Lens for t2i?

[PandaMan]

What are you shooting?

If this were me, three lenses come to mind. I like LOW FOCAL RATIO lenses and high quality optics. This gives me a lot of versatility and control over both lighting and depth of field (selective focus) that you don't get in variable focal ratio zooms like the kit lenses and most consumer zooms.

1) The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM -- pretty much the same focal length range as your kit 18-55mm lens EXCEPT it can provide f/2.8 all through the zoom range and it uses internal focusing (does not rotate when the lens focuses which is much nicer when you're using a polarizing filter with it) and it has a much faster focusing motor.

2) The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro -- you could use this as a portrait lens, product lens, or macro lens. This is THE sharpest EF-S lens Canon makes and it's a true 1:1 macro scale lens. I don't have a crop-frame camera anymore (well... I do, but it's dedicated for astrophotography), but I had this lens. It was my favorite EF-S lens. I currently own the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro and this 60mm macro, at less than half the cost, can easily compete with the "L" series lens on image quality. It really is a great lens.

3) If you ever plan to shoot any action photography, you'll probably eventually want to own the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. Warning: This is a VERY expensive lens. But there's a reason pretty much every pro eventually buys it.

The 60mm seems to be more fitting to my needs, portraits, macro, etc.. i dont do much action or sports photography, most of the things i like to shoot are still. I have a 50mm 1:1.8 is the 60 much different than that?

 

[o hey tyler]

The 60mm seems to be more fitting to my needs, portraits, macro, etc.. i dont do much action or sports photography, most of the things i like to shoot are still. I have a 50mm 1:1.8 is the 60 much different than that?

No, and I don't know why you would use a macro lens for portraits. Doesn't really make sense to me. I tried it, once.... It's definitely not the lenses strong suit.

If I were to get a macro lens, the 100mm f/2.8 would be it.

If you want a wide angle lens for landscapes and such, get the tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. You will not be subject to fisheye distortion on that lens, and it's supposed to be quite sharp.

 

[TCampbell]

The 60mm seems to be more fitting to my needs, portraits, macro, etc.. i dont do much action or sports photography, most of the things i like to shoot are still. I have a 50mm 1:1.8 is the 60 much different than that?

No, and I don't know why you would use a macro lens for portraits. Doesn't really make sense to me. I tried it, once.... It's definitely not the lenses strong suit.

If I were to get a macro lens, the 100mm f/2.8 would be it.

If you want a wide angle lens for landscapes and such, get the tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. You will not be subject to fisheye distortion on that lens, and it's supposed to be quite sharp.

The EF-S 60mm is the crop-frame body equivalent of the EF 100mm. (the math actually works out to 96mm, but that's as close as it gets.)

You wont notice much difference in the focal length ... the 60 is only a tiny bit narrower on the angle of view.

The MTF curve on the 60mm is considerably better than the 50mm (actually it's better than _every_ 50mm that Canon makes and that includes the L series lens.) It's short enough to use for portraits. This difference is big enough to notice. I could always tell when I took a shot with my 60mm macro lens vs. any other lens -- including if it was using it as a normal lens.

The 60mm macro is sharper than the 100mm macro (the non-L version). It's about the same as the 100mm f/2.8L (I also have this lens.)

I've always felt the 60mm was a great deal because the price tag on it is fairly low considering how good the lens is. If were actually planning to shoot macro regularly it's nice to have a longer focal length to be farther from the subject. There are two reasons: (1) at very close distances to the lens, the camera, lens, and your body can cast a shadow on your intended subject and fowl the lighting, and (2) if the subject is a skittish critter then it's easier to photograph if you're a bit farther so that you don't scare it away. Apart from that, if you want to use it as a general purpose prime lens, true macro lenses tend to have better ability to resolve fine detail than most other lenses.

If you were to buy a full-frame body some day, keep in mind that you cannot use an "EF-S" lens on a full frame body.

You would not want to use a 60mm focal length for landscapes. It's a great focal length for portraits, still life, and of course it's intended macro use.

 

[Justman1020]

There's a huge difference in quality of glass not to mention it won't act like a 17-40 so it won't be like the 18-55.

Um, a 17-40 will act exactly like a 17-40 because that's what it is. And it has a very similar range as an 18-55 (slightly wider at the wide end, but not as long at the long end). But yes, the quality is different than an 18-55 kit lens.

im sorry but this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Your going to tell me that panda's crop sensor camera won't make a 17-40mm lens act like a 27-65 because of the 1.6 crop...? Really? Ok.

 

[christop]

There's a huge difference in quality of glass not to mention it won't act like a 17-40 so it won't be like the 18-55.

Um, a 17-40 will act exactly like a 17-40 because that's what it is. And it has a very similar range as an 18-55 (slightly wider at the wide end, but not as long at the long end). But yes, the quality is different than an 18-55 kit lens.

im sorry but this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Your going to tell me that panda's crop sensor camera won't make a 17-40mm lens act like a 27-65 because of the 1.6 crop...? Really? Ok.

Certainly it has the same field of view on a 1.6x crop-frame camera as a 27-65mm lens would have on a full-frame camera, but that's not what you said. You left out the "on a full-frame camera" part both times, and you didn't mention how it "acts" like a 27-65mm lens (ie, the field of view part). Without comparing a crop-frame camera to anything else (why compare it to a 35mm film frame? why not compare it to a different frame size like 645?), a 17-40mm lens "acts" exactly like a 17-40mm lens. Or you could even go the other way around and say that a 17-40 lens on a full-frame camera "acts" like, or has the same field of view as, an 11-25 lens on a 1.6x crop-frame body. It makes no sense to say that a lens "acts" like a different lens unless you specify how it does so.

Yes, I am being pedantic, but that helps to avoid confusing some people (especially newbies) about the effects of cropping on the focal length of a lens. For example, many new photographers think that a 50mm lens somehow turns into an 80mm lens when they put it on a Canon APS-C body, which is obviously not the case (the optics in the lens do not change).

 

[o hey tyler]

im sorry but this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Your going to tell me that panda's crop sensor camera won't make a 17-40mm lens act like a 27-65 because of the 1.6 crop...? Really? Ok.

The 18-55 has the same FoV as a 29-88mm on a full frame camera. How is that so different?

 

[PandaMan]

So basically a 'full frame' lens will actually only work with a portion of the actual mm's? So as an example to help me understand this if i were to buy a 100mm it would work like a 50mm on my crop sensor?

 

[PandaMan]

I dont mean to start a debate but i do appreciate the enthusiasm to help me out!

 

[o hey tyler]

So basically a 'full frame' lens will actually only work with a portion of the actual mm's? So as an example to help me understand this if i were to buy a 100mm it would work like a 50mm on my crop sensor?

No, not at all. All we are talking about is FoV is different when using a full frame camera. This is meaningless to you, and mostly meaningless unless you shoot two formats. The main difference that you need to understand is that the 17-40L is only one mm wider than your kit lens. It's a good lens, yes. But not really not wider than your kit lens, and it's not any faster. Granted, those things may not matter to you.

 

[PandaMan]

Well i think quality is what im trying to gain most, however a wider lens would be great as well but not necessary. I want/need better quality for my portrait work, and want wider for personal artistic work. So i think at the moment im looking more for better quality for portraits than anything else.

 

[raaskohx10]

Kit lens 18-55 mm aperture set to f/8 can also take excellent portrait shots in good light.

 

[PandaMan]

So i ended up getting a macbook pro and a tamron 18-200. And besides the new lens i can see a world of difference in my photos on the macbook. I think the old laptop i was using couldnt handle the quality of my photos and led me to believe that it was my camera and lenses... So problem solved!

 

[o hey tyler]

So i ended up getting a macbook pro and a tamron 18-200. And besides the new lens i can see a world of difference in my photos on the macbook. I think the old laptop i was using couldnt handle the quality of my photos and led me to believe that it was my camera and lenses... So problem solved!

How exactly did your old laptop make your photos worse? I have an IBM laptop and my girlfriend has a new MacBook, but if we run the same photo through Lightroom and process it the identically, it comes out exactly the same.

 

[christop]

So i ended up getting a macbook pro and a tamron 18-200. And besides the new lens i can see a world of difference in my photos on the macbook. I think the old laptop i was using couldnt handle the quality of my photos and led me to believe that it was my camera and lenses... So problem solved!

I'm going to take a wild guess that your old laptop didn't have the display set to the monitor's native resolution, which can drastically degrade the image quality on the screen. That's the first thing that I would check on it if you still want to use it.

 

[PandaMan]

It was set up to the best of its ability.. My uncle in law who is a computer tech set it all up for me but it was kind of old and just wasnt cutting it, the photos didnt look sharp and if i would zoom in to try and fine edit the image started looking almost like an 8-bit video game. I uploaded a few photos to the macbook and they looked amazingly sharp and stayed that way even when i zoomed in really close. So i gained the quality i was looking to get through just being able to view the photos better as opposed to different camera equipment.