I feel like I need another lens

Emerana · Jan 7, 2008

I have:
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Telephoto Zoom

I have been reading about wide angles and they sound great and nessesary for landscapes. At the same time, I want something for everyday use. The 18-55 is ok, but I havent been that excited by it.

So what would you get to round out your lens collection (under $600)

julie32 · Jan 7, 2008

My first lens was awesome... it was the 28mm-135mm IS USM lens. It's a very decent focal length and it was great for me. Should cost you less than $500.
Hope that helps.
julie

julie32 · Jan 7, 2008

Here's a link to read about it:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Big Mike · Jan 7, 2008

I also felt the need for something wider than 18mm. I went with the Canon EF-S 10-22mm...it's a fantastic lens and gives you a really wide FOV.

It's a bit pricey though. You can look at the Sigma 10-20mm. It gets good reviews and is cheaper than the Canon.

Mav · Jan 7, 2008

For ultra-ultra wide, fisheyes can be fun, and don't even have to look fishy when you have the right software to un-fish them, and compose your shots right. I have the Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye for Nikon, but Sigma has one coming out for Canon. Compared to a 10mm wideangle on a 1.6x Canon, a fisheye will give you a 167 degree diagonal field of view vs only about 100 degrees for the 10-22. And it's f/2.8 which is a stop faster than f/4.

Neither of these really represent how a fisheye lens "traditionally" was intended to be used, but here's two examples anyways. Both of those were corrected with the Image Trends Hemi plug-in. I use this lens in place of a rectilinear wide-angle, although I'm probably going to try out the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 that's coming out soon. A fisheye isn't exactly an "everyday" lens.

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is one of the Canon lenses that I "lust" over. If I shot Canon I'd definitely have one of those.

Mav · Jan 7, 2008

For $600 you could also pickup any of the Tokina/Tamron/Sigma f/2.8 mid-zooms, either the 17-50ish intended for digital, or the 28-70ish intended for film. I have a Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 that I like the extra reach on. If I need a wide shot, I just pickup body #2 which will have an 18-xxx on it.

If you like your 50mm f/1.8, you could try either the Canon 35mm f/2, or the 28mm f/1.8. That'll give a bit more "normal" view, and still fast. I can still manage to do some natural light shooting with an f/2 or quicker prime these days with it dark by 5pm just with household lighting, but it's pretty hopeless at f/2.8 or slower. I <3 my Nikkor 35mm f/2.

If you can get your kids to stop swarming around you, I've been getting some great results with my 70-300 VR lens indoors. The VR (IS) makes a huge difference, and even at f/5.6 you can still get a nice tight depth of field in the 200-300mm range. I probably couldn't pull shots like these off at near the quality if at all w/o the VR since I'd need to be at 1/320s shutter speed which would probably be beyond the capabilities of my flash short of going to iso1600 which would be a lot duller and noisier looking. I don't have the "kid swarm" issue yet. Maybe in a few years. :mrgreen: