Lens Help

[ShelleyD]

I am looking for a 'general' lens for my Canon 30D. I have had it for a while but only used the kits lens' that I got with it and am not real happy with the photos I am getting from it. (yes it could be the person behind the camera!!) I am wanting to upgrade my lenses and was looking at the 25-105 which I have been told is an awesome lens. I've also been told that the 70-200 can be used as a general kind of lens as well. I want something that I can put on the camera and not have to change every time I want to take a photo. Further down the track I will upgrade to probably the 7D so want something to suit that as well. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!

[GeoffWessex]

I thought I'd have a look for an alternative for your kit lens - it's often the problem with cameras, not built to the same specifications as a specialist (or faster) lens.
I wonder if your problems with the kit lens simply stem from the fact that it's considerably 'slower' than an 'off the shelf' equivalent..... causing slower shutter speeds, camera shake etc.
Anyway, the direct replacement for the kit lens would be something along the lines of the 17-55mm f/2.8 but that is a huge leap in price. Other alternatives are offered by Canon buy you either get a fast lens and pay a lot or you get a good lens that won't improve the speed much. Perhaps the 18-135mm would suit, but that's f/3.5 so not a lot faster. However, it's a lot more affordable and gives a good zoom range.

I can't see why anybody would tell you that the 70-200mm is a "general kind of lens" - it's very much a telephoto zoom with the short end perhaps a little too long for portraits. Nice lens, but hugely expensive for the f/2.8 so you'd be left with the f/4..... not bad for that zoom.

[chris-p]

Hi Shelley

Two questions. Why aren't you happy with the results you get from your kit lens (not a trick question!)? And
what do you shoot?
It's difficult to suggest anything without knowing the answers to those.

ANyway, the 24-105mm lens is a bit of a beast, very good (apparently - I've not used one) but, on your camera (or the 7D) it's not very wide. If you don't really do much with the wide end of your kit lens, then don't worry about it. However, if you do shoot below 24mm, you're really going to miss it with the 24-105mm. Obviously you can keep your kit lens, but you're trying to replace it.

Geoff suggested the 17-55mm f/2.8 which would be the best direct replacement you could get for your kit lens. It is expensive, although it is cheaper than the 24-105mm, and it covers the same sort of range as your kit lens.

If you do use focal lengths wider than 24mm, I suppose your final (and by far the most expensive) option would be the 24-105mm and a wideangle lens (say the Sigma 10-20mm).

[ShelleyD]

Thanks Geoff and Chris!

I'm not happy with the photos from my kits lens as the photos dont come out clear enough, however when I take photos with my 100mm Macro they are great. I shoot all kinds of things so it's hard to find one lens I suppose. I take portraits, wildlife and landscapes (due to where I work) so if I can find a lens that will do all three - I'll take it !!

[chris-p]

Ah, so you're comparing a kit lens with a monofocal thats renowned for it's sharpness? That'll be why you're not happy.
Fixed focal length (monofocal) lenses are always sharper than zoom lenses, regardless of how expensive or "good" the zoom is. You're also comparing a macro lens, which are designed for higher contrast, and therefore sharper, images than a standard monofocal optic as well.
This might sound like me harping on but it's important to realise that no zoom lens will be as sharp as your 100mm macro. But plenty of zoom lenses will be better than your kit lens.

It's a tough one though... Wildlife (long focal lenths), landscape (very wide angle) and portraits (somewhere from 35-105mm traditionally) is difficult to get in a single lens. There are "superzooms" of the 18-200mm/18-250mm ilk but they're not great optically. Certainly no better than your kit lens and often worse.

Realistically this requires at least 2 lenses to get decent quality. You could use the 100mm for portraits - it's a popular length as it'll compress the perspective nicely, you'll get good depth of field control and it's very sharp. You could then add the 17-55mm f/2.8 to replace your kit lens. This would be OK for landscapes (it's not very wide but you can always stitch shots together as well) and great for portraits too. It still doesn't leave you with much for wildlife though...

I suppose the question then becomes, whats most important. One lens (to rule them all!) for ease of use and less to carry or more lenses and better quality.

Oh, and cost...!

[ianpinion]

Hi Shelley,

As Chris and Geoff have already hinted at, when you purchase a dslr camera you are buying into a system which requires an assortment of lenses to give you the flexibility you need. It's not like a hybrid bridge camera where you're stuck with the one lens to do everything with.

So you need to cover a focal range from around 10-14mm at the wide end to say 200-500mm at the telephoto end, but you'll need a minimum of three to four lenses to cover this range and get the quality you're looking for. As has been suggested the 17-55mm f/2.8 would be the best direct replacement for your current kit lens, though for landscapes the Sigma 10-20mm f/4 would be better. Your existing 100mm macro lens is superb for portraits as well as for close-ups, which would leave just a telephoto lens for your other wildlife shots, say the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.

[ShelleyD]

Thankyou for your replies! It's pretty confusing when there is so much out there and you don't really know what you need, or should I say want. I think I will have to get a couple of lenses! I was looking at the Canon 10-22 (?) a little while ago but didnt end up getting one so perhaps I will end up going back to that or the Sigma one as Ian suggested, to start with. Like you said the 100mm I can use for portraits and the telephoto can come at a later stage. Thanks again..!

[chris-p]

There is little difference between the Canon 10-22mm and Sigma 10-20mm. The biggest difference is price. There are even two options with the Sigma 10-20mm, the cheapest is the f/4-5.6 and the f/3.5 is more expensive. Frankly there is little point in the f/3.5 lens - the wider aperture usually means a shallower depth of field (but depth of field is enormous the wider the field of view - you won't get shallow depth of field at 10mm) or more light gathering (the f/3.5 doesn't give you much more and who cares? You're using a tripod for landscapes most of the time).

Mark (Cutter) did buy a Canon 10-22mm lens recently and I know he's impressed with it but, from all the comparisons I've seen, there's nothing that would make me spend more than the cost of the cheaptest Sigma 10-20mm.

[AndrewKulin]

I have the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for my 40D and recommend it without hesitation. Though it is pricey you do get what you pay for and if your future plans include a 7D then you will find that you want the best glass you can afford to go with the camera.

I also do own the Canon 10-22 mm lens but find that I do not use it much (I do consider it a good lens however). For landscape I find myself now relying on stitching multiple images to give me higher resolution captures and therefore potential for larger sized prints.

So you could instead use a lens such as the 17-55 f/2.8 and invest instead on some stitching software (PTGUI is what I use) or rely on what your image editing software provides, and get the benefit of wider field of view that way. But stitching does add extra steps to the whole process, has other issues you need to be prepared to deal with (such as moving objects in the scene) and if your landscape work includes foreground objects as well as distant objects, then parallex may be problematic unless you invest in a special panoramic tripod head.

[sunnygov]

I could not have posted better replies. The reason being i am in the exact same position as the OP. It's the "same old same old" as far as i am concerned.

Whether you have a 20D or a 50D at some point you will feel the camera needs an upgrade.

I also have the same lenses as the OP - 100 mm Macro USM and also a 50mm f 1.4 USM plus
70-300mm USM IS all Canon.

I appreciate there is nothing in my kit as yet for landscape work and agree with the choice of Sigma 10-20mm as good value for money. If i had to sacrifice a lens then the 70-300 would have to go to put toward an "L" piece of glass within that range.

Good Luck

Joe