.</p>

<p>I am very new at this, but I want to learn. Sounds like I need to learn more about shooting at low apertures. <br>

Here are a few examples. To correct the problem, should I manually focus every time, or choose AF points for every shot? Since I can't seem to get him to stay in one place, I'm worried I'd miss shots doing either one. Any advice?</p>

<p>I just got in my new 50 1.8. I've been shooting lots of photos of my son to familiarize myself with the lens. <br>

Unfortunately, a large number of the photos I've taken with this new lens are out of focus. Since I am a newbie, I'm wondering if the problem is me or the lens. I haven't had these same issues with the kit 18-55 lens that came with my Rebel XTi. With the 50 1.8, the photos that are in focus look great. But, there are so many where the camera seems to pick the wrong focal point. For candid/environmental shots of my very busy 2 year old, should I have the camera set on AI Servo, on One-Shot, or AF? <br>

Any recommendations would help. I'm just not sure whether to change what I'm doing or exchange the lens.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks so much everyone! I think I will try the 50 1.8 first. It's inexpensive, and seems like a good FL to start with. Using it should help me determine if I need a zoom for the outside "action" shots. Then I can decide about the macro later. How do the macro filters work? Or extension tubes? Anyone have experience &/or sample shots with these?</p>

<p>I love the example photos submitted by Ian and Carl done with the 50 1.4. Does anyone have examples done with the 50 1.8 or the 60 2.8 macro to compare? I usually do outside candids or environmental portraits, kind of like Ian's examples (only not as fabulous!) If I had something that brought in more light, though, I might try more available light portraits inside. Also I'd like to use the lens for birthday parties, etc.</p>

<p>Of course, if the 50 1.8 is as good as the others, I could get it for $100 and save the rest toward another lens.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the advice! I think my budget is around $400, which is why I am considering either the 60 2.8 macro or one of the 50s or an 85 1.8. I'm thinking that with the crop factor a 100 2.8 macro might be a bit long? I will probably take Carl's advice and see how close I need to get using my kit lens at 50mm. I agree with you, Jeff, that the traditional head shot can be a bit boring. Since my kids are so busy, I guess I shoot more environmental portraits by default. Should I also consider a good zoom lens in this price range, then?</p>

<p>Ok, Now I'm completely confused. I might try the 60 2.8 macro for both, and if it doesn't collect enough light, get a 50 1.8. Or I could get a 50 1.8 & use a +4 filter for macros as Ed said. Or maybe I should look into the 85 1.8 . . . but I'm unsure about an 85 with a 1.6 crop factor. Mike, do you use yours on full-frame? I will be photographing my kids everywhere -- inside & out, moving sometimes & still if I can ever get them to sit still!</p>

<p>I have a Rebel XTI with a kit lens and am looking for a new lens (or two?)<br>

Mainly I am looking for a great portrait lens, although for somewhat candid portraits. (I have two small children who are always on the move, so I usually take pictures of them when they are playing rather than having them sit for formal portraits.) I also am an avid gardener, and would love a macro lens to photograph my flowers and their winged visitors.<br>

I have looked at the 50 1.8, 50 1.4, and 50 2.5 macro reviews. I have also read the reviews for the 60 2.8 macro. My question is this: should I get a 50 2.5 macro to cover both portraits and macro (and if so, will it be quick enough inside for portraits and good enough for macros of insects?) Or should I get a 50 1.8 for portraits and a 60 2.8 for macros (which will be around $100 - $150 more than just the 50 2.5)? Or is the 50 1.4 so much better than the other 50s that I should get it despite the fact that I would then have to wait awhile for a macro lens?</p>

<p> </p>