FAQ: A starter guide to buying lenses for your Canon digital SLR camera.

[sygyzy]

Besides the Canon 70-200 "starter" L lens, are there any (recommended) zoom lenses (at least 200, preferbly 300mm), that are around 500-600? Does not have to be Canon branded. Others are fine too. Thanks.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Besides the Canon 70-200 "starter" L lens, are there any (recommended) zoom lenses (at least 200, preferbly 300mm), that are around 500-600? Does not have to be Canon branded. Others are fine too. Thanks.

There is the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens, which generally gets good reviews, but to get into that price range you might have to go used. The photos you get out of it, though, can be absolutely superb.

I can't really think of much else in that price range for that focal length, but I'm not a big zoom sort of person. Maybe someone else can chip in.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Besides the Canon 70-200 "starter" L lens, are there any (recommended) zoom lenses (at least 200, preferbly 300mm), that are around 500-600? Does not have to be Canon branded. Others are fine too. Thanks.

tokina 840 looks pretty good in the limited reviews you can find. it's an 80-400 with typical tokina build quality (like a tank). downside is no stabilizer and slow AF in comparison to the sonic motor lenses like the canon 70-300 IS USM (which is a pretty good lens and right in your price range). of course it's also got 100 mm on the canon if you can keep the shutter speed high enough or use a tripod.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
What have you guys heard about the lens here?

http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3587

Along with the camera comes a new lens: the F3.5-5.6, 18 - 55 mm IS lens. This stabilized lens (which does NOT have a USM motor) will be in stores this October for $199.

And what about

, or get it bundled with the F3.5-5.6, 28 - 135 mm IS lens for $1499

i think it's the same optics as the kit lens, with canon's new cheap 2 stop IS module. the kit lens' optics are not so great. it'd be better just to spend the $100 or so extra on a tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (which is 2 stops faster at the long end where IS matters anyway). it'll be sharper across the image and allow more background blur for portraits.

The Tamron 17-50 will NOT be sharper than the 18-55 IS, which is actually sharper than the Canon 17-55 in the corners wide open and with the Canon at the same aperture, believe it or not. The optics are NOT the same as the old kit lens, but significantly better. In addition the focusing is more accurate than that on the 17-50.

I am not biased against the 17-50, although I had two soft copies-- I have to take claims of super sharpness with a grain of salt, though. The lens is pretty soft wide open. The 18-55 IS is very sharp, though slower, and has IS.

A very good option for a rank beginner, for even less money than the Tamron, is the 18-55 IS and 50mm f/1.8.

Is the 18-55 IS bolded here the kit lens on the XSi? I presume the 50mm f/1.8 recommended is the aforementioned "plastic fantastic" Canon prime sub $100 lens.

Are these "kit" lenses also offered separate from the bodies or are they special lenses just offered with the bodies? Please indulge a DSLR newbie.

 

[n4bby]

my two cents:

- buy Canon whenever you can. there's a reason why any self-respecting professional will use ONLY Canon glass. it's simply a better investment.

- go simple, go prime, and concentrate on improving your skills rather than constantly seeking equipment band-aids. no amount of gear will help you become a better photographer, and often it is easier to hone your skills with a straightforward prime lens, e.g. a 35mm or 50mm. besides, as the sensors get better and better, it becomes increasingly clear how optically superior the Canon primes are to most of the zooms.

cheers,
n4bby

 

[sygyzy]

Which wide would you guys recommend? Canon 10-20, Sigma 10-20, Tamron/Tokina (not sure if they both offer it), 12-24?

 

[n4bby]

stick with Canon. they tend to work better in the long term if you upgrade your body etc. (3rd party lenses often have issues with newer hardware down the road), and if decide you don't want the lens, the resale is much better.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Which wide would you guys recommend? Canon 10-20, Sigma 10-20, Tamron/Tokina (not sure if they both offer it), 12-24?

I love my Sigma 10-20, but had I not bought it a year-plus ago I'd be extremely tempted to go with the new Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 because of that constant low aperture offered on it. It's just plain difficult to make use of in low-light situations in which you can't prop it up on a tripod. So I guess that's my recommendation.

 

[sygyzy]

Great advice yllus. I mostly take food pictures and the WA, fast aperature, and low light capabilities make it a good choice I think. I hope I don't miss out on the 17-27 range between it and my 28-135 kit.

 

[easypz]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Besides the Canon 70-200 "starter" L lens, are there any (recommended) zoom lenses (at least 200, preferbly 300mm), that are around 500-600? Does not have to be Canon branded. Others are fine too. Thanks.

In that price range and zoom range the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is a perfect fit. It's got very good quality optics and it's highly regarded by the hi-level amatuer photog. Canon's 70-300 page. There are a lot of people who like this lens a lot. You can read plenty of user reviews here: Fred Miranda

Of course, you get what you pay for as far as maximum aperture goes and f/4-5.6, even with IS won't be that useful in a low light situation. Still it's a great lense and right in the range you mentioned.

 

[GoingUp]

I wish canon would revise their 17-40 and 28-70mm Ls with some IS.

Why do so many of the L and prime lenses have no IS at all?

 

[SaoFeng]

the ef-s 17-55 f2.8 IS is an AWESOME lens...my bread and butter lens on my 40d

 

[bludragon]

OK, I've just spent ages researching lens options before ordering an xsi. For a starter kit I would say:

canon EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens - this is a no-brainer if ordered with an xs or xsi.
canon EF-S 55-250 IS lens.

In terms of image quality, these are both reviewed very highly and are cheap enough compared to the more expensive options (below) that if you really should try them 1st.

To complete a starter kit, you'd want to add an SDHC card (or 2), a usb SDHC card reader, a spare battery and a travel bag.

You could complement this all with an external flash and then a prime or 2 after you get a feel for what you want.

As an upgrade to the above zoom lenses you could replace one or both with:

canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS.
canon EF 70-200 f4 (or f2.8 if you can handle the size/weight) IS lens.

You'll probably find less use for a prime if you have one of those.

 

[996GT2]

Why did you leave out the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS? Despite the dust issues, it's the best walkaround zoom for crop sensor cameras, period. No other lens offers a 17-55mm range with IS and constant f/2.8 aperture. The 17-40 is a good lens on crop cameras, but for $200-300 more the 17-55 adds IS, a full stop faster aperture, and 15mm more on the long end.

Also, the Sigma 18-50 has been updated. The new version features a different optical design with more SLD elements, a 1:3 macro feature, and a slightly larger 72mm filter size. The 1:3 macro is a notable advantage to the Tamron 17-50, and the macro version of the Sigma 18-50 compares well with the Tammy in terms of sharpness.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Why did you leave out the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS? Despite the dust issues, it's the best walkaround zoom for crop sensor cameras, period. No other lens offers a 17-55mm range with IS and constant f/2.8 aperture. The 17-40 is a good lens on crop cameras, but for $200-300 more the 17-55 adds IS, a full stop faster aperture, and 15mm more on the long end.

Also, the Sigma 18-50 has been updated. The new version features a different optical design with more SLD elements, a 1:3 macro feature, and a slightly larger 72mm filter size. The 1:3 macro is a notable advantage to the Tamron 17-50, and the macro version of the Sigma 18-50 compares well with the Tammy in terms of sharpness.

Whats the dust issue? I have that exact 17-55mm lens and I think its fantastic. I even took it to the dust and cold of nepal and had no problems.

 

[olds]

After a set back (wife lost her job) and a lot of research, my wife has settled on a camera. She is going to get the Canon Rebel XSi. She has never owned a SLR or a DSLR so she will be learning with it. How are the included lenses for a hobby shooter taking landscapes and family gathering shots? We will need a telephoto for landscapes and something for indoor shooting at family events.
I am leaning towards just buying a body and a lens or two and a flash but want to stay under $1500 if that's possible.
Or just get the kit and a flash.
Camera example:
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/SLR1197.htm
TIA

 

[Eos]

I'm saving for an XSi as well.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: eos
I'm saving for an XSi as well.

Saved and purchased. I bought the 18-55mm kit lens, an 8gb SD card and the BG-E5 grip.

I love it.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: Entity
Any opinions on the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM as a walkabout?

I'm considering getting it as a kit lens paired with the 30D. I haven't shot SLR in quite a while, but I do miss it, and am looking at getting 1x Wide Angle (likely the Sigma 10-20mm) and a Telephoto before too long (mostly for photographing Ultimate Frisbee), but I've noticed that I can get the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM paired with the 30D for about $1300, when the body itself is going to cost me ~$1050.

Should add that regardless of what lens I get "paired" with the body (looking at Amazon right now FWIW since there isn't any gear on Craigslist ), I will be getting the 50mm, a 10-20mm wide angle, and eventually a zoom lens.

Any advice for a beginner getting back into the game would be appreciated.

Rob

I use the EF 28-135mm as my primary lens. I love it!

It depends what you are shooting at. Good for shots where you don't need the wide angle and like a little zoom.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
After a set back (wife lost her job) and a lot of research, my wife has settled on a camera. She is going to get the Canon Rebel XSi. She has never owned a SLR or a DSLR so she will be learning with it. How are the included lenses for a hobby shooter taking landscapes and family gathering shots? We will need a telephoto for landscapes and something for indoor shooting at family events.
I am leaning towards just buying a body and a lens or two and a flash but want to stay under $1500 if that's possible.
Or just get the kit and a flash.
Camera example:
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/SLR1197.htm
TIA

The Canon Rebel Xsi is actually a pretty damn good camera (it's also what I have so I'm partial to it ). The main difference between that model and the latest one is the latest ones has movie capabilities.

The camera either comes with a 18-55mm lens or 18-200mm lens.

While 18-200 seems more like an all-purpose lens (it is, also sold quite a bit) there are some cons to it. When I purchased the Rebel XSi with the 18-55mm lens, I found it lacked zoom. However, one thing which the 18-200mm lack is focus speed.

For some folks, it`s not an issue, but for others....it is..

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

How does IQ compare with 18-55 IS and 18-200? The 18-200 is a sweet lens to carry in the sense that it's a one lens solution. I do know that massive zooms (wtf is this... like 11x?) beyond 5x are a problem. 11x must be a killer on the optics. I can't imagine the IQ being that great although the test shots I've seen are definitely impressive.

I'd like to second the 17-55 IS also. It's an amazing lens. They should honestly just upgrade the build and call it an L lens. It's expensive enough.

 

[Aharami]

are there any reviews for the new sigma 10-20mm f3.5? I was considering buying the 10-20 f4-5.6 but I see that sigma came out with a faster version of the lens. Its a bit more expensive... f4-5.6 is around $440 and the f3.5 is around $640 on ebay. so around a $200 extra for the faster version but i wonder if a fast super wide is worth it since it will mainly be used for landscape photography, and hardly ever indoors

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
How does IQ compare with 18-55 IS and 18-200? The 18-200 is a sweet lens to carry in the sense that it's a one lens solution. I do know that massive zooms (wtf is this... like 11x?) beyond 5x are a problem. 11x must be a killer on the optics. I can't imagine the IQ being that great although the test shots I've seen are definitely impressive.

The 18-55 IS and 55-250 combination is better than the 18-200 in many ways. However, the big plus of the 18-200 is that it's a single, leave it on and forget about carrying other lenses, switching, dust, etc., so it's still in a different category. I understand that a big part of the attraction of an SLR is being able to switch lenses, but some users / uses are of the sort where you want to switch to this one lens and leave it on thereafter.

The 18-200 IS is big and heavy for a "walk-around" lens. Its IQ, mechanics and focus speed are so-so. Its distortion is relatively heavy at the extremes. It's somewhat expensive for its category and performance. But I still bought one for my wife because for her a single lens wide-range solution is really important, more important than IQ details.

 

[shopbruin]

I'm going to a baseball game next week, and I can pick up at borrowlenses.com, so I was going to borrow a lens to use with my XSi.

Which one should I choose? I was thinking this one:
http://www.borrowlenses.com/pr...oto/Canon_70-300_DO_IS since it seems small enough to easily bypass the security people to keep them from making me leave it in my car. I'll be in the cheap seats, behind home plate, but kinda up there.

Or should I go with this:
http://www.borrowlenses.com/pr...ephoto/Canon_18-200_is

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Aharami
are there any reviews for the new sigma 10-20mm f3.5? I was considering buying the 10-20 f4-5.6 but I see that sigma came out with a faster version of the lens. Its a bit more expensive... f4-5.6 is around $440 and the f3.5 is around $640 on ebay. so around a $200 extra for the faster version but i wonder if a fast super wide is worth it since it will mainly be used for landscape photography, and hardly ever indoors

This is a super late reply, but the Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 is only about $20 more expensive and gives you f/2.8 across the board. I wouldn't think twice about going with that instead.