# Need help deciding on my next lens



## megmo (Jul 9, 2014)

I very recently bought a Canon 70d (which I am loving so far), and am now on the hunt for my next lens. Currently I have the following lenses in my bag:

Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
I also have the kit lens that came with my Rebel XTi years ago but I never use it.

The Sigma 28-70 stays on my camera most of the time when I'm out and about, but I've found that it's a bit soft and some of the pictures I take with it tend to have a yellow tint to them. 

I'd really, really love to get the 24-70 L, and I see that since the second version has come out the previous is down to about $1,500. That's my max budget, though, so I wanted to get some opinions on whether there's another lens out there that might be cheaper and work for me just as well for a lens I can use while out and about.

Here are the lenses I'm considering plus their current pricing (approximately):
Canon 24-70 f/4 L ($1500)
Canon 24-105 f/4 L ($1150)
Canon 17-40 f/4 L ($839)
Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 ($649)
Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye (I rented this years ago and found it neat and unbelievably sharp. Plus it's only $609)

I'd love to get some feedback on any of these lenses, or possibly others that I've left out of my consideration. Thanks in advance!


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2014)

You seem to have the midrange covered really well, so I'd go for the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 or a telephoto lens - tell us what you shoot to help us give you the best advice.


----------



## megmo (Jul 9, 2014)

Well, besides my three very photogenic cats in the house ( :), I tend to shoot things outside on the street. Festivals, architecture, landscapes when I go hiking/camping. I like to travel and will bring my camera with me everywhere when I'm on vacation. I'll also shoot birthday parties or other family/friend gatherings, but not for money. I've shot a couple of weddings but that was for friends who couldn't pay for a photographer and were having low-key, non-formal weddings so I did it as a gift. That was some serious stress, though, and not something I want to get into.

I really don't have a "thing," which I think is why the 24-70 appeals to me. I've heard it's a great general purpose lens. But I suppose the others I've listed could be, too?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

megmo said:


> Canon 24-105 f/4 L ($1150)
> Canon 24-70 f/4 L ($1500)



Having shot with a 28-105 for quite some time on crop in hindsight I have to say this is an awkward focal length, with 24-70 * 1.6 you're missing out the most interesting parts.



megmo said:


> Canon 17-40 f/4 L ($839)



I've also shot with this on crop as a "standard" zoom, but advise against it unless you're moving to full frame - the 17-40L is soft up to f8 when pressed to this resolution. If you're really in for this focal length with the ff option, at least get the new 16-35L-IS.



megmo said:


> Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 ($649)



Now *that* does sound like a lens matching your camera and with an interesting focal length at last! Also consider the Tokina f2.8 uwa if you don't need the Canon's zoom range.



megmo said:


> Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye (I rented this years ago and found it neat and unbelievably sharp. Plus it's only $609)



Without putting too much a fine point on it: using L wide angle or esp. uwa lenses built for ff on crop is like putting the wrong tires on your car. The manufacturer has to take a lot of hassle building these but on crop with the smaller mirror, ef-s uwa lenses are much simpler designs and have a much better $$$-image quality relation. The one catch is that non-L lenses aren't sealed (thanks, Canon!).

The usual disclaimer: It's impossible to give good advice unless you tell us what you're actually shooting (wildlife, portrait, landscape, astronomy, ...) and what you're missing, apart from more sharpness and better color accuracy that is.


----------



## megmo (Jul 9, 2014)

Thank you for the help!



Marsu42 said:


> Having shot with a 28-105 for quite some time on crop in hindsight I have to say this is an awkward focal length, with 24-70 * 1.6 you're missing out the most interesting parts.



At risk of sounding like a dumbass (which, ok, I kind of am right now), what do you mean? I have two friends who shoot with a Canon 60d and swear by their 24-70s. The images I've seen look really nice, too. Or do you mean it just isn't as good of a lens on a crop than it is a full frame?

As far as what I shoot... I don't really have a "thing." I tend to shoot festivals, parties, walking around downtown in my city, some landscape stuff (when I'm hiking or camping)... basically whatever I see when I'm out and about. I don't do portrait photography much. I carry my camera with me any time I'm going somewhere that might be interesting.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2014)

megmo said:


> Thank you for the help!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On a full frame, the 24-70 and 24-105 focal length gives you wide to moderate telephoto, but on a crop, it's just normal (24x1.6 = 34mm) to telephoto (112mm / 168mm). On crop bodies, 34mm just isn't wide enough for a lot of shots. Both lenses are amazing, but they don't really shine unless they are on a FF body. 

I think the best general purpose lens for crop bodies (assuming you're not planning to go full frame anytime soon) is the 15-85 IS. It's a bit slower, but has IS and you have fast primes. It's equivalent to the 24-105 on full frame which is a killer general purpose range.


----------



## John (Jul 9, 2014)

hey,
if i were you, then i would probably get the 24-105 f/4 lens. it is a great all-around lens that you will keep on your camera most all of the time. you will love the lens and it has a great zoom range, weathersealing, and good sharpness. it is also relatively lightweight for a zoom and comes with IS. i strongly encourage you to just go ahead and buy it. 

good luck with your decision. i am guessing that you would do best with an all-purpose lens. the only thing that the 24-105 lens lacks is the 2.8 aperture, but i don't think u will miss it all that much. it will go to f/4 which gives a decent blur to your backgrounds and works just fine even under relatively low light conditions.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 9, 2014)

If you are not going to upgrade to a full frame, don't get the 24-105 but get the 15-85, which is designed for crop. It is a very sharp lens and the 15-24mm end is far more useful than the 85-105.


----------



## megmo (Jul 9, 2014)

Thanks, y'all! The 15-85 wasn't even on my list, but it looks promising and is well within my budget. 

I think I'll end up renting the 15-85, 10-22 and the 24-105 for a weekend so I can play with all three and see what I end up liking best. I'm leaning more toward the 15-85 and the 10-22 now since they're made specifically for a crop sensor and are much less expensive.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

megmo said:


> At risk of sounding like a dumbass (which, ok, I kind of am right now), what do you mean? I have two friends who shoot with a Canon 60d and swear by their 24-70s. The images I've seen look really nice, too. Or do you mean it just isn't as good of a lens on a crop than it is a full frame?



The 24-70 range is meant for ff because 24mm is as wide as you can go w/o considerable optical distortion "effect" and the long is limited by them mostly being f2.8 ... for f4 lenses, 24-105 gives you much more flexibility. It's just that Canon marketing decided that they'd do the 24-70/4 because people will have to buy *another* lens, meaning 70-200 or 70-300mm, meaning $$$ for Canon. 

With crop, what you actually get is 24-70 * 1.6 = 38-112 which is in between everything and tends to be boooooring. If I look at the shots I like best, they are either wa or uwa (certainly <38mm) or at least medium tele (i.e. 135mm+). Of course ymmv and you can always crop, but missing the wide end certainly is limiting.



mackguyver said:


> I think the best general purpose lens for crop bodies (assuming you're not planning to go full frame anytime soon) is the 15-85 IS.



+1, this would have been my choice when I'd have stayed with crop only, a much underestimated lens and when in doubt you really don't need a fixed f-stop lens unless you know you do. Also don't buy into the red ring hype w/o a good reason, your shots don't get any better because you're getting an adrenaline rush by feeling "pro".


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2014)

Shouldn't the excellent EFs 17-55 f2.8 be considered ?


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Jul 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Shouldn't the excellent EFs 17-55 f2.8 be considered ?


This and the 15-85. It's pretty much the same debate full frame cameras have between the 24-70 and the 24-105.

I have the 15-85 and it's a great lens. Nice and sharp. Decent maximum magnification (.20x, I believe).


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Shouldn't the excellent EFs 17-55 f2.8 be considered ?



Considered, yes, but imho then dismissed unless you need constant f because what's the use of getting a fast zoom on crop? If you're that desperate for light or thin dof go ff (if you can cough up the $$$), otherwise crop is all about flexibility, reach and having fun shooting.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Jul 9, 2014)

I have the 15-85 and the 24-70 f4. To be fair, I typically use my 70-200 on my 6d and my 100-400 on my 70d (I most shoot wildlife). I don't use either the 15-85 extensively or the 24-70. But I have shot both and the 15-85 is remarkable for the price. 

With all that said, I never use the 24-70 on the 70d it is indeed just an awkward range. If you intend on sticking with crop I'd definitely recommend the 15-85. It is a great lens


----------



## Salomon (Jul 9, 2014)

You might as well consider the 18-35 f1.8 Sigma Art Lens, which is around 900$ at amazon.com
This is a great lens, which I loved to use frequently und would highly recommend for APS-C Sensors. It serves a lot of purposes, especially shooting people on festivals and parties with an 1.8 aperture. Landscapes should work, too, with its sharpness across the field. It might be a little bit long for shooting architecture though. And its heavy. Very heavy.

So if you're looking for a high quality lens and can live with some weight, this should be on your list.


----------



## brad-man (Jul 9, 2014)

megmo said:


> Thanks, y'all! The 15-85 wasn't even on my list, but it looks promising and is well within my budget.
> 
> I think I'll end up renting the 15-85, 10-22 and the 24-105 for a weekend so I can play with all three and see what I end up liking best. I'm leaning more toward the 15-85 and the 10-22 now since they're made specifically for a crop sensor and are much less expensive.



The 15-85 and the 10-22 are excellent choices. Combined with the lenses you already own (sell the Sigma ), you will have wide to moderate telephoto very well covered. If you're not in a hurry, wait for canon to have a sale on their refurbished lenses. Very recently the 10-22 was going for $400 which is a silly good price. The 15-85 can be had for around $550. A great site to keep track of all prices Canon is http://www.canonpricewatch.com/.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Shouldn't the excellent EFs 17-55 f2.8 be considered ?
> ...



For exactly the same reason one might want a fast zoom on anything else. 

Crop is 'all about' getting 95% of the product for 50% of the price.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 10, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Crop is 'all about' getting 95% of the product for 50% of the price.



Well, I guess that was in the bad ol' times. Unless you're completely broke getting a 6d or used 5d2 gets you into into ff territory at a budget recently unheard of. Heck, even *I* have got a ff, and that's sayin' something. For 50% of a 6d you're getting a Rebel, and I somehow doubt you'll want to produce anything with that kind of usability.


----------



## fragilesi (Jul 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Crop is 'all about' getting 95% of the product for 50% of the price.
> ...



Yet oddly there are millions of people taking pictures they are perfectly happy with using Rebels every day. I know I did.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 10, 2014)

This question often crops up but I'm loathe to name a lens, I prefer asking, explain the photos you want to take.

Somewhere in your mind, you dream of taking a certain range of photos that you want to take. See the image then ask which lens can help you realise that shot.

I have been guilty of chasing gear and asked questions like this before. I get advise from very credible folk and follow up and read reviews, opinions etc and I lock and buy.

Months after I bought the lens, I took less than 100 shots with the lens and I realised it's because the images I wanted to take, needed a different lens.


----------



## robbinzo (Jul 10, 2014)

I own the 70D and have both the 15-85 and 10-22mm EFS lenses. Both lenses are excellent. 
To be perfectly honest, the 10-22 doesn't get much use now that I own the 15-85mm and I would suggest that you either have one or the other. 
The 15-85mm is a very good lens and feels well balanced on a 70D. You will like it.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> For 50% of a 6d you're getting a Rebel, and I somehow doubt you'll want to produce anything with that kind of usability.



650D + 24-105L @ about 35mm

It's not about the bike.


----------



## mustafaakarsu (Jul 10, 2014)

If I limit myself to your list, I'd go with 10-22, it was like permanently attached to my 7D.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 10, 2014)

One lens solution, for walk-around use: EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. This lens has very good image quality through the range. Yes, it is rather dim, and can't make a narrow depth of field shot, but still, it is my go-to lens for light travel, landscape shooting during hiking (when I don't know what to expect and don't want to take heavy multilens kit), and indoors with adults. Now, I don't do video and don't have a 70D, so there is no value for me in having an STM lens as opposed to an ordinary AF lens. I have made 2 ft by 3 ft laser prints from this lens and a 60D, and the fact that it isn't a high-pixel camera doesn't matter at the intended viewing distance of two to three feet.

Lightweight two lens solution, for walk-around and travel use: the 15-85 and either the 70-300L f/variable IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS or non-IS (IS is preferable but if you can only afford $400.00 for a tele zoom, the f/4 non-IS give fantastic quality). I chose the 70-200 f/4 L IS.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 10, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> Yet oddly there are millions of people taking pictures they are perfectly happy with using Rebels every day. I know I did.



I admit I really do find this odd esp. if you've used at least a xxd camera type before - the Rebels are so crippled in the fw (well, Magic Lantern somewhat compensates) and body usability (small grip, no back wheel, no nothing) that I wouldn't want to use this handheld all day long. Probably doesn't matter on a tripod for landscape though.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 11, 2014)

megmo said:


> I very recently bought a Canon 70d (which I am loving so far), and am now on the hunt for my next lens. Currently I have the following lenses in my bag:
> 
> Canon 50mm f/1.8
> Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro
> ...



How about a 35mm f/2 IS?


----------



## fragilesi (Jul 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > Yet oddly there are millions of people taking pictures they are perfectly happy with using Rebels every day. I know I did.
> ...



I don't think I'm getting what you are saying. Are you really suggesting that there aren't hordes of Rebel users who are very happy with their cameras just because there are more advanced models further up the range? I took tens of thousands of pictures with one and loved every minute before I upgraded to the 70d.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 11, 2014)

If you are looking for an all in one, then it's hard to go wrong with either the 15-85 or 17-55 for a crop camera. There also is the 10-22 which is a fun lens to own. I own both the 10-22 and 17-55 and can vouch for both being great lenses. I do not have the 15-85, but many members of this forum do have them and all say it's a great lens for a crop camera. For your budget listed, you could do both 10-22 and 15-85, but you may find that 15mm will be wide enough for you and you will not use the 10-22.

I'm not trying to spend all of your money, but you may be able to swing the 15-85 and a prime lenses, such as the 100 F2, or even a refurbished 135L. Heck, even a refurbished non-IS 70-200F4 L may be a possibility for you. Canon's refurbished lines usually go on sale once a quarter and refurb products come with a year warranty. It's a good way to make the most of your money.


----------



## colvinatch (Jul 11, 2014)

Here is my take: 

Canon 24-70 f/4 L I own this lens and love it, very sharp corner to corner and contrasty, never thought I would use the built in macro feature until I found myself a couple of hundred yards into the woods from my bag (left it in the car) and happened upon a great macro shot, now I love the built in macro feature. A great outdoor / landscape lens but a bit pricey, never leaves my 5D.

Canon 24-105 f/4 L A good option if you are wanting to save money, a bit soft at the edges


Canon 17-40 f/4 L I own this lens and use it alot when the 24-70 isn't wide enough. A decent lens for indoor group shots (with strobes only) a touch soft at the edges, nothing noticeable. Waiting on Canon's newest superwides to decide whether to trade it or not. Remember your crop factor, this is not as wide as the numbers would lead you to believe, makes a good walking around lens on the 70D.

Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 Owned it a few years back, outstanding glass, super sharp and ablot of fun for landscapes, Canon has a new 10-18 out that is ablot cheaper and is supposedly a good performer, should force the price of used versions of these down. Great for landscapes on a APS-C camera.

Never used the Sigma, so I can't comment. 

It appears as if you are shopping for wide angle lenses, the 10-22 is a real superstar on the crop body cameras and acts like a 16 mm lens at the wide end, which is very wide with very little distortion, I would look for it used on e-bay for around $500.00. 

On the other end, you may want to take a look at the 70-200 f4.0 L IS, (usually around $1200.00) $1000 cheaper than the f2.8 version with the best IQ of any of Canon's zooms, it always amazes me.

Happy shooting


----------



## megmo (Jul 11, 2014)

brad-man said:


> The 15-85 and the 10-22 are excellent choices. Combined with the lenses you already own (sell the Sigma ), you will have wide to moderate telephoto very well covered. If you're not in a hurry, wait for canon to have a sale on their refurbished lenses. Very recently the 10-22 was going for $400 which is a silly good price. The 15-85 can be had for around $550. A great site to keep track of all prices Canon is http://www.canonpricewatch.com/.



Oh nice, thank you! I'll definitely start keeping an eye on that site.



colvinatch said:


> Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 Owned it a few years back, outstanding glass, super sharp and ablot of fun for landscapes, Canon has a new 10-18 out that is ablot cheaper and is supposedly a good performer, should force the price of used versions of these down. Great for landscapes on a APS-C camera.



I actually just heard about the 10-18 today but I haven't seen many reviews on it comparing it to the 10-22 yet. Is it supposed to be a newer, more superior version of the 10-22?


----------

