U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2009, 02:39 PM
 
Location: MO Ozarkian in NE Hoosierana
4,679 posts, read 7,583,503 times
Reputation: 6742
Default What lenses, go w/ Canon 50D?

Looking for recommendations and thoughts on the following. I've a Canon 50D, mostly shoot landscape, nature/wildlife, sunrises/sets, etc., but also quite a bit of macro, sports, astronomy, and portrait... lol, that narrows it down. Anyhow, the following are the two lenses that I currently have:
Canon Standard Zoom Lens - EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon Telephoto Zoom - EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

Am thinking of the following, over the next year or so, as funds allow - and am torn on a few choices in this wider zoom range:
Canon Standard Zoom Lens - EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
or
Canon Standard Zoom Lens - EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

As to the 55-250 4.0-5.6 telephoto that currently own, am undecided yet on which of these to replace it with, as desire a bit more zoom:
Canon Telephoto Zoom Lens - EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
or
Canon Telephoto Zoom Lens - EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

And lastly, for improved macros & portraits, the following is on my list:
Canon Macro Lens - EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Any thoughts, recommendations, etc. are appreciated... I've spent many hours on various sites reading consumer & professional reviews/opinions, & welcome more. BTW, to save a few hard-earned dollars, I've looked at Tamron, etc. versions of some of these, but am tad leery of 'em, mainly due to their non-USM motors, and such.

PS: yea, will need to get a second job, or find some fools wanting to purchase the output of this not so inexpensive hobby Hmmmm, anyone interested in some darkroom equipment and enlargers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2009, 03:18 PM
 
11,728 posts, read 23,525,954 times
Reputation: 7089
My friend has the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and it was his main walk around lens on his 20D before he upgraded to a 5DmkII. It's a nice lens and combination of fast aperture AND IS makes it tough to beat on a crop camera.

I have the 100-400 on my 5D. Its a great lens but its an outdoor daytime lens due to the relatively slow aperture. The reach is real nice though and you'd get even more reach than I do due because of the crop sensor. I'm looking to add a 70-200 some day to straddle the range currently provided by my 24-105 and 100-400.

For the macro, look at the non-L 100mm lens too. Its still a very nice lens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2009, 04:39 PM
 
1,091 posts, read 1,513,283 times
Reputation: 1351
I have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, nice lens, but it doesn't have IS. I don't need IS on that lens. If you want the IS, then go with the canon 17-55mm.

I have the 100-400mm with my 40d, great lens for outdoor/daylight action shots and gives you some decent reach. It's not that bad indoor either. I shot a concert last week and got sharp shots with as slow as 1/20 with this lens. Certainly not the ideal lens for low light, but with the IS it can get by in certain circumstances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Colorado (PA at heart)
5,198 posts, read 6,176,605 times
Reputation: 5998
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowCaver View Post
BTW, to save a few hard-earned dollars, I've looked at Tamron, etc. versions of some of these, but am tad leery of 'em, mainly due to their non-USM motors, and such.
Tamron doesn't support any fast/quiet AF motor but Sigma does - it's just called HSM, not USM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Loudoun Cty, Virginia
732 posts, read 1,558,784 times
Reputation: 576
I'd say get the 17-55/2.8 if you're planning on sticking with the 50D and not upgrading to a full frame anytime soon. The 17-55 gets rave reviews for it's sharpness though, and most people call it "L" quality build just in an EF-S format. That'd make an excellent walk-around on the crop camera.

For the telephoto lens, I think I'd toss in one more option since you said you shoot sports and portraits as well. (provided funds allow, should be close to the 100-400L)
  • 70-200/f2.8L plus a 2X Tele-converter
With that option, you would have the wider aperture for shooting sporting events, and possibly even indoor events at higher iso. Then just slap on the 2x converter and you could get that extra range needed for wildlife and add only 2 stops (I think) putting you ahead of the other telephotos.

And like you said, the 100 macro would serve double duty as an excellent portrait lens as well, just may put you pretty far from your subject if shooting indoors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 06:13 PM
 
1,091 posts, read 1,513,283 times
Reputation: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoHokiesGo View Post

For the telephoto lens, I think I'd toss in one more option since you said you shoot sports and portraits as well. (provided funds allow, should be close to the 100-400L)
  • 70-200/f2.8L plus a 2X Tele-converter
Actually that combo is almost $600 more than the 100-400mm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Where Trolls get BBQ'd
131,642 posts, read 42,066,096 times
Reputation: 114018
Don't over look the very fine 17-40L 4.0. I used just three lenses for over 500,000 photos. Yes I would have liked a longer lens several times but could not economically justify the expense of it for the return. I started with a Canon 10D body and bought a 17-40L 4.0, 24-70L 2.8, and a 70-200L 2.8 IS. Those three lenses covered every thing but macro which I never got into and birding or long range telephoto shots which was an I want but not an I need. With newer bodies at lower prices featuring full size sensors I still shy away from the -s series lenses for compact senors only. Not that they are not good lenses but that you can use them on full frame camera bodies. I upgraded bodies to a 1D Mark II and with the above three lenses was able to cover most anything I needed to even rodeo action during a pouring down rain. Moisture and dust seals on the lenses is an important feature to me. Even with senor cleaning on the newer cameras. I hate to bag up a camera just because of a little rainfall.

And add a remote cable release and good stable tripod. Learn to use the mirror lock feature on long lens shots.

Last edited by Nomadicus; 12-21-2009 at 08:21 PM.. Reason: Additional info.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2009, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Wyoming
6,616 posts, read 8,428,972 times
Reputation: 8543
I can't comment on the wider zooms, as they don't fit my 1Ds, but there's no comparison between the 100-300 and 100-400 you're considering. Hang onto your 55-250 for a lightweight longer zoom, and add the 100-400 or other tele lens when you can afford it.

The 100mm macro is a nice lens. If you want it for portraits and such, be sure to get one of the newer ones with the USM auto focus. The old ones don't have that and don't focus too fast. I agree it might be a bit long for portraits. That's a nice length on full-frame cameras, but on a 1.6x crop body you'll be pretty tight. If that's what you like, fine.

When I got my first SLR 40 years ago, I had all prime lenses for it. Zooms at that time left a lot to be desired. And then about 20 years ago when I got my first EOS, I got a couple zooms to go with it, then added a few more zooms and other slower lenses. Five or ten years ago I got a 50mm 1.4 and an 80mm 1.8. Now I hate using anything else. You might want to consider a fast prime at some point. They're nice to have, and mine are both great portrait lenses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 01:23 AM
 
Location: MO Ozarkian in NE Hoosierana
4,679 posts, read 7,583,503 times
Reputation: 6742
All - thanks, much, for your thoughts and inputs... am reviewing what you've suggested & commented upon. Leaning towards the 17-55 and the 100-400 at this time, along with still going with the 100 - but mainly to acquire a very good prime that can do macro + portraits, one that has IS... which other macros do not have. Maybe I'm being goofy, wanting to have macro + portrait + IS all in one lens , but as mentioned, trying to minimize cost, get most bang for the buck,,, but at same time do not want to compromise too far and degrade quality. The EF 85mm f/1.8 USM looks very tempting too,,, but no IS and macro, how is that with this lens?

Anyhow, again, thanks for the replies...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2009, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Loudoun Cty, Virginia
732 posts, read 1,558,784 times
Reputation: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowCaver View Post
The EF 85mm f/1.8 USM looks very tempting too,,, but no IS and macro, how is that with this lens?

Anyhow, again, thanks for the replies...
That's actually the next lens on my list to get. It'll be my first jump into primes, and gets praised for it's sharpness.

Check out this thread on POTN, it's a 190+ page thread that is nothing but shots from the EF 85 f/1.8:
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - Canon Digital Photography Forums
That should give you a good idea of what the lens is capable of from a broad range of shooters and bodies. The thread started several years ago as a review thread and some photos may no longer be hosted, so I usually skip to like page 100 or so to start looking at photos. If you go back one section, they have photo sample threads for nearly every lens including all the options you're looking at.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=141406

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brill View Post
Actually that combo is almost $600 more than the 100-400mm.
I was kinda guessing on the pricing, I always forget that the regular 2.8L is still quite expensive. As much as I'd love to have them, most L's are out of my practical budget
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top