Help with choosing a lens!

[krp480]

Hey TPF! I have a dilemma, I am in the midst of choosing a new lens. I am using a T3i (1.6 crop factor I believe), so I know I probably shouldn't be getting a prime lens.

I think I have narrowed my selection down to a couple of lenses here is what I have narrowed it down to and what I want.

Canon 135mm f/2.0L
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L

-maybe-

Canon 50mm f/1.2L
Canon Ef 70-200mm f/2.8L

I mainly take photos of random crap, or landscapes, come this fall sports for school. I am leaning more towards the 24-70mm as from what I am raeading it does practically everything. I was hopefully looking to see if anyone owns one of these and has any input. I am also going to try and sell my T3i and buy the next 5D Mark III when it is released later on in the year so I can have a full frame camera. Anyways any feedback is more than appreciated! Also I am sorry if this is the wrong forum, I tried to search for a different forum if there is one. Thanks!

 

[analog.universe]

Well, first off, crop factor doesn't affect whether or not you should get primes... I shoot a 60D (same exact sensor as your T3i), and I prefer primes.

The only specific things you mentioned that you want to shoot are landscapes and sports, and the 24-70 is good at pretty much everything except landscapes and sports : ) For landscapes, you'll want something wider than any of the lenses you've mentioned, and for sports, the 70-200 is a much better choice. The 50m 1.2 is a very specific lens, and would not be one of the first 10 in my in collection, if you know what I mean... It's softer, focuses slower, and is many times the price of the 50mm 1.4, all for half a stop. If you want a 50mm prime, go for the 1.4. The 1.2 is for the 1% of shots where you actually need it and are willing to sacrifice acuity, speed, and $1000, just to get the shot. So.... if you want an everything lens that you can shoot landscape with, maybe look into the 18-55 2.8 IS? You would have to sell it if you eventually went full frame, but that would be true of anything wide enough for landscape (short of spending ~$2000 on a 14mm 2.8L or Zeiss 18mm 3.5).

It sounds to me like you're not quite sure what you want to focus on? I would choose a topic that matters most to you now, get a lens for and spend some time exploring it, and then you can see where to go next? Nothing you mentioned is low budget, so I get the feeling you're ready to dive in, but it's still best to acquire your gear slowly, so you can get a real world feel for where the gaps are...

 

[krp480]

Thanks for the response

Well, I shouldn't have said landscapes since its very often (actually I only said that since I'm going to NC in about a month), right now I am shooting anything. I don't have a set thing I am focusing on hence why I am thinking of getting the 24-70. I am only shooting sports for the fall season for school (nothing big, so I don't care that much about the image quality). The things I take pictures most is of self portraits, and stuff in my backyard. Every so often I go into the city and shoot there as well and I know the 24-70 is heavy but if the images from what I am reading are that great quality I could care less about the weight.

I think that getting a 50 f/1.4 would be a better choice than the 1.2L since photography isn't my job, just a hobby. I am looking to dive in though, I will worry about the cheaper lens later on cause they are fairly easy to get, and I think it would be better to have an expensive lens that does it all than a lens that is expensive and can only do minimal amount of stuff. Trust me though I will be aquiring gear slowly haha, I am only 16 (I am planning on possibly majoring in photography in college) and have saved up this money over the past couple of months thanks to my summer job so I decided instead of spending it on useless stuff why not get something that'll last.

 

[analog.universe]

In that case the 24-70 sounds like a great choice. It does a lot and will last you a long time... the weight of a lens never bothered me, fast glass is heavy.

Something to consider for sports, if you do want something beyond the 24-70, is a 200 2.8L prime. They're much cheaper than the 70-200 zoom, and you'll already have 70 covered. Good luck!

 

[KmH]

Consider too that 200 mm is pretty short on reach for field sports like football and soccer, even if you are shooting from the sidelines.

 

[Derrel]

I'd go for the 70-200 Canon L-series. It's excellent for shooting random crap.

 

[subscuck]

and I think it would be better to have an expensive lens that does it all

No such lens exists.

I am only 16

That explains a lot. There are more than a few Canon non "L" lenses and third party lenses that are considered "L like" that are a fraction of the cost of "L" glass. Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 50 1.4, to name a couple. The knowledge you posses, not the red ring on the lens, determines the quality of your pics. Put the cart back behind the horse and start learning some photography fundamentals. Buy expensive glass if/when you feel you need it. Gear lust at the beginners stage is understandable, but not usually productive. From the wording of your OP, it seems you've a long way to go before you "need" L glass and FF.

 

[chaosrealm93]

24-70. i would value the flexibility of the zoom over the lower aperture of the prime, unless you're into strictly portraits..

 

[penfolderoldo]

At the moment, still in the early stages of your developing hobby, it's understandable you're not quite sure of what kind of photography 'floats your boat'. I'd suggest the 24-70. I use it almost every day in my job, and it's a fantastic piece of glass. Until you get more experienced in lower light scenarios i'm really not sure the benefit of the faster 50 would actually be a 'benefit'. I'd be inclined to keep your current camera, get used to how whatever lens you decide on interacts with it, and once - or if - you feel you've outgrown its features THEN think about upgrading. Despite what certain people may say, full frame isn't always necessary or for that matter better.

 

[krp480]

Thanks for all the replies

As far as the expensive lens thing goes, I didn't know how to word it right. From what I have been told by some pros is that the only regret is that they didn't get the nice glass when they first started. I can say that I will be getting an L lens regardless of what people think even if I am not a pro. The one thing is that this is going to be my only nice piece of glass for the next couple of years. I do plan on possibly majoring in photography in College so it can't hurt to have a nice lens either.

I am set on the 24-70 right now as that is one of the better lenses out there that is a do it all lens. I would also like to experiment with it on what type of photography I really want to be involved with. I would love to do portrait photog, but there is tons of other types that I still would like to explore.

I'd be inclined to keep your current camera, get used to how whatever lens you decide on interacts with it, and once - or if - you feel you've outgrown its features THEN think about upgrading. Despite what certain people may say, full frame isn't always necessary or for that matter better.

That is mainly why I am buying a new lens. I am done with the kit lens, and quite honestly it sucks. It doesn't take horrible photos but I have come to the point where I can use it for whatever but want more out of it and it just doesn't provide it.

Also, I do plan on getting some lesser quality lenses (non L), just that I would like to have a nice L lens that I know I can trust for almost anything that I am doing and have the cheaper ones for the dedicated type of photography I am doing at that time. After I get the 24-70 I plan on getting a 50mm 1.4. I also apologize for the exceptional grammar but it is hard to explain myself that way I want to. I can also understand how me being 16 may make me look, but I can tell you I am not as experienced as some people but I have a good enough knowledge on how to use the camera to get the results I want and how to take a picture with good composition.