- Status
Re: All round lenses
My recommendation for a first high quality lens is the 17-55mm IS, or the 15-85mm IS. The 24-105mm L is wonderful on a crop as well as FF, but it can put you in a bind if you need a wider angle and cannot move way back, so you will want something like the 10-22mm to go with it.
For a reasonable price, the 15-85mm EF-s is my favorite.
My recommendation for a first high quality lens is the 17-55mm IS, or the 15-85mm IS. The 24-105mm L is wonderful on a crop as well as FF, but it can put you in a bind if you need a wider angle and cannot move way back, so you will want something like the 10-22mm to go with it.
For a reasonable price, the 15-85mm EF-s is my favorite.
Upvote
0
Re: All round lenses
I have a 60D and out of the lenses you are looking at I have the 10-22, 70-200 (2.8 IS II), and a 50 1.4. When I'm going on vacation and interested in capturing landscapes the first lens I pack is the 10-22. It's great for landscapes and also for indoor shots of buildings/ceilings/tight spaces. For portraits you can't go wrong with the 50 1.4, since I see you are new to dslr, make sure you practice with it before you go to make sure you get used to working with a shallow DOF, that lens wide open a couple of inches either way can make a big difference. If you can get all three, I heard the optics of the 70-200 F4 come close to the 70-200 2.8 IS II, which is saying a lot and for a lot less $$$. If you are mainly going to be shooting outside in good light and don't need the IS, the 70-200 F4 is a good choice. However, I recently went on vacation in the Caribbean and I left my 70-200 behind at home and didn't miss it. My choices in order to get for a trip would be the 10-22, then 50, then 70-200. My comments are in respect to your second choice, as I'm assuming you'll either keep your kit lens or upgrade a 17-55 or 15-85.
I have a 60D and out of the lenses you are looking at I have the 10-22, 70-200 (2.8 IS II), and a 50 1.4. When I'm going on vacation and interested in capturing landscapes the first lens I pack is the 10-22. It's great for landscapes and also for indoor shots of buildings/ceilings/tight spaces. For portraits you can't go wrong with the 50 1.4, since I see you are new to dslr, make sure you practice with it before you go to make sure you get used to working with a shallow DOF, that lens wide open a couple of inches either way can make a big difference. If you can get all three, I heard the optics of the 70-200 F4 come close to the 70-200 2.8 IS II, which is saying a lot and for a lot less $$$. If you are mainly going to be shooting outside in good light and don't need the IS, the 70-200 F4 is a good choice. However, I recently went on vacation in the Caribbean and I left my 70-200 behind at home and didn't miss it. My choices in order to get for a trip would be the 10-22, then 50, then 70-200. My comments are in respect to your second choice, as I'm assuming you'll either keep your kit lens or upgrade a 17-55 or 15-85.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Re: All round lenses
No, a monopod isn't a substitute for a tripod (and you'll need a tripod). How tall are you? I ask because for the gear you're considering, the Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 would work well, if it's tall enough for you without the center column extended. I have one, works great for a gripped body and 70-200/2.8 or 100-400mm.
Depending on your budget, the combination of 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200/4 IS would be excellent. In order of preference, I'd drop IS on the 70-200/4, then the 10-22, and last swap out the 17-55 for the 15-85.
Assuming that list fits your budget, including rental, that sounds ideal. No need for both the standard soon, I would go with the 17-55. For the 70-300, I would definitely recommend the L version; get the 70-200/4 non-IS over the 70-300 non-L.
No, a monopod isn't a substitute for a tripod (and you'll need a tripod). How tall are you? I ask because for the gear you're considering, the Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 would work well, if it's tall enough for you without the center column extended. I have one, works great for a gripped body and 70-200/2.8 or 100-400mm.
Depending on your budget, the combination of 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200/4 IS would be excellent. In order of preference, I'd drop IS on the 70-200/4, then the 10-22, and last swap out the 17-55 for the 15-85.
AcinonyxJG said:
Assuming that list fits your budget, including rental, that sounds ideal. No need for both the standard soon, I would go with the 17-55. For the 70-300, I would definitely recommend the L version; get the 70-200/4 non-IS over the 70-300 non-L.
Upvote
0
Re: All round lenses
for the teleconverters, the aperature is not doubled, like the focal length is. the aperature is decreased 1 stop for the 1.4X (f4.0 becomes f5.6) and 2 stops for the 2x (f4.0 becomes f8.0). so, i guess it is doubled in this case.
another thing to consider about using TC's is that once the aperature goes beyond f5.6, the autofocus on (most/all) APS-C bodies will not function. all manual focus.
for the teleconverters, the aperature is not doubled, like the focal length is. the aperature is decreased 1 stop for the 1.4X (f4.0 becomes f5.6) and 2 stops for the 2x (f4.0 becomes f8.0). so, i guess it is doubled in this case.
another thing to consider about using TC's is that once the aperature goes beyond f5.6, the autofocus on (most/all) APS-C bodies will not function. all manual focus.
Upvote
0
A
AcinonyxJG
Guest
Re: All round lenses
neuroanatomist: I am 6'2" right now, but I am probably going to get taller, as I'm only 14 at the moment, the tripod I found is a Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 it looks really good and extends to a good height, also, with a ball head it sounds almost perfect, but if I don't manage to get it for Iceland, I could try a gorillapod.
Thanks for all of the other information, I will see if I can find three or four lenses, definately the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (Non IS), and then I can decide on one others, I still can't decide, I am thinking not so much towards the 50mm f/1.4, and maybe go for the 17-55mm or 15-85mm because of the range in focal lengths, but is it worth it? as 50mm is quite well fitting between the 70-200 and 10-22mm, and a lot cheaper. I would have the kit lens, just in case, but I could still sell it, and maybe consider one of the other standard zoom lenses.
Would I need a good 'general' lens? Not sure whether or not I could afford it (15-85mm?) I could always hire it, not very expensive at all
Thanks, James
neuroanatomist: I am 6'2" right now, but I am probably going to get taller, as I'm only 14 at the moment, the tripod I found is a Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 it looks really good and extends to a good height, also, with a ball head it sounds almost perfect, but if I don't manage to get it for Iceland, I could try a gorillapod.
Thanks for all of the other information, I will see if I can find three or four lenses, definately the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (Non IS), and then I can decide on one others, I still can't decide, I am thinking not so much towards the 50mm f/1.4, and maybe go for the 17-55mm or 15-85mm because of the range in focal lengths, but is it worth it? as 50mm is quite well fitting between the 70-200 and 10-22mm, and a lot cheaper. I would have the kit lens, just in case, but I could still sell it, and maybe consider one of the other standard zoom lenses.
Would I need a good 'general' lens? Not sure whether or not I could afford it (15-85mm?) I could always hire it, not very expensive at all
Thanks, James
Upvote
0
A
AcinonyxJG
Guest
Re: All round lenses
I made this short list, to hire mainly and possibly buy afterwards, if I like them, would any of you recommend a 300mm or 400mm max focal length or prime lens? I would like one possibly for wildlife, but being a school trip (for geography) I don't think I would have time to do much (if any) wildlife photography, so not sure if I should spend the money for hiring a lens, and also the extra weight. I WILL try and get a tripod (Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 tripod with Manfrotto MH054M0-Q2 ball head.
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF-S 15-85mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Possibly Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
I made this short list, to hire mainly and possibly buy afterwards, if I like them, would any of you recommend a 300mm or 400mm max focal length or prime lens? I would like one possibly for wildlife, but being a school trip (for geography) I don't think I would have time to do much (if any) wildlife photography, so not sure if I should spend the money for hiring a lens, and also the extra weight. I WILL try and get a tripod (Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 tripod with Manfrotto MH054M0-Q2 ball head.
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF-S 15-85mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Possibly Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Re: All round lenses
Agreed - you'll need the extra height of the 055 series.
I think if you go that route, you'll be disappointed with the quality of the images from the kit lens compared to the other lenses. Perhaps not, since the 18-55mm kit lens actually isn't too bad when you shoot from a tripod at f/6.3 or so. But as a walkaround lens, it's not as good.
Personally, I think a good general purpose zoom is essential if the primary purpose of your trip is something other than photography. If your only objective is taking pictures, you'll have all the time you need. You can walk a fair distance to get the framing just right, you can change lenses as frequently as you need to, etc. A good quality walkaround lens allows you to move quickly and take shots with less setup time, and means you don't have to carry a bunch of lenses all the time.
On a trip to China earlier this year, I took my 5DII and 5 lenses (plus a teleconverter), flash, tripod, etc. I used each of the lenses at least some of the time, but much of the time I would go walking around with just one lens (24-105mm) or two lenses (24-105mm + 70-200/2.8 IS II). That allowed me to enjoy the trip, do the other things I needed/wanted to do, and not be overburdened with a backpack full of gear the whole day. On some occasions, I went out specifically to take pictures, and for those times, I took all the gear in a large pack with the tripod strapped on.
No real point in bringing both. The IQ of the 15-85mm on the APS-C will be slightly better than the 24-105mm on the same camera. The 10-22mm + 24-105mm makes a great combination, but with the 10-22mm you have only wide angle, and with the 24-105mm you have normal-to-telephoto. That will mean more frequent lens switching than with the 15-85mm.
AcinonyxJG said:
Agreed - you'll need the extra height of the 055 series.
AcinonyxJG said:
I think if you go that route, you'll be disappointed with the quality of the images from the kit lens compared to the other lenses. Perhaps not, since the 18-55mm kit lens actually isn't too bad when you shoot from a tripod at f/6.3 or so. But as a walkaround lens, it's not as good.
AcinonyxJG said:
Personally, I think a good general purpose zoom is essential if the primary purpose of your trip is something other than photography. If your only objective is taking pictures, you'll have all the time you need. You can walk a fair distance to get the framing just right, you can change lenses as frequently as you need to, etc. A good quality walkaround lens allows you to move quickly and take shots with less setup time, and means you don't have to carry a bunch of lenses all the time.
On a trip to China earlier this year, I took my 5DII and 5 lenses (plus a teleconverter), flash, tripod, etc. I used each of the lenses at least some of the time, but much of the time I would go walking around with just one lens (24-105mm) or two lenses (24-105mm + 70-200/2.8 IS II). That allowed me to enjoy the trip, do the other things I needed/wanted to do, and not be overburdened with a backpack full of gear the whole day. On some occasions, I went out specifically to take pictures, and for those times, I took all the gear in a large pack with the tripod strapped on.
AcinonyxJG said:
No real point in bringing both. The IQ of the 15-85mm on the APS-C will be slightly better than the 24-105mm on the same camera. The 10-22mm + 24-105mm makes a great combination, but with the 10-22mm you have only wide angle, and with the 24-105mm you have normal-to-telephoto. That will mean more frequent lens switching than with the 15-85mm.
Upvote
0
Re: All round lenses
prime lens would seems too a specific tool for what seems a general purpose use..
prime lens would seems too a specific tool for what seems a general purpose use..
Upvote
0
M
michaelthomasj
Guest
Re: All round lenses
If I were you, for a trip to Iceland where the scenery is stunning and with a crop sensor, I would get:
1. Canon 10-22. Amazon USA have it today new for 650$. Insane deal...lowest in over 3 years.
2. Canon 50 1.4.
Thats about all you need for low light, portraiture and landscape. Also you are 14 (I think that was mentioned in a post earlier...), so learning to use these properly will take most of the trip.
Definitely get a tripod. A good one. If you buy cheap you will buy again. I have the 055XPROB with the 322RC2 head. a little heavy for travel (~4kg), but fantastic.
If you really think you want to do wildlife photography, rent a 70-200 f/4. I would not recommend it. Wildlife photography is a professional's game (not that landscape and portraiture arent), but in a place like Iceland, the 10-22 will give you enough great shots for one trip. The secret to great landscapes shots is filters. Also expensive to get into. The cheap alternative is HDR. Read up some tutorials on HDR for now.
If I were you, for a trip to Iceland where the scenery is stunning and with a crop sensor, I would get:
1. Canon 10-22. Amazon USA have it today new for 650$. Insane deal...lowest in over 3 years.
2. Canon 50 1.4.
Thats about all you need for low light, portraiture and landscape. Also you are 14 (I think that was mentioned in a post earlier...), so learning to use these properly will take most of the trip.
Definitely get a tripod. A good one. If you buy cheap you will buy again. I have the 055XPROB with the 322RC2 head. a little heavy for travel (~4kg), but fantastic.
If you really think you want to do wildlife photography, rent a 70-200 f/4. I would not recommend it. Wildlife photography is a professional's game (not that landscape and portraiture arent), but in a place like Iceland, the 10-22 will give you enough great shots for one trip. The secret to great landscapes shots is filters. Also expensive to get into. The cheap alternative is HDR. Read up some tutorials on HDR for now.
Upvote
0
Re: All round lenses
What lenses you pick will also depends on the nature of the trip to Iceland. If you are on your own, you will have a lot of free time to set up the gear and take picture. If you are on an organized tour, you may not have the luxury. It also depends on you shooting habit and experience. There is no doubt that both 17-55 f2.8 and the 15 to 85 are very good optically and are perfect walk around lenses. You have a choice between speed and reach. As for flash, there is no such thing a too powerful. The more popwer the better, especially if you are using defuser etc. Camera bag is the most personal item. You need to tray it out with your equipment. Amnother word of caution. most European air line are having 8 Kg limit for carry on. Please be aware of that .AcinonyxJG said:
Upvote
0
A
AcinonyxJG
Guest
Re: All round lenses
Some amazing answers here, thanks you all very much, I have thought about the kind of situations I might be in for photography on the trip, it is all organised and so I don't think I will need the 70-200mm, so the 10-22mm and the 15-85mm sound like two very good lenses that I will use, a limit to just 2 lenses (probably won't use the kit lens) will prevent too much weight, and also allow me to set up faster and take the photo I want on any time I have during the day. I will try extremely hard and buy a tripod too. A couple of you have also recommended Circular Polarizer filters, so will have a look at those. Regarding the 15-85mm and 24-105mm, what are the benefits of each one, as different people like the 24-105mm, and some prefer the 15-85mm.
Thanks, I really appreciate all of the help you have all given me, James
Some amazing answers here, thanks you all very much, I have thought about the kind of situations I might be in for photography on the trip, it is all organised and so I don't think I will need the 70-200mm, so the 10-22mm and the 15-85mm sound like two very good lenses that I will use, a limit to just 2 lenses (probably won't use the kit lens) will prevent too much weight, and also allow me to set up faster and take the photo I want on any time I have during the day. I will try extremely hard and buy a tripod too. A couple of you have also recommended Circular Polarizer filters, so will have a look at those. Regarding the 15-85mm and 24-105mm, what are the benefits of each one, as different people like the 24-105mm, and some prefer the 15-85mm.
Thanks, I really appreciate all of the help you have all given me, James
Upvote
0
Re: All round lenses
I would pick 15-85 instead of 24-105. 24mm will be too narrow for city scape and landscape. 15mm will give you a much wider view. However, the 24-105 is faster at the long end. If you have room in your bag, bring the 18-55 kit lens for bad weather and/or dusty envioment. It is better off the put a $100 lens in harms way than put a $800 Plus lens in harms way. Another OP suggest a small point and shoot. It is an excellent idea. In extremely bad weather, you can risk a cheap point and shoot but not a $1800 plus set up.AcinonyxJG said:
Upvote
0
A
AcinonyxJG
Guest
Re: All round lenses
Thanks Rocky, I have also been reading about these two lenses, so will probably get the 15-85mm (I would probably have to hire both the 10-22mm and the 15-85mm, come to think of it, would it still be better for me to buy the filters? if I hire them, there is no guaruntee that I will buy them in time afterwards, also, there won't be any lens hoods)
James
Thanks Rocky, I have also been reading about these two lenses, so will probably get the 15-85mm (I would probably have to hire both the 10-22mm and the 15-85mm, come to think of it, would it still be better for me to buy the filters? if I hire them, there is no guaruntee that I will buy them in time afterwards, also, there won't be any lens hoods)
James
Upvote
0
9
92101media
Guest
Re: All round lenses
I would suggest strongly considering the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 instead of the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM. They are about the same price & image quality. The Canon has a bit more range on both ends, but most people tend to shoot their UWA at the widest end, at least the majority of the time, and so there is not much difference in that regard. However, the Tokina has great build quality (not weather-sealed, though neither is the Canon), and is also a 'faster' lens across its entire range, which may be enough to make a difference in low light situations e.g. sunsets & sunrises for landscapes, indoors without a flash/weak built-in flash etc. The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 also makes a great video lens, and therefore ideally suited to the Canon 60D you plan to get.
Both the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 have good reputations. Canon 17-55 is better suited for indoors/low light, Canon 15-85 is better suited for outdoors in better light conditions (more range, where light capturing abilities not as critical). Also worth noting, the 15-85 is about 2/3rds the cost of the 17-55. I would suggest trying to buy a better quality general purpose lens than the kit lens, rather than renting that one, if possible, since that is the lens most likely to be on your camera, both during the trip & after, so that is the lens the most photos are likely to be taken with.
One other option to consider is a superzoom like the Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF. Any lens that has more than about a 5x zoom factor tends to give up some image quality, but there is no denying the convenience of a superzoom i.e. less lens changing / quick & easy adjustment to a wide range of focal lengths. And being able to capture a photo in lesser quality is better than not being able to capture a photo at all, in those situations where you don't have the right lens (either on you, or on the camera) at the time. The image quality almost definitely won't be as good as one of the Canon general purpose lenses listed above, but will likely be better than the 18-55 kit lens, while also gaining you the ability to capture some photos at the long end that would otherwise not have been possible.
Lastly, I suggest at least purchasing the Canon 50mm f/1.8, given how cheap it is. Yes, it's kind of a bit narrow for many purposes on a crop sensor, but it will give you some low light capability, and could be a 'foot zoom' backup for your general purpose lens, in the unlikely event that lens has a problem.
So another take on the suggested lenses could be:
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3
Canon 50mm f/1.8
That would get you capabilities to shoot everything from 11-270 (with the Tokina & Tamron), as well as some low light capability with the Canon 50mm f/1.8. You could even probably shoot nearly everything with just the Tamron 18-270mm, if you were willing to compromise some on image quality and/or miss a few photos in certain scenarios. If you need wider than 18mm on a crop, you could take multiple pictures & stitch, as previously suggested.
Also, worth considering is that sometimes the most interesting part of a vista is actually more in the general purpose or even telephoto range. Consider the case of a sunset: if you take that photo with a UWA lens, the setting sun is going to be a tiny element in the picture, whereas if you use a telephoto lens, you can make the setting sun a major element of the picture.
Ultimately, it depends on what balance of convenience vs. cost vs. image quality one is willing to tolerate.
Also, not relevant to the original question but relevant in the grand scheme of things, I think the Canon 60D is a great choice for performance vs. value. Much cheaper than a 7D, but has the same sensor, the majority of the better controls, and a swiveling screen which can be handy for video or unusual photo situations. However, the 60D is also not much more expensive than a T2i or T3i, but has significant advantages i.e. better hand holding size (not too cramped), better controls for better access to features, extra info LCD on top (in addition to main LCD), better battery life, better quality (listen to the shutter sound of a 60D vs. a T2i - the 60D shutter makes a solid clunk, the T2i shutter makes a a high-pitched wheezing sound, better weather sealing etc.)
I would suggest strongly considering the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 instead of the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM. They are about the same price & image quality. The Canon has a bit more range on both ends, but most people tend to shoot their UWA at the widest end, at least the majority of the time, and so there is not much difference in that regard. However, the Tokina has great build quality (not weather-sealed, though neither is the Canon), and is also a 'faster' lens across its entire range, which may be enough to make a difference in low light situations e.g. sunsets & sunrises for landscapes, indoors without a flash/weak built-in flash etc. The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 also makes a great video lens, and therefore ideally suited to the Canon 60D you plan to get.
Both the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 have good reputations. Canon 17-55 is better suited for indoors/low light, Canon 15-85 is better suited for outdoors in better light conditions (more range, where light capturing abilities not as critical). Also worth noting, the 15-85 is about 2/3rds the cost of the 17-55. I would suggest trying to buy a better quality general purpose lens than the kit lens, rather than renting that one, if possible, since that is the lens most likely to be on your camera, both during the trip & after, so that is the lens the most photos are likely to be taken with.
One other option to consider is a superzoom like the Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF. Any lens that has more than about a 5x zoom factor tends to give up some image quality, but there is no denying the convenience of a superzoom i.e. less lens changing / quick & easy adjustment to a wide range of focal lengths. And being able to capture a photo in lesser quality is better than not being able to capture a photo at all, in those situations where you don't have the right lens (either on you, or on the camera) at the time. The image quality almost definitely won't be as good as one of the Canon general purpose lenses listed above, but will likely be better than the 18-55 kit lens, while also gaining you the ability to capture some photos at the long end that would otherwise not have been possible.
Lastly, I suggest at least purchasing the Canon 50mm f/1.8, given how cheap it is. Yes, it's kind of a bit narrow for many purposes on a crop sensor, but it will give you some low light capability, and could be a 'foot zoom' backup for your general purpose lens, in the unlikely event that lens has a problem.
So another take on the suggested lenses could be:
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3
Canon 50mm f/1.8
That would get you capabilities to shoot everything from 11-270 (with the Tokina & Tamron), as well as some low light capability with the Canon 50mm f/1.8. You could even probably shoot nearly everything with just the Tamron 18-270mm, if you were willing to compromise some on image quality and/or miss a few photos in certain scenarios. If you need wider than 18mm on a crop, you could take multiple pictures & stitch, as previously suggested.
Also, worth considering is that sometimes the most interesting part of a vista is actually more in the general purpose or even telephoto range. Consider the case of a sunset: if you take that photo with a UWA lens, the setting sun is going to be a tiny element in the picture, whereas if you use a telephoto lens, you can make the setting sun a major element of the picture.
Ultimately, it depends on what balance of convenience vs. cost vs. image quality one is willing to tolerate.
Also, not relevant to the original question but relevant in the grand scheme of things, I think the Canon 60D is a great choice for performance vs. value. Much cheaper than a 7D, but has the same sensor, the majority of the better controls, and a swiveling screen which can be handy for video or unusual photo situations. However, the 60D is also not much more expensive than a T2i or T3i, but has significant advantages i.e. better hand holding size (not too cramped), better controls for better access to features, extra info LCD on top (in addition to main LCD), better battery life, better quality (listen to the shutter sound of a 60D vs. a T2i - the 60D shutter makes a solid clunk, the T2i shutter makes a a high-pitched wheezing sound, better weather sealing etc.)
Upvote
0
Re: All round lenses
AS for stiching, please hold the camera in portrait mode and take mutiple shorts to get the wide scenery that you want. I know, you are taking narrower shorts in the horizontal direction. However, that will give you more in the vertical direction. If there is a slight alignment error, you will not end up with a very skinny panaromic picture. personally, I tend to stay away from "super zoom", too much compromise.
AS for stiching, please hold the camera in portrait mode and take mutiple shorts to get the wide scenery that you want. I know, you are taking narrower shorts in the horizontal direction. However, that will give you more in the vertical direction. If there is a slight alignment error, you will not end up with a very skinny panaromic picture. personally, I tend to stay away from "super zoom", too much compromise.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
