Building a lens kit

photoshooterOTW · Dec 25, 2013

I was just planning on several lenses I want to buy soon- especially seeing Boxing Day tomorrow! Apparently Henry's is going to have big sales, so I want to be prepared when I check it out tomorrow

I was thinking on buying 3 more lenses (I have a standard Canon 18-55):

A macro: Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG macro OR Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
A "telephoto": Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
A Wide-Angle: Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX

Not very expensive set, but something I plan to use to improve, and eventually sell to upgrade. Do you think its a pretty good set? (i was trying for a wide range) Is there something I should add/remove/change?

Sidenote: Is it true a wide angle can be used as macro? I heard it from a friend, and I'm not so sure.

Derrel · Dec 25, 2013

Skip right over the 50mm macro; it's too short a length for a macro, unless you copy a lot of 8.5 x 100 inch sheets of paper on a copy stand. As a macro lens is focused closer, the standard thing is for the lens to LOSE focal length; the Tamron 90mm AF-SP macro for example, at 1:1, goes from 90mm to right around 73mm in focal length, as I recall. Anyway...a 70mm is nice compromise over the "traditional" 50mm, 55mm, and 60mm macro lengths. I prefer a longer macro lens, rather than a shorter one, and I think a 70mm macro lens might be really nice--I do not have one, but I have a 55 and a 60 and a 90mm macro, and sometimes 90mm is too long, but 60mm is too short. I've seen some GORGEOUS macro shots made with the Sigma 70mm, and it's got a reputation as a sharp, nice macro lens. Same with their 105mm EX Macro--razor-sharp optics, minimal distortion, good lens.

My thought on the Tokina 11 to 16mm is that it's too limited in range, and the range is **entirely** in the ultra-wide range, meaning it does not span ultra-wide to wide. For example a 10 to 24mm lens has a lot of range, and a 12-24 also has a lot of range, whereas the 11-16mm is I think, the most-limited ultra-wideangle zoom, even narrower in range than the older 10-20mm concept. Tokina has another lens in roughly the same price range. I would say go to Henry's, and literally SEE what I mean on this lens. I looked at it at PPS 3 months ago and was like...huh...wow...what a restricted image range...

I am NOT a fan of ultra-wide, short focal length images; you might be,however, so the 11-16mm range might really float your boat.

Can a wideangle be used as a macro? Well...sometimes, sort of, but there's a huge amount of "drop off" of size of the objects pictured, so it tend to create really weird "forced perspective" on a lot of subjects. Which can be kind of neat sometimes, on some subjects, if you're going for a distorted, funky, artsy-fartsy, kitschy, whimsical look or something like that.

photoshooterOTW · Dec 25, 2013

Ok- I'll go for something long, if I don't go for the 70mm.

I'll definitely try it out tomorrow- but I went on flickr to see photos taken with it, and I can already see what you mean about the restriction/limitation. What do you (and anyone else) think of Tokina 12-28mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX ?? Seems pretty decent to me on flickr.

Derrel said:
.....if you're going for a distorted, funky, artsy-fartsy, kitschy, whimsical look or something like that.

Hahaha- I'm going to have to try it now

I'm broadminded- I'm not stuck to Tokina or the 70mm sigma, so other opinions would be great as well. Right now the plan is:

Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG macro
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Tokina 12-28mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

SCraig · Dec 25, 2013

Sigma also makes a 17-70 macro zoom. It isn't fixed aperture though, it goes from f/2.8 to f/4. I've had mine about 3 years or so and really like it. Sigma has released a newer version since I got mine and I don't know how it compares though.

grafxman · Dec 25, 2013

For indoor photography with my 7D the Sigma 18-250mm macro works great. I've taken thousands of photos with it and it's never let me down. I do occasionally use the Tokina 11-16mm when I find myself in a tight space. For wildlife the Sigma 50-500mm does it all. It focuses so close it provides near macro power. So there you have it. Three lenses are all you need and you can photograph anything your eye can see.

photoshooterOTW · Dec 25, 2013

SCraig said:
Sigma also makes a 17-70 macro zoom. It isn't fixed aperture though, it goes from f/2.8 to f/4. I've had mine about 3 years or so and really like it. Sigma has released a newer version since I got mine and I don't know how it compares though.

Thanks for bringing my attention to it-I'll keep an eye out. I could potentially sell my kit lens, get this...and get a Canon 70-300mm or the equivalent (which is apparently much better) and I'd have quite the range... hmm......

grafxman said:
For indoor photography with my 7D the Sigma 18-250mm macro works great. I've taken thousands of photos with it and it's never let me down. I do occasionally use the Tokina 11-16mm when I find myself in a tight space. For wildlife the Sigma 50-500mm does it all. It focuses so close it provides near macro power. So there you have it. Three lenses are all you need and you can photograph anything your eye can see.

Quick question to everyone- I just read online that the 18-250mm mentioned is excellent for a SUPERZOOM. How would this compare to having 2 lenses? I'm actually quite interested in this- cause this would also let me get rid of my kit lens, and basically give me 2 lenses in 1 (Canon 18-55, 55-250 or Sigma 17-70, Canon 70-300). Would the lens therefore also give me the "macro" to standard to telephoto reach? the 50-500 is pretty pricey... not something I can go into at the moment, but something I already have planned for an upgrade. Seems like an EPIC lens.

grafxman · Dec 26, 2013

What do you plan on doing with your photos? It's pretty tough to get published in a magazine. I think most folks just look to posting on the web or printing out 8 X 10s or smaller photos with an inkjet. So the Sigma 18-250mm macro will do the job. I have the Sigma 17-70 macro and it's an excellent lens limited only by it's lack of power. I haven't used it once since I bought the 18-250mm. I also bought the Canon 70-300mm. I didn't like the Canon at all because it wouldn't focus any closer than 5 feet or so. Actually I guess looking back I started out the same way you're thinking about. I soon ditched the Canon 70-300mm and have used the Sigma 18-250mm ever since. Changing lenses back and forth is a real pain. It's a terrific little lens, even better now that it's a macro. The first version would focus pretty close but it wasn't a macro. I can't imagine a better walk around general purpose lens.

ronlane · Dec 26, 2013

I would agree for the most part with the above statements but I would have to question the choice of the 55-250mm. If you are buying it new, you could find a used 70-200mm f/4.0L for just a little bit more money and imho, it is a far better lens.

Overread · Dec 26, 2013

A 55-250mm superzoom is a good "one lens does all" as are things like 18-200mm etc.. lenses. They cover a huge zoom range so their optical quality (especailly at the longer end) is not going to be outstanding and will be weak; however its workable and they are often popular as a single lens solution for multiple subjects. The kind of thing you put on the camera if you're just casual about photography or going out and "not being the photographer" for the day (ergo carrying all the lenses and such isn't practical.

They have a place, but optical quality is not their forte.

On the subject of the Sigma 70mm macro I've got that along with a sigma 150mm and a Canon MPE 65mm macro - the Sigma 70mm I think is about the sharpest of all three (its a very marginal difference only present at the extreme ends of the aperture range). It's certainly a great little lens and if you like macro work very usable and light.

Note most zoom lenses with a "macro" title are not true macro lenses. They'll get to around 0.5:1 magnification at best, whilst a true macro lens gets to 1:1. In practical terms:

Around 0.5:1 magnification;

1:1 magification;

As you can see if you're idea of a macro shot is a flower head or similar sized subject then 0.5:1 is more than enough; if its getting in for more detail of segments of the flower or other smaller subjects like insects then 1:1 is where you want to be.

photoshooterOTW · Dec 27, 2013

grafxman- good points- I'll keep them in mind
ronlane- i'm leaning for the 18-250, but thats a great idea!
over read- I guess I just want a decent enough image quality- while it doesn't have to be extremely sharp, I don't want something too soft...I'll google photos and decide from there. Thank you for the macro explanation. I think I'm going to see the "macro" with the 18-250, and if I'm satisfied with it, i won't buy the 70mm, otherwise I'll buy it.

Thanks everyone!

Edit: I've been looking at sample images, and I think I'm going for the 18-250