Lens purchase. Please give advice. urgent...

[DrRamesh Ayurveda]

Dear All,

I have been asking for camera reviews and purchase options and with all the advises I received, I have finalized on the Canon 7D body and now its the lens part.

I have been looking at four of them. EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S 18-200m f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the 50mm f/1.8 Mk2. I have almost fixed my mind on the last one.
I do like the reviews i read about the 18-135 IS STM. Expecting more on that one so that I could pretty much fix on that. The areas I wish to include is, general walk around photos, medium distance shots and wild life (limited), travel and bit of panoramic greenery and pets etc..
Thanks to all for the support and advice.

Many thanks
Hari

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi,

Please check out this thread about lenses.

Which lens good for what?

Hope this helps

Vic

[Scott Stephen]

It would be tough to pick a single lens that would do everything well enough that you would be happy with the results. Generally speaking the less a lens does, the better it is at it. In designing a lens that tries to do everything (18-200mm) you have to make compromises which make it less than ideal at anything, and so image quality suffers.

Most people would have more than one lens. The beauty of having the 50mm f/1.8 is that it is so cheap ($120.00 US) that you can have it and a second lens without much impacting your budget. The 50mm is great for portraits on a crop sensor 7D, since it is equal to 80mm on a full frame camera. It is also very good in lower light, since at f/1.8 it lets in between 3 and 4 times as much light as the other choices. The 50mm lens, however, would not be wide enough for your panoramic/scenery shooting. Neither would the 70-300mm lens.

You may want to consider the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 lens. It is a very useful focal range, from wide angle up to a short telephoto when considering the crop sensor 1.6x magnification factor. It also has very high image quality; the best of the EF-s lenses, actually. You can get a used one for $800.00 US. Maybe pair that with the 70-300 and you will have a decent lens to cover basically all the focal lengths you need. Add in that cheap "nifty fifty" and you will also have the low-light shooting covered.

[rpcrowe]

Scott wrote:

"Add in that cheap "nifty fifty" and you will also have the low-light shooting covered. "

Actually, I consider the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens as a better low light glass than the "Nifty-Fifty".

It has better IQ and far better focusing in low light levels. Although f/2.8 is a bit over a stop slower than the f/1.8 of the nifty fifty, It is still quite decent for low light shooing when combined with IS. I realize that IS doesn't stop subject movement but, f/2.8 at a bit higher ISO is quite useable. This is expecially true when you are shooting at f/2.8 with a lens that will nail the AF and not hunt aound in dim light situations as does the "Nify Fifty".

[Polar01]

As I use Nikon, and know a number of Canon shooter, if it was myself, I would go with that 50mm and that 70-300mm. As some of your suggestions overflow one another as one lens will not do everything, my final suggestion would be the 17-40mm f/4, if you be a good general lens and I know a number of landscape photographers that swear by (not at) that lens. As your D7 has a crop sensor 17-40 would be in the area of 27-64mm , 50mm around 80mm and the 70-300 again around 112-480mm. With these 3 lens you would be covered for almost anything. The 17-40mm is a lens that you may never upgrading from as it is that good, also the 50mm, so in the long run you save money, The 70-300mm is the one lens, that I see you upgrading from in the future you will want a faster glass.
These are only the thoughts of a Nikon shoot, however that is more or less what the range I have myself.

Cheers:

Allan

[Colin Southern]

Quite a few other factors also come into lens selection, such as weight, price, and quality -- and also whether or not you'd prefer fewer lenses that cover a wider range of lengths, or more lenses that offer their own advantages, but that you find yourself changing more often (with the associated risk of sensor dust).

By the sound of it, I'm getting a gut-feeling that you'd prefer something that has a versatile range - is of good (but not professional quality) - and is not excessively large nor heavy?

My personal view of prime lenses is that - in this day and age - they're pretty much a waste of money unless you need some specialist aspect that only they cater for (keep in mind that in saying that I actually have more specialist primes than I do zooms, but it's a zoom that's on my camera 95% of the time) (If you're wondering why I even have them, it's because - as a professional photographer - I'm expected to have all the tools needed for whatever the clients need me to capture and - unfortunately - on rare occasions, they're a necessary evil).

- Traditionally (decades ago) folks used primes because zooms weren't sharp enough -- but that advantage has long since evaporated in real-world photography terms.

- Traditionally (years ago) folks used primes because they offered advantages in low-light situations -- but lack of depth of field was often/usually a downside of using them wide open, and these days - with cameras that offer ridiculous clean extreme ISO modes, the NEED to use them for low-light situations has - in my opinion anyway - all but evaporated too (plus, small portable flash usually make a huge difference to the quality of the light and thus the photo) (unless of course you're a spy operating in a foreign country and need to take photos without people noticing!).

- Some will advocate that they still hold a size/weight advantage; true technically but I doubt that it makes much difference once the size/weight of the camera (and other associated equipment) is taken into account.

- The biggest downside - again, in my opinion, is that they restrict you to only taking photos that suit that particular focal length and field of view, so from a different perspective, it's the lens that dictates what you can photograph rather than you having the freedom to capture any darn thing you want -- and that's just not the way I like to shoot (my lenses are there to work FOR me, they're not there to dictate what I can or cannot shoot). Some will say "just zoom with your feet" - unfortunately though, there are often 2 issues with that theory (1) zooming with your feet may well take you off the edge of a cliff or put you in the middle of a motorway and (2) more importantly, it changes the perspective between foreground and background objects.

For all intents and purposes, if you already have a zoom then you already have many primes!

Having just said all that - usually - on a crop-factor camera like yours - folks have a need for something at the wider end like 18mm (approx 28mm equivalent on your camera) - so I'd rule out the 70-300 initially. Out of the 18-135 and 18-200, personally, I'd go for the 18-200 if you're planning on investing in only one lens -- if you're thinking of ever investing in the venerable 70-200 series though, then you might want to rethink that (I do the majority of my shooting with my EF70-200 F2.8L IS USM II lens).

Hope some of this helps.

[Shadowman]

I don't think you can ever anticipate what your shooting needs will be from year to year, it changes as you evolve as a photographer. If you are buying new get the kit lens if it is offered, if you can substitute another focal range for a decent price then would be the time to look at other lens choices. Some photographers are content with one lens only, others like having a lens that will cover their entire shooting range, and some photographers dislike changing lenses in the field, especially if sand is a blowing, and some photographers carry two camera bodies so they don't have to change lenses.

[inkista]

The thrifty fifty is probably the best bang-for-the-buck lens in Canon's lineup, but that's mostly because it's so cheap. It does have a few drawbacks: a plastic mount and barrel, a tiny manual focus ring, soft wide open, etc. Optically, it is on a par with the more expensive EF 50/1.4 USM, but the build quality and usability is where Canon saved on cost. And it's a little long for general-purpose use on a crop body.

To me, the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is a good alternative. Here in the US, it's $150 vs. $100 for an EF 50mm f/1.8 II. It has a silent focus motor, which the 50/1.8 II doesn't. It's got a metal mount and barrel. It's a pancake lens, so it's even smaller. And it's a little wider, which makes it closer to "normal" on a corp body (64mm equiv vs. 80mm). And it's a little sharper than the 50/1.8 II when both lenses are at f/2.8. And the 50/1.8 II only really starts to get sharp around f/2.8. So if you can live without the 1.3 stop difference, this is definitely a good contender.

The reason you don't see folks recommending the 40/2.8 for newbs is that it only came out last year, so not a lot of folks have experience with it. The 50/1.8 II's been around since 1990.

[William W]

I have been looking at four [lenses]. EFF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, EF-S 18-200m f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the 50mm f/1.8 Mk2. I have almost fixed my mind on the 50mm f/1.8Mk2]
I do like the reviews i read about the 18-135 IS STM. Expecting more on that one so that I could pretty much fix on that. The areas I wish to include is, general walk around photos, medium distance shots and wild life (limited), travel and bit of panoramic greenery and pets etc..

Why, specifically have you been looking at those four lenses?
Why have you almost fixed your mind on the 50mm Prime?

***

IF you want "urgent" advice - then buy the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM.
You have chosen a brilliant camera that lens will be ever so sweet, on it.

Use that combination camera and lens and learn what it is that you really want out of your Photography.

If you are a medical ‘doctor’, I expect that you don't skimp on a second rate sphygmomanometer, stethoscope and other tools of your trade - but rather you might know the value of buying quality, even if it the full usages and purposes are beyond the grasp and skill's set of the Intern – but it is best (and also fun) to learn on good a set of quality basic gear, no?

If, on the other hand you have a ‘doctorate’ - a PhD, (perhaps) in the Subject of 17th Century English Poets – then hold the above advice as I will have to take a moment to ponder another analogy which incorporates: Mistresses; Lust; The Church; Death and other Metaphysical treats . . .
And if I can fit in a Sonnet or two from Donne - that would make me very happy.

In the mean time, buy one standard zoom lens (as per the above advice) - and start shooting.

WW

[Colin Southern]

If you are a medical ‘doctor’, I expect that you don't skimp on a second rate sphygmomanometer, stethoscope and other tools of your trade

I didn't!

Lets see if the good Dr. White can figure that one out!

[William W]

haha!
My guess is you have those tools for a very similar reason, I have mine:



WW

[Colin Southern]

haha!
My guess is you have those tools for a very similar reason, I have mine:



WW

Doing moonlight surgery to supplement our incomes as professional photographers?

PS: Those automatic sphygmomanometers are cheating -- you just can't beat listening with a stethoscope!

[William W]

I traded up to the auto version, because it has a 'memory' . . . no need to keep record cards, anymore.

But, I still use "M" Mode on my Canons.


WW

[nimitzbenedicto]

Why, specifically have you been looking at those four lenses?
Why have you almost fixed your mind on the 50mm Prime?

WW

Perhaps because it's urgent as in emergency?

[William W]

haha!
perhaps there will now be a run on medical puns . . .

[Colin Southern]

haha!
perhaps there will now be a run on medical puns . . .

With pressures rising, all we can do is keep our fingers on the pulse!

[Donald]

Perhaps because it's urgent as in emergency?

But surely there has been time to arrive at a proper diagnosis based on an assessment of the presenting problems and symptoms that need addressed. The cures prescribed in posts above look as though they would treat the problem adequately.

[pnodrog]

haha!
My guess is you have those tools for a very similar reason, I have mine:



WW

I doubt this photo will scare Colin - in fact it looks totally armless.

[Colin Southern]

I doubt this photo will scare Colin - in fact it looks totally armless.

Hmmm. It's comments like that that give me a systolic of 190 over a diastolic of 125!!!

[pnodrog]

The only thing ending in olic that I know about starts with an A and I can probably find proof of it.