Full focal range in 3 or 4 lenses, Canon recommendations
Discussion
After a few years of not having a camera i have finally been able to purchase a 450D with 18-55is kit lens.
I already have a 70-200L usm lens so bearing that in mind and forgetting the kit lens, which other 2 lenses below the 70-200 would you purchase for the full focal range?
Don't want to go above the 200 as i can get an extender( ?) and also it wouldn't get used that much.
I would like wide angel but not fisheye.
Maybe :17-40mm f/4.0 L USM which will be used on a tripod probably but i can't think of an intermediate.
Is it a false economy to sacrifice speed for price? My thinking that the L series copes with telephoto well.
I was always too shy for the 'snap reporter' style photography and tend to find a quiet place where noone will rob me lol.
looking at going way past where i got to a few years ago in terms of practice, commitment and hopefully talent in the long run so i have set a £1000 limit on leses over the next year or so.
The 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM would fit in nicely i think ( ? ) and that would come to a grand for those 2.
I suppose a good question would be , which lens do you use the most? Or which one never comes off? lol
Maybe a different approach of 2 prime lenses my 70-200 and another high quality zoom but that might go over the grand. Am i right in thinking that a midrange prime will be just as good as the same focal length from an L series telephoto?
What about the 50mm? Seems a vast price difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8 seeing as the 1.8 is £60 odd.
I seem to remember a similar topic on the luminous landscape but can't find it.
I know how easy it is to get carried away with buying lenses and kit so i have to set a limit. Anyway, it's nice to have a goal on the horizon to look to.
Thanks for any input.
I already have a 70-200L usm lens so bearing that in mind and forgetting the kit lens, which other 2 lenses below the 70-200 would you purchase for the full focal range?
Don't want to go above the 200 as i can get an extender( ?) and also it wouldn't get used that much.
I would like wide angel but not fisheye.
Maybe :17-40mm f/4.0 L USM which will be used on a tripod probably but i can't think of an intermediate.
Is it a false economy to sacrifice speed for price? My thinking that the L series copes with telephoto well.
I was always too shy for the 'snap reporter' style photography and tend to find a quiet place where noone will rob me lol.
looking at going way past where i got to a few years ago in terms of practice, commitment and hopefully talent in the long run so i have set a £1000 limit on leses over the next year or so.
The 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM would fit in nicely i think ( ? ) and that would come to a grand for those 2.
I suppose a good question would be , which lens do you use the most? Or which one never comes off? lol
Maybe a different approach of 2 prime lenses my 70-200 and another high quality zoom but that might go over the grand. Am i right in thinking that a midrange prime will be just as good as the same focal length from an L series telephoto?
What about the 50mm? Seems a vast price difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8 seeing as the 1.8 is £60 odd.
I seem to remember a similar topic on the luminous landscape but can't find it.
I know how easy it is to get carried away with buying lenses and kit so i have to set a limit. Anyway, it's nice to have a goal on the horizon to look to.
Thanks for any input.
Edited by bilko2 on Friday 12th September 14:53
But I never have my 17-40 off the camera, use it as a walkabout lens, it's cracking, and image quality is superb! I might have misread your note but I can't see why you'd want a 17-40 and a 24-105. The overlap is quite big, both are f4 and both L series. If you want a walkabout then everyone seems to praise the 24-105 (but you may want to consider the 24-70L). The 17-40 is obviously also a great allrounder on the crop sensor but I wouldn't want both. I assume you're not keeping the 18-55?
So, assuming you went for the 24-70 or the 24-105, I would suggest a wide-angle ie the 10-22. I've got it and, because I like landscape and architecture it gets used a lot.
Other option is a good prime but that all comes down to what sort of photography you do. If portrait or a lot of indoor stuff, you probably can't beat a 28mm, 35mm or 50mm prime (1.4 up to f2)
So, assuming you went for the 24-70 or the 24-105, I would suggest a wide-angle ie the 10-22. I've got it and, because I like landscape and architecture it gets used a lot.
Other option is a good prime but that all comes down to what sort of photography you do. If portrait or a lot of indoor stuff, you probably can't beat a 28mm, 35mm or 50mm prime (1.4 up to f2)
4hero, that's good to know. You see in my ignorance i was counting on this lens as a good wide angle with a little extra. I forgot about the 1.6x thingy which makes it 27-64. So yeah i guess this 50mm encompassing lens would make a great walkabout with a little more or less than 50mm as you desire. Good to hear that the 1.8 50mm is good too. I think i'll look up some examples on pbase.
Ducatigary, I already have one but was going to try and sell it myself. I don't rate it much myself but put it in the hands of someone talented and doubtless it would tell a different story.
Cirks, thanks, you seem to know your lenses alright. good to hear a wide angle recommendation in the 10-22 and if the price is right it seems i'll have a beginning and end to the lineup.
Famous last words;)
So let me get this right ( sorry you lot must be sick of hearing stuff like this ), the 50 mm comes out as an 80mm with the crop factor which would mean the 35mm would make the 50 or 56. can't remember why people always used to favor the 50.
Ducatigary, I already have one but was going to try and sell it myself. I don't rate it much myself but put it in the hands of someone talented and doubtless it would tell a different story.
Cirks, thanks, you seem to know your lenses alright. good to hear a wide angle recommendation in the 10-22 and if the price is right it seems i'll have a beginning and end to the lineup.
Famous last words;)
So let me get this right ( sorry you lot must be sick of hearing stuff like this ), the 50 mm comes out as an 80mm with the crop factor which would mean the 35mm would make the 50 or 56. can't remember why people always used to favor the 50.
bilko2 said:
4hero, that's good to know. You see in my ignorance i was counting on this lens as a good wide angle with a little extra. I forgot about the 1.6x thingy which makes it 27-64. So yeah i guess this 50mm encompassing lens would make a great walkabout with a little more or less than 50mm as you desire. Good to hear that the 1.8 50mm is good too. I think i'll look up some examples on pbase.
Ducatigary, I already have one but was going to try and sell it myself. I don't rate it much myself but put it in the hands of someone talented and doubtless it would tell a different story.
Cirks, thanks, you seem to know your lenses alright. good to hear a wide angle recommendation in the 10-22 and if the price is right it seems i'll have a beginning and end to the lineup.
Famous last words;)
So let me get this right ( sorry you lot must be sick of hearing stuff like this ), the 50 mm comes out as an 80mm with the crop factor which would mean the 35mm would make the 50 or 56. can't remember why people always used to favor the 50.
Everything is x1.6, yeah Ducatigary, I already have one but was going to try and sell it myself. I don't rate it much myself but put it in the hands of someone talented and doubtless it would tell a different story.
Cirks, thanks, you seem to know your lenses alright. good to hear a wide angle recommendation in the 10-22 and if the price is right it seems i'll have a beginning and end to the lineup.
Famous last words;)
So let me get this right ( sorry you lot must be sick of hearing stuff like this ), the 50 mm comes out as an 80mm with the crop factor which would mean the 35mm would make the 50 or 56. can't remember why people always used to favor the 50.
I find that 50mm is a little long on a 1.6crop camera for general walk-around, really nice for portraits / detail shots though. I'd look at something around 30mm for general stuff, can see why 4hero likes his 17-40mm
2 lenses under 70-200mm ? I'd go for a 24-70L (check the weight first - its a heavy workhorse
) + 10-22mm (or the Sigma 10-20).If you don't have a 50mm prime and don't imagine using it that often then imo 50mm f1.8 is a no-brainer
If you will be using it regularly then you may want to check the 50mm f1.4 - it has much better build quality and faster focusing. You may also want to check the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 (about £330).
Cheers.
P.S. You can buy a 1.4x converter for your 70-200L - it'll drop your max aperture by one stop, people don't seem to report a sizeable drop in image quality
Edited by flat-planedCrank on Friday 12th September 19:04
I'd like to add another recommendation for the 17-40. I've got this as my primary lens on my 40D and it's a cracking bit of glass although a flash is necessary for indoor work.
I've also got a nifty-fifty which is rather nice and my next lens on the shopping list is the 70-200 f/2.8 and then something to fill the gap between the 40-70 range.
I'm also in the market for a 28mm prime which I've seen a couple of times.
However, back to the 17-40mm....brilliant!
I've also got a nifty-fifty which is rather nice and my next lens on the shopping list is the 70-200 f/2.8 and then something to fill the gap between the 40-70 range.
I'm also in the market for a 28mm prime which I've seen a couple of times.
However, back to the 17-40mm....brilliant!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff