# New lenses for me



## boateggs (Dec 21, 2011)

Ive been reading here for a while and there is a lot of good advice that I have read, thus I want more! I know most of you peeps shoot with mostly L glass, so my desires below might be a little low end but as a broke college kid i can only afford so much. I have and XSi, 18-55 kit lens, nifty fifty (been having a lot of fun with this in low light) and some tamron superzoom that has less contrast than a fog bank. I will not be a pro, just a someone who likes to shoot stuff and has another 30 years to get the perfect kit together.

Here is the deal, Ive been saving up for a while for a 70-200 f/4L IS, as I convinced myself that I needed it more than oxygen and was going to finally pull the trigger. Wicked lens I know and sharp like a fox is quick. Then I thought about how that lens would probably get used roughly 10-20% of the time. I also want the EF-S 15-85 (I want the expanded range over the 17-55 fast apature for a walk around lens and cant justify the price for a 17-55) and the Sigma 30 f/1.4 or Canon 35 f/2 (an appropriate length on a crop rather than the nifty, and still the low light/DOF that I am having fun playing around with).

I bought a 70-200 f/4L NON-IS at my local camera shop (I have since learned that this shop is less than decent) and returned it a week after because I wasn't happy with the sharpness. When I returned it, the guy processing the transaction laughed and said that THAT lens has been returned a number of times for the same reason so I am not sure that I want to completely write off the non-IS version.

I also know that I will get a new body within the next 2 years (I want higher than 800 useable ISO and better AF, dont care about higher MP), thinking whatever replaces the 7D or 60D and maybe whatever the low end full frame is out at the time. With the FF, I know that the 15-85 and Sigma will be incompatible and am not opposed to selling them later down the line.

Here is what I can't decide: get the 70-200 f/4 IS and only have mediocre everything else, or get 2 of the others (70-200 f/4 non-IS, 15-85 or fast-ish prime) and have a more complete/quality range knowing I will probably get the 70-200 IS down the line.

I'm leaning toward the 70-200 non-IS and the Sigma 30 f/1.4. I know the 15-85 would get more use than the 30 f/1.4 but would not let me learn DOF and low light as much. I'm also thinking that the 30 f/1.4 would change my mind about the 17-55 or maybe twist my arm into a 24-70L.

I'm just not sure what to get but know that I want more than the kit lens. Go forth and tell me how to spend my money!


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 21, 2011)

boateggs said:


> Ive been reading here for a while and there is a lot of good advice that I have read, thus I want more! I know most of you peeps shoot with mostly L glass, so my desires below might be a little low end but as a broke college kid i can only afford so much. I have and XSi, 18-55 kit lens, nifty fifty (been having a lot of fun with this in low light) and some tamron superzoom that has less contrast than a fog bank. I will not be a pro, just a someone who likes to shoot stuff and has another 30 years to get the perfect kit together.
> 
> Here is the deal, Ive been saving up for a while for a 70-200 f/4L IS, as I convinced myself that I needed it more than oxygen and was going to finally pull the trigger. Wicked lens I know and sharp like a fox is quick. Then I thought about how that lens would probably get used roughly 10-20% of the time. I also want the EF-S 15-85 (I want the expanded range over the 17-55 fast apature for a walk around lens and cant justify the price for a 17-55) and the Sigma 30 f/1.4 or Canon 35 f/2 (an appropriate length on a crop rather than the nifty, and still the low light/DOF that I am having fun playing around with).
> 
> ...



With a APSC sensor I don't think you'll get as much use out of the 70-200 as you would the others. All of the 70-200s are great, but I think you would get much more use out of the 17-55 or 15-85. And although I've never used the 15-85, I LOVED the 17-55 (there is a reason its that much more %). IS works very well, f/2.8 all the way through, and razor sharp (I thought it was easily sharper than the 24-70L and definitely the best non-L lens that I've used). 

I would seriously consider looking for a used 17-55, it's a great walk around lens ands very versatile. You could probably find one for $850-$900 used, I would recommend at least renting it for a bit before you buy the 15-85. 

As for the Sigma, I used the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 back when I had a T2i and it was a nice focal length, but wasn't sharp at all and the colors looked strange. If you're looking for primes maybe try the 100mm Macro (non-L), as you can use it for portraits or close-up photography. Or maybe a used 85mm f/1.8 (300-350 used). 

I'm not saying don't get a 70-200, I just think you would get much more use out of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS (and you could always get a 70-200 later).


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 21, 2011)

24-105L makes a good walkabout on APS-C as it gives some telephoto capability. The 17-55 is just a very good standard lens - neither wide angle nor telephoto.

Match the 24-105L with a 10-22 and you have the start of a good collection


----------



## boateggs (Dec 21, 2011)

Axilrod, thanks for the quick reply. What you were saying about the 70-200 was kinda what I was thinking, but as i have nothing useable in that range I'm not really sure. There are some times that i have wished that i had something with a lot of reach though.

As far as the primes go, I am leaning towards a wide fast one, not something that is very long. I dont have anything currently that covers 55+ so I dont know what lengths I would use. I want to get a long zoom before i get a long prime.
Thanks for the info on the Sigma 20mm. That was something I had looked into but read too many reviews of people blasting it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 21, 2011)

boateggs said:


> and some tamron superzoom that has less contrast than a fog bank.



HAHAA thats great i have to remember that one!

but back on topic 
I think you should stretch for the 17-55 over the 15 to 85 as the f2.8 is extremely valuable
if you are in the US keep an eye on the canon refurb site.

as far as a tele goes keep an eye out for the 70-200 f2.8 non IS they can be had at a reasonable price
and are outstanding i know a few people that have gotten good deals on them recently again see if the refurb site has them from time to time.


----------



## JR (Dec 21, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Match the 24-105L with a 10-22 and you have the start of a good collection



+1, this would make a great combo.


----------



## branden (Dec 21, 2011)

If you want to "stretch your feet" into the telephoto range, I think you'd be happier with the EF-S 55-250mm lens. It's more compact, has a bigger range, and is significantly cheaper. 

But really, you're not likely to go wrong with any option in the price range you're looking at.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 22, 2011)

If your 18-55mm is the non IS version, you might want to upgrade it. The IS version is quite good. All of the lenses you mentioned are very good, 17-55, 15-85, 70-200mm f/4, and the 24-105mm L.

Its just a matter of what focal length you want. Since it sounds like you are wanting a lens to keep forever, any of those fit into that category. The 55-250mm is also a good lens, but you will want to upgrade eventually.

A 70-200mm f/2.8 non-is is another excellent lens that can sometimes be found used for a reasonable price on the used market.

One lens that is low cost but quite good is the old long discontinued 70-210mm f/4 or f/3.5-f.4.5. I have found several on the used market for under $100, but they are not so easy to find any longer.

Here is a Cat photo (cropped to about 100%) from my 70-210mm f/4 (now belongs to my daughter).


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 22, 2011)

Depends on what and how you like to shoot. On APS-C bodies, my wife never takes off the 24-105, but I almost never take off the 70-200. Of course I'm mostly shooting outdoors; it can definitely get a little tight inside. Our 70-200 is the f/2.8 which reduces the need for IS for most of the time, but trying to catch some shots at my brother's graduation last weekend was pretty much impossible without the IS.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 22, 2011)

I have an XSi and a 7D and use a 17-55 f/2.8 almost exclusively and can't say enough great things about it. I've used it as a "walkaround" lens all over the world (London, Paris, Sydney...) and it has proven to be a great companion.

If you want to see photos taken with my XSi and that lens you can look here:

http://500px.com/friedmud

I also upload full res versions of all of my photos on Flickr. Here are a couple of good sets taken with the 17-55 and XSi:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedmud/sets/72157627889894423/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedmud/sets/72157624703902635/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedmud/sets/72157624141955305/


----------

