Best Lenses for my Canon T1i
I have done lots of research and read thousand of posts and reviews which leads me to want to acquire the following lenses.
First tho I would like to explain that I want to experience all types of photography including but not limited to Architecture, Landscape, Macro, Portrait, Sports and Nature. My emphasis is probably more nature sports and architecture, although I love macro as well.
I have a t1i with the kit lens and have purchased a EF 100 F/2.8 Macro USM.
At the top of my list are the following;
1. EF 70-200mm F/2.8L USM, FM rating 9.8, priced new from $1220 and used @ $800ish. Pros-Low light fast focus and sharp. Cons-Bulky and no IS.
2. EF 50mm F/1.4 USM, FM rating 9.0, priced new from $360 and used @ 320ish. Pros-Sharp,lightweight, compact, value and Bokeh. Cons-Build,motor issues and Wide open focusing.
3. Tamron AF 28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF), FM rating 8.7, priced new from $460 and used @ $350ish. Pros-Sharpness, contrast and value. Cons-Build AF-issues.
4. SIGMA 12-24mm F/4.5-5.6 Ex DG Aspherical HSM, FM rating 8.7, priced new from $750 and used @ $500ish. Pros-Sharpness and build. Cons-Slow focus and heavy.
OTHER HQ LENSES:
EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM - may be the best value but I wanted more speed.
EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM - highly rated but price and build are a concern.
EF 24-70mm F/2.8L USM - highly rated but heavy and pricey.
EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6L IS USM - highly rated, this lens covers a lot of ground and is lightweight but @$1600+ I am concerned that it may not get used. It is also not a low light lens.
EF 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6L IS USM - highly rated but very expensive $2400+ has great IQ and range but is not a walk around lens.
Since I am trying to get back in to photography after 25+ years away, I wanted to get some experience with many different lenses rather than focus on a few. Also, although price is somewhat of an issue, quality and value were more important. The way I figure it, I can always sell and upgrade if I need to.
Finally, should I be more concerned about the body? What do you FF guys think? In deference to Nikon, Pentax and Olympus, I have already gone down the slippery Canon slope.
Please comment and critique my thinking.
12-31-2009 12:29 PM
Purchase From Our Affiliates
Just curious, why not the 24-105 f4? I hear a lot of good things about it
Supa Dupa Poster
Yep. That is my most used lens. Small, Light and very sharp.
Originally Posted by ken74
If I were you I would mount a 70-200 2.8 on that camera before I buy one.
That is a big heavy lens on a small light camera. It may be hard to grip comfortably.
C&C always appreciated.
I have the Tamron 28-75, and it is great on full frame. On a crop format camera, I think I'd go with the Canon 17-55 f2.8. It is more expensive than the Tamron, but it has IS. Unless you like ultra-wide, you might not need the Sigma 12-24 if you got the Canon 17-55.
Last edited by rockpics; 12-31-2009 at 01:49 PM.
Shoot with a lens too long and you'll be weak at composing wides. Shoot too wide, you'll be weak at following action.
17-55/2.8+70-200+35/2, all you'll ever need.
I had my 24-70 f2.8 on my XTi for a while, even that lens was hard to handle on that body, really needed a grip. I couldn't imagine a 70-200 2.8 on it without a grip.
As far as my 24-70 i love it, a great general purpose lens. 70-200 2.8 IS is next on my list.
| Canon EOS 7D | 24-70mm f/2.8L | 75-300 F/4-5.6 | 50mm f/1.8 | 580EX II | 430EX | Vanguard Tracker 3 Tripod |
Photography does not make me money, but its my escape from life and that is priceless.
I Try not to suck.. see?
Since you have a crop sensor, instead of the 24-70L, I'd suggest you look in to the 17-55 IS 2.8. It may not be a L glass, but the quality says otherwise (and price), it truly is amazing, lighter. The 24-70 on the crop ended up being too long for general walk around...
From the rest of the list, another vote for the 70-200... just a marvellous lens.
If I was starting my lens collection at this point, I think it's hard to beat the 24-105 f/4 L lens as a good, all around quality lens to start with (I am seriously considering adding it to my bag and I have the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 24-70 f/2.8 already). That 24-105 would be my first lens and then I'd work out from there. In the meantime, that lens will give you a good range of focal lengths and will hold it's value very well. Another lens you may consider if you want something longer is the 200 mm f/2.8 L prime - I found with a zoom, I was usually at the end of the focal length anyway and the prime is smaller, lighter, fast and sharp, not to mention less $$$$ than the 70-200 zoom.
I don't know if you're a podcast listener, but they had a short discussion on the topic of lenses to use for video on Photofocus (episode 25) recently. Here is a link to the show notes. If you're going to shoot video, you might want to start with a lens that does that well first.
Last edited by linque; 12-31-2009 at 02:50 PM.
Reason: misread original post
Oh, and you asked about the body. I've had both crop and FF bodies. My advice is always to get the glass over the body. Once you have the glass and want FF, have it it. In the meantime, the bodies come and go these days and the glass lasts a lot longer, regardless of FF or not.
Agreed. I just picked up a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, and I can't believe I waited so long. Awesome walk around lens. 50mm f/1.4 is next on my list, then after that a 70-200, and i'm done.
Originally Posted by Daniel W.
I've really been thinking about the 17-55 f2.8. I've read that it is even slightly sharper than the 24-70 f2.8 L. Is there any problem mounting that to a 7D? I know you can't use them on a full frame like the 5D, and I know they'll work on my 40D (1.6x crop), but the 7D is a 1.3x crop.
Originally Posted by Eyemfaster
You Can't Be Serious!!
A sensor challenged DSLR won't do everything. You can throw lenses at it all day and still won't do everything.
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest.
"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" Kimi Raikkonen
Actually the 7D is 1.6 just like the 40D...
Originally Posted by linque