Hi
I currently have:
* Canon EOS 50D
* Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS
* Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS
I am thinking of getting the following:
* Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (in the next few days)
* Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (in the next few days)
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (when I’ve saved enough)
I plan on using the
* 100mm for floral work, bug/insect work, and portraits.
* 10-22mm for landscapes, architectural, and some event photography.
* 70-200mm to have as a general purpose telephoto lens.
I also plan to eventually sell the current lenses I have (18-55mm & 55-250mm).
I understand that if and when I choose to go full frame in the future, that the EF-S lens will not be compatible with the full frame camera.
Am I making the right decision? Am I choosing the correct lenses for the type of photography I want to do? Thoughts, opinions and advice will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Edwin, someone did recommend the EF 16-35mm as the full frame equivalent to the 10-22mm.
I’m just interested in how wide the 10-22mm can go, and how much more I can get of a building if I were to shoot one.
But now you have me seriously thinking about the constant aperture factor…….. like now I’m in a reallllll pickle LOL.
Realistically, it will be a little while before I go full frame. Maybe a 1-2 years. I’m not sure when, but I will.
At this point, I am just heavily focused on taking some really good photos. And I’m quite interested to see what kind of pics I can get with the 10-22mm wide open.
Keep the advice, opinions and thoughts coming though……. i need them.
As I understand it, if you put the 16-35mm in a cropped body you won’t actually be getting the 16-35mm … but 25.6mm-56mm considering the whole 1.6x crop factor??
I’m fairly ignorant of the whole crop factor, but I think that understanding is influencing my decision to go for the 10-22mm.
Tripod is covered. It’s not the best in town … but it will do for the time being.
Flash will come later. The lenses are more important to me at this stage than the flash.
I have some thinking to do before I make a definite purchase.
I am not a Canon user so can’t comment on the full frame compatibility etc.
But generally on the lenses.
Yes, looks like you have thought this out pretty well.
The 100mm macro is a good lens for your flowers and bugs and certainly can be used as a portrait lens
10-22 for landscapes and architectural – yes definitely. not sure about the event photography, depends on the type of event and photography. It is not really suitable as a "people" lens as it is a bit wide.
70-200 2.8 – again, good enough general purpose "longer" lens and I am assuming you want it for the speed as I believe the 55-250 is a 4.5-5.6.
Generally it seems a good enough choice – you have a range there from wide to telephoto with a couple of primes for the middle.
As I say, I don’t and haven’t used Canon for many years so can’t really comment on what those specific lenses are like or the compatibility issues are.
November 27th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Well, not many people on here will really know what you are on about – I sure didn’t.
The best thing to do is to ask a professional, there are lots of websites on the internet to do with camera’s and photography where you can ask questions and just look at stuff, so try checking one of them out.
References :
November 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Dee, I await the answers to your question when the real pros see it and yes anyone with an ounce of sense who comes to the photography section WILL know what you are talking so ignore the children who wander in to make such silly statements.
Good luck and I am marking your question for my own usage too!
References :
November 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I am not a Canon user so can’t comment on the full frame compatibility etc.
But generally on the lenses.
Yes, looks like you have thought this out pretty well.
The 100mm macro is a good lens for your flowers and bugs and certainly can be used as a portrait lens
10-22 for landscapes and architectural – yes definitely. not sure about the event photography, depends on the type of event and photography. It is not really suitable as a "people" lens as it is a bit wide.
70-200 2.8 – again, good enough general purpose "longer" lens and I am assuming you want it for the speed as I believe the 55-250 is a 4.5-5.6.
Generally it seems a good enough choice – you have a range there from wide to telephoto with a couple of primes for the middle.
As I say, I don’t and haven’t used Canon for many years so can’t really comment on what those specific lenses are like or the compatibility issues are.
References :
November 27th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Since you’re aware of the EF-S/full-frame problem I’m confused as to why you’d consider the 10-22mm. I understand your desire for a wide angle for landscapes but, in my opinion, there are a couple of choices worth considering.
EF 16-35mm f2.8L II USM
EF 17-40mm f4L USM
While neither of these lenses will give you the wide coverage of the 10-22mm, both are constant aperture and that means a lot. The 10-22 loses 2/3 of a stop when you zoom from 10mm to 22mm and that means a longer shutter speed. Could be the difference between a good picture and a slightly blurred one. Sure, you can always increase the ISO by a stop and get a slightly higher shutter speed at f4.5 than at f3.5 but will the noise be worth it?
Your other lenses choices are perfectly suited for your stated photographic interests.
I suggest adding a 50mm f1.4 lens to your arsenal just in case some of your event photography is in poorly lit, non-flash situations. Since f1.4 is a full two stops faster than f2.8 it will come in handy and allow a lower ISO. (If you’re getting 1/125 sec. at f1.4 at ISO 400, to get the same shutter speed at f2.8 requires ISO 1600 – two stops).
I don’t think its a question of "if" you’ll go full-frame. Its a question of when. So plan ahead and don’t spend your money on an EF-S lens which you’ll have to replace.
References :
38 years of learning about and enjoying photography.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
The 100mm macro is a good choice.
The 70-200 is another great lens. Depending on how much you’ll use it, and how important you find image stabilization and f/2.8, there are also three cheaper L-version 70-200mm options. And I trust you won’t sell the 55-250 until you upgrade. (If you can live without a tele lens for several months, you probably don’t require a $1700 upgrade.)
The 10-22mm is yet another fine choice. Great for landscapes and adequate for architecture. A tilt-shift lens would be even better for architecture, but you can’t be expected to invest in dedicated +$500 lenses for every shot. The 16-35 and 17-40 don’t make sense at this point. These would be great on a full frame body… but you don’t own one. If and when you upgrade to a 5D Mk2, that’s when you replace the 10-22 with either the 16-35 or 17-40.
Which brings us to the 18-55mm. For most people, that zoom range covers over 80% of their shots. So if you sell your standard zoom, what will you use in its place? Neither the 10-22 or the 55-250mm are very useful as a general purpose walk around lens. I’d keep the 18-55. In fact, I’d upgrade this lens before upgrading the 55-250. Perhaps even before adding the macro and ultra wide. You mention shooting events… if you sell the 18-55, what are you going to use?!
The two obvious standard zoom upgrades are the 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8. Well, obvious if +$1000 is no problem. Since you mentioned the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I’ll assume you’re okay with that. The 17-55 EF-S lens is perfect on the 50D. I’ve seen this lens used by countless 30D/40D/50D users and they all had a silly grin on their faces. (I’m a Nikon guy myself, and I use the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 on a D200.) The 24-70 is an EF lens – great on a full frame body but slightly awkward on a 50D. It’s an option, however, if you intend to go full frame sometime soon, have the 10-22 to go wider in the mean time, and don’t mind switching lenses on the 50D on a regular basis.
I whole heartedly second Edwin’s suggestion to add a 50mm f/1.4. It’s a super lens for low light situations, very shallow depth of field, as a short portrait lens on the 50D, and in general when you want to walk around with a relatively small and light weight setup (the f/2.8 zooms are big & heavy).
And at some point you’ll also want to get a decent tripod and a flash. Maybe you’ve already got that covered, but you didn’t mention it. Actually, you’ll want a good tripod right away to bring with you on trips with the landscape lens & macro. That’s mostly tripod work.
References :
November 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
The f/2.8 100mm is considered to be the best macro lens available for Canon at this focal length. You will need a tripod, as you would for any macro lens.
The f/2.8 70-200mm is generally regarded as the best lens bar none in this focal length/aperture range.
If you get either of these lenses, you will find no need to upgrade. They are at the top of the field.
I can’t address the 10-22mm. I do have the f/2.8 17-55mm EF-S lens, which seems to fill a gap in your midrange focal length. This lens is new, but is quickly developing a reputation for being top of the field.
I use these lenses on the 20D and 40D, which have the same crop factor as your 50D. Just multiply all the focal lengths by 1.6 to see what their 35mm film equivalent values would be.
One other thing. Use your own judgment as to whether or not you move to a 35 mm sensor (widely miscategorized as "full frame"). The person who told you that it’s not a question of if, but when, was revealing his personal bias. This is a quite common trait for those who use this class of cameras. Nevertheless, I’ve been shooting xxD cameras since the 20D came out. Before that, I shot film for decades. My images have been published and have won awards. One was blown up to 3×5 feet for display in an aquarium. For my own photographic style, I see no need to go to a larger sensor. In my opinion, the quality of images you get from the xxD cameras is nothing to be embarrassed about.
References :