[Jawbone54]

I am in the market to buy a new lens for my Canon XTi. I'm currently using an 85mm f1.8 that I'm in love with and the 18-55mm f3.5-5 kit lens.

Here are my choices...

17-40mm f/4L

Basically, this lens would be a replacement for my 18-55mm kit lens. The question is should I buy this one and sell the kit lens, or should I add a zoom lens to my bag and keep the kit lens?

Here's the zoom...
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L

I have been caught in several instances where I really needed a good zoom lens, but didn't have one. Think I should get it? Or would a better wide-angle lens be a priority?

I've started a little portrait photography business on the side. It's nothing fancy, but I needed a little spare cash, primarily to support my new photography habits. The wide-angle lens could be used from time to time in sessions, but the zoom lens would probably be used when shooting wildlife and such (which I'm obviously not going to be making money with).

Advice?

[design219]

Go for the 70-200.

Is the lens kit a poor lens? You're not gaining anything by replacing it, and selling a used lens is not a winning proposition.

[Railroader]

70-200mm lens.

The kit lens is fine for wide angle shots despite what camera snobs will tell you. Actually, I wouldn't take a shot of people at a focal length less than 50 mm. You should get the cheap Canon 50mm f/1.8 II to go along with the 70-200mm lens you linked to. Those lenses, along with your kit lens cover about 90% of my photography needs.

[Demonhood]

get the telephoto. you've got some of the lower range already covered (even if it is the kit lens) so buying the telephoto should give you a good idea of what range you tend to shoot primarily in.
while i do agree with RR that the 50 1.8 is a nice cheap addition, i'm not sure if you need it since you love the 85 so much. but hey, it is dirt cheap.

the three lenses i use the most cover the ranges: 10-22, 24-70 and 70-200. but i shoot a wide variety of stuff. your style may vary.

[Railroader]

Look into some Sigma lenses as well. I have been impressed with their products. I bought this one Amazon.com: Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo but returned it because I pretty much was only using it at the 200mm spectrum and I already have an excellent Canon 200mm. Very good lens and much faster than the Canon lens you have picked out.

[Jawbone54]

Thanks for the responses. I've been leaning towards the 70-200mm anyways, but this kind of confirms it.

I don't have an immediate need for the 50mm. What I've found with the 85mm is that I can kind of "trick" the subjects into thinking I"m getting a full body shot while actually getting the close-ups that feel awkward for them with a 50mm. Once they see the close-ups, they're usually fine, but it's hard to get them to act natural when I'm right there in their face.

Railroader, I have no problems with getting a Sigma lens. The only impediment to getting the one you showed me is the price jump. I know the faster lens is going to be a bit more versatile in low-light conditions especially, but I'm not sure if I can afford an $820 lens over a $575. It would be used outdoors 95% of the time, anyways. Which 200mm Canon lens do you shoot with?

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I really do appreciate it.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by design219 

Go for the 70-200.

Is the lens kit a poor lens? You're not gaining anything by replacing it, and selling a used lens is not a winning proposition.

It's not exactly "poor," but the quality and speed of my 85mm 1.8 has spoiled me. I guess I just need to wait on replacing it until I can get something substantially better.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

get the telephoto. you've got some of the lower range already covered (even if it is the kit lens) so buying the telephoto should give you a good idea of what range you tend to shoot primarily in.
while i do agree with RR that the 50 1.8 is a nice cheap addition, i'm not sure if you need it since you love the 85 so much. but hey, it is dirt cheap.

the three lenses i use the most cover the ranges: 10-22, 24-70 and 70-200. but i shoot a wide variety of stuff. your style may vary.

Your 10-22 isn't this one, is it? If so, how do you like it? I've looked at it before, but I've been told the S lenses aren't compatible with the 5D, which I plan on upgrading to when I can afford it (about 1-2 more years).

[EDIT] This is just reminding me that I still have another 2 weeks or so before I get my camera back from repairs. I'm dying over here.

[Demonhood]

it is that one. it's the only EF-S lens that i own. i figure i'll always have a camera body that will be able to mount it (getting a 40D next month), so it's not a bad investment (and there's no EF equivalent).
oh, and i like it a lot. i use it a hell of a lot more than i anticipated. it's not as sharp or fast as my L lenses, but i never expected it to be. i'll post samples if you want me to.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

it is that one. it's the only EF-S lens that i own. i figure i'll always have a camera body that will be able to mount it (getting a 40D next month), so it's not a bad investment (and there's no EF equivalent).
oh, and i like it a lot. i use it a hell of a lot more than i anticipated. it's not as sharp or fast as my L lenses, but i never expected it to be. i'll post samples if you want me to.

I also own this lens and my experience is exactly the same. I thought I wouldn't use it nearly as much as I do.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Thanks for the responses. I've been leaning towards the 70-200mm anyways, but this kind of confirms it.

You won't be disappointed.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I don't have an immediate need for the 50mm. What I've found with the 85mm is that I can kind of "trick" the subjects into thinking I"m getting a full body shot while actually getting the close-ups that feel awkward for them with a 50mm. Once they see the close-ups, they're usually fine, but it's hard to get them to act natural when I'm right there in their face.

I see. I thought you meant for studio portrait type shots. Most people I know would NOT want a full body shot (no matter how anorexic they are), and the 50 mm is perfect for studio portraits. when I am outdoors and have the room, I use the 200mm.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Railroader, I have no problems with getting a Sigma lens. The only impediment to getting the one you showed me is the price jump. I know the faster lens is going to be a bit more versatile in low-light conditions especially, but I'm not sure if I can afford an $820 lens over a $575. It would be used outdoors 95% of the time, anyways.

It's well worth the price jump. Even though you'll be outdoors, won't be taking many shots in full sunlight. And many shots will be in the shade which will require a larger aperture. Nothing beats the bokeh that a f/2.8 gives with it's shallow depth of field. I have very little use for a lens that won't go to f/2.8. Plus, with either a 1.4x or 2.0x converter it has some amazing reach.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Which 200mm Canon lens do you shoot with?

Amazon.com: Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo
I love it. It is the default lens I have on my camera. Either that or the EF-S 10-22 mentioned a post or two up.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I really do appreciate it.

Anytime!

[Railroader]

Hey, why's your camera in the shop? You're scaring me!

[Oisín]

Most people I know would NOT want a full body shot (no matter how anorexic they are)

I have the exact opposite problem: nobody I take pictures of will let me take pictures of just their faces, they always want full-body shots.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I have the exact opposite problem: nobody I take pictures of will let me take pictures of just their faces, they always want full-body shots.

Interesting. I wonder why they don't want face-only shots? Are they strangers or close friends? Do you have a short focal length lens? Do you let them see the pictures, or do they buy them off of you?

Jawbone, do you mind if we derail this thread? It sounds like you have made your decision.

[Oisín]

Oh, they’re not professional pictures, just regular ‘holiday pics’ of friends and acquaintances. It’s especially bad with the Chinese among them: they all want full-body shots with at least 1–2 metres of empty space on all sides of the body, standing very unnaturally still with a very unnatural smile plastered on their face, and with some sight in the background. Bonkers, the lot of ’em

I usually use the kit lense (the 18–55 mm), since the only other lens I have is a zoom lense (55–200 mm), and unlike most of the rest of the people in this thread, I don’t use it very much. I shoot nearly all my pictures below 25 mm. At some point, I’m going to get the 50 mm lens, which I think I will use quite a bit; but other than that, I’m somewhat regretting buying that zoom lens...

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Interesting. I wonder why they don't want face-only shots? Are they strangers or close friends? Do you have a short focal length lens? Do you let them see the pictures, or do they buy them off of you?

Jawbone, do you mind if we derail this thread? It sounds like you have made your decision.

Derail away, good sir! I like when the photographers in this forum start talking (about anything)!

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Hey, why's your camera in the shop? You're scaring me!

It was a mistake I made in Mexico. Well...sort of. I noticed the sensor cleaner wasn't taking care of a big black "something," so I reached in with a cloth and tried to wipe it away (VERY gently). Long story short, something popped loose, and I couldn't repair it myself. I had to send it off to Canon, and I won't get it back for at least another two weeks. I'm going CRAZY without my camera.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Interesting. I wonder why they don't want face-only shots? Are they strangers or close friends? Do you have a short focal length lens? Do you let them see the pictures, or do they buy them off of you?

In my case, people always yank their torso back and grimace, saying, "Whoa! Too close!" Then they laugh nervously, and get really jittery if I get within 8 feet of them.

It's not everyone. In fact, it might only be about 25% of the people I've been working with. There was one group of guys that were literally fine with me being as close as my camera would allow me to get.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

In my case, people always yank their torso back and grimace, saying, "Whoa! Too close!" Then they laugh nervously, and get really jittery if I get within 8 feet of them.

It's not everyone. In fact, it might only be about 25% of the people I've been working with. There was one group of guys that were literally fine with me being as close as my camera would allow me to get.

Eventually, if you carry the camera around a lot more and it becomes a part of [insertyournamehere], people will get used to it. People often ask me what is up if I don't have my camera with me. then they get that look in their eye like, "damn, I didn't know [insertmynamehere] wasn't going to bring his camera, he alays brings his camera, did anyone bring their camera?!?! Who's going to take pictures of [insertmynamehere] isn't going to?!?!""

[kjb]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

it is that one. it's the only EF-S lens that i own. i figure i'll always have a camera body that will be able to mount it (getting a 40D next month), so it's not a bad investment (and there's no EF equivalent).
oh, and i like it a lot. i use it a hell of a lot more than i anticipated. it's not as sharp or fast as my L lenses, but i never expected it to be. i'll post samples if you want me to.

Isn't the 16-35 L EF? That lens on a full frame body almost exactly matches the FOV that the EF-S 10-22 produces on the 1.6 crop bodies. Seems you could get a 30D and the 10-22 for the price of the 16-35 alone, but still - if you're full frame and want similar FOV to the 10-22 EF-S, 16-35 is where I'd start.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by kjb 

Isn't the 16-35 L EF? That lens on a full frame body almost exactly matches the FOV that the EF-S 10-22 produces on the 1.6 crop bodies. Seems you could get a 30D and the 10-22 for the price of the 16-35 alone, but still - if you're full frame and want similar FOV to the 10-22 EF-S, 16-35 is where I'd start.

[FAULTY INFO!!!] No, the EF-S lenses compensate for the 1.6 crop. It is an actual 10-22mm lens. No crop factor is involved.[/FAULTY INFO!!!]

UPDATE: I called a Canon rep in Virginia and he stated that crop factor is involved. the 10-22mm is an equivalent to a 16-35mm on 35mm film.

[Eug]

Knock over a bank and get the IS version of the 70-200 f/4L. It's totally awesome.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Knock over a bank and get the IS version of the 70-200 f/4L. It's totally awesome.

I knew you'd say that. And it is AWESOME advice. Except for the bank part. Make it a casino, and you'll have enough for the UV filter as well.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Eventually, if you carry the camera around a lot more and it becomes a part of [insertyournamehere], people will get used to it. People often ask me what is up if I don't have my camera with me. then they get that look in their eye like, "damn, I didn't know [insertmynamehere] wasn't going to bring his camera, he alays brings his camera, did anyone bring their camera?!?! Who's going to take pictures of [insertmynamehere] isn't going to?!?!""

Oh, it's definitely gotten to that point. Everyone has asked me where it's at constantly since I shipped it off. I only got it in May, but everyone got used to my camera back strapped over one shoulder, with the backpack underneath.

It's kind of fun being the camera guy, but definitely annoying when they start asking for personal favors (the kind that consume hours of your time without compensation).

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Knock over a bank and get the IS version of the 70-200 f/4L. It's totally awesome.

i got the IS version of the 2.8L. sure, i didn't eat for awhile, but it was totally worth it.
it's my primary lens at concerts and festivals.

and i, also, used to be the "hey, i assumed you'd bring your camera" guy. but an SLR is big and heavy and cumbersome to lug around at parties. think i'll get a super compact cam to carry at all times so that, should the need arise, i can still snap a few.

[Eug]

I like the 70-200 f2.8L IS, but it's too heavy for my tastes, and it's even more $$$$. That's why I like the f/4L IS so much. I'd love to have both though.

But seriously, while the non-IS 70-200 f/4 is a great quality lens, I sometimes found it kind of restrictive hand held at 200 mm unless it was bright daylight, even at relatively high ISO. The IS effectively gives me an extra couple of stops of handholdability which is definitely needed at long focal lengths, without having to resort to the much bulkier and much more pricy f/2.8. OTOH, if you're going to be stationary for your wildlife shots, perhaps you can compensate by getting a nice tripod or monopod.

As for my carry around everywhere camera, it's my cell phone. Yeah it sucks as a camera, but I can't be bothered to carry around even a small 3 MP camera all the time. (My phone is a Sony Cybershot. It's good as far as phones go, but good for a phone is still bad for a camera.)

However, I do take my GF's small point-and-shoot to parties, etc.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

and i, also, used to be the "hey, i assumed you'd bring your camera" guy. but an SLR is big and heavy and cumbersome to lug around at parties. think i'll get a super compact cam to carry at all times so that, should the need arise, i can still snap a few.

This is where I am at. I have been perusing eBay for an older Canon Elph that uses CF, but man do they hold their value.

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I like the 70-200 f2.8L IS, but it's too heavy for my tastes, and it's even more $$$$. That's why I like the f/4L IS so much. I'd love to have both though.

the lens is really heavy, but you get used to it. it's all part of my plan to get buff photographer arms.

and RR, all the elphs that use CF are rather large. if you're looking for a compact camera to always be with you, something a bit thinner might be nice. the new SD1000 is rather petite. as are a couple of new Fuji cams (they've recently switched to taking both xD and SD). i figure anything less than 21mm thick should be pretty comfortable to stick in a pocket.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

the lens is really heavy, but you get used to it. it's all part of my plan to get buff photographer arms.

and RR, all the elphs that use CF are rather large. if you're looking for a compact camera to always be with you, something a bit thinner might be nice. the new SD1000 is rather petite. as are a couple of new Fuji cams (they've recently switched to taking both xD and SD). i figure anything less than 21mm thick should be pretty comfortable to stick in a pocket.

I used to have a SD110, anything smaller than that would be perfect. Do you know when/what model they dropped CF? I also have a camera that uses SD, so that would be fine as well. I am looking for something less than $300

[Demonhood]

ha. i still have the SD110. they switched to SD with the SD100, which was around early 2004 i think. so any elph model without an SD designation would probably still take CF.
the canon SD1000 is under $300. as is the fuji Z100 i was looking at. at least, until i found out it was Europe only. if the sony's didn't take stupid memory sticks, i'd look at them too.

[Railroader]

Well, on a whim I checked eBay again. I snagged an auction that was ending for a Elph S230 in "excellent condition and looks new. There are no significant scratches or nicks.". And it uses CF!!!

For only $68. It comes with a spare battery, charger, 16 MB CF, manual, wrist strap, and the cables.

[Nivag]

I've just bought these two lenses, the Canon 24-105 f4L IS and 70-200 f4L IS for my EOS 350D - looking to get the EOS 40D at some point when i get over to the States.

Anyway, the 70-200 f4L IS is a great lens, kinda wished i stretched to buying the f2.8L IS version but the added cost and weight/bulk was too much for me as I need to be able to ride bikes/snowboards and carry it around all day when i want to use it.

My next purchase lens wise is going to be a wide angle one, i've looked at that the 17-40mm f/4L and EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 lens but also the Sigma versions of them. From what i've read opinions are split 50/50 between Canon and Sigma.

[OreoCookie]

I'd advise the tele zoom, too. However, IMHO 70 mm (corresponds to 105-110 mm on an APS-C sensor) is not a good focal length to start with, Tokina and Sigma offer 2.8/50-135/150 zooms. 50 mm is a lot more useful as initial focal length and corresponds to about 75-80 mm on a crop sensor.

[jebjeb]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

No, the EF-S lenses compensate for the 1.6 crop. It is an actual 10-22mm lens. No crop factor is involved.

EF-S only means it has a smaller image circle than a full EF lens meaning it won't work on a larger sensor body as the image circle would not project to the edges.. The focal length still has to be multiplied by the crop factor meaning it is a 16-35mm 35mm equivalent lens.

Originally Posted by Canon Website

With its effective focal length range of approximately 16-35mm in 35mm format, the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM...

Great lens still!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by jebjeb 

EF-S only means it has a smaller image circle than a full EF lens meaning it won't work on a larger sensor body as the image circle would not project to the edges.. The focal length still has to be multiplied by the crop factor meaning it is a 16-35mm 35mm equivalent lens.

Great lens still!

You're right. I just called a Canon rep in Virginia and he verified what you said. Crop factor is involved. the 10-22mm is an equivalent to a 16-35mm on 35mm film.

[jebjeb]

Wouldn't it be nice though if one could get a lens with an effective field of view of 10mm on a 35mm body for a crop frame sensor!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by jebjeb 

Wouldn't it be nice though if one could get a lens with an effective field of view of 10mm on a 35mm body for a crop frame sensor!

You (almost) can: Sigma sells an 8 mm fisheye for crop sensors.

[jebjeb]

I suppose I should have specifically said "that isn't a fisheye". I know that there is some pretty decent de-fishing software out now but it is still not the same.

[OreoCookie]

Well, I've heard Tokina's 12-24 lens still performs relatively decently on full-frame sensors (although it has been designed for crop sensors), other than that, Nikon's new 2.8/14-24 is the only non-fisheye lens with such an extreme focal length range that has been designed for FF sensors.

[Eug]

I hear the Tokina is quite problematic on full frame. Canon has a 14 mm non-fisheye for full frame. No such zoom though.



I have the Canon 10-22, but it's of course just for 1.6X crop lenses.

P.S. The 10-22 works well as a match to my 24-105 f/4L IS. The 24-105 is a little too long for a 1.6X crop camera, but nonetheless it's still my primary lens. I find I use the longer range more often than the shorter range, so it stays on my camera 90% of the time. Of the other 10%, 5% is the 70-200 f/4L IS, and 5% is the 10-22.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I hear the Tokina is quite problematic on full frame.

Sure, it's designed for APS-C-sized sensors, so technically, it's not supposed to work on FF cameras. I just heard that some people use that lens and fix vignetting via Photoshop.