What are you Canon guys using for...

[MIKE1218]

lenses? I am looking to eventually upgrade. Looking for more wide angle as I like to take shots on the course. But I'd also like a lens that has a little longer focal length than the kit lens. Maybe a wide angle prime and a zoom. Looks like the canon 28-135 IS is available for less than $300. I'm still checking out reviews, and haven't found a wide angle I might want to get yet though. Just curious what you guys are using. Do remember, if you recommend anything, that I am very budget conscious. I'll probably have to move some clubs to snag a new lens sometime this summer.

Anybody notice that most camera forums are absolutely gigantic? The first one I checked out I liked a lot, but each subforum has more members viewing it at any one time than visit ST in a day. :laugh:

 

[slickpitt]

I'm assuming you have the 18-55 IS kit lens.

When we got our camera we went with the 55-250 IS lens. That way we have the range from 18-250 covered. We've had great results with this lens so far. So bang for the buck I think this will fit in with what you're trying to do. They generally run around $299, you might be able to find some one sale or a good used one if you shop around.

EOS (SLR) Camera Systems - Telephoto Zoom - Telephoto Zoom - EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - Canon USA Consumer Products

 

[Eracer]

All I can tell you is this...

Look for the lens within your budget with the widest possible aperture (lowest 'f' number) at any given focal length.
Everything else is secondary.

This guy is an expert lens reviewer.

Which Canon lens(es) should I buy?

 

[eclark53520]

i'm just using the kit lens now, but my next purchase is probably going to be EITHER

17-55 2.8/F runs around 900ish
OR
50 1.8 which is pretty cheap 100 or so, so i migth get the 1.4/f which is more expensive but supposed to be much higher quality around 400 i think

Not sure yet which i am gonig to go with first...i like the zoom capability my only problem is with the 5.6 arpeture zoomed in i haev to use really slow shutter speeds to get proper exposure which means i pretty much cannot take any photos of my daughter...she moves too fast...

 

[Eracer]

i'm just using the kit lens now, but my next purchase is probably going to be EITHER

17-55 2.8/F runs around 900ish
OR
50 1.8 which is pretty cheap 100 or so, so i migth get the 1.4/f which is more expensive but supposed to be much higher quality around 400 i think

Not sure yet which i am gonig to go with first...i like the zoom capability my only problem is with the 5.6 arpeture zoomed in i haev to use really slow shutter speeds to get proper exposure which means i pretty much cannot take any photos of my daughter...she moves too fast...

ualtim seems to know his stuff, and he got the cheaper f1.8 50mm lens, and has been very happy with it. The question is, will the extra full stop of the more expensive lens make enough of a difference (1/30th vs. 1/60th sec.) to be worth it?

I've thought about getting this lens (which works only with the APS-C (1.6x) sensor, as found on the Rebel,) since I like superwide-angle shots. It's about $700 on the street.

Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM

Personally, I think a superwide zoom, plus a standard 50mm kit lens, plus a good telephoto, is a great basic setup.

 

[eclark53520]

Yeah, i think i am going to go with the 1.8/f but i have heard rumors that the 1.4 lens itself is of higher quality material...faster AF and such...i dont think i will need a really fast AF and i doubt i will be very hard on the lens so i realy cant justify the extra 200$ for one Fstop

I might actually check out a local camera store i want to see if they rent out lenses as i really want to try a couple different ones to see what i really want.

I really would like to do wildlife, but holy crap the lenses you need for solid photo's of wildlife are HUGE $$$...maybe some day

 

[Eracer]

Yeah, i think i am going to go with the 1.8/f but i have heard rumors that the 1.4 lens itself is of higher quality material...faster AF and such...i dont think i will need a really fast AF and i doubt i will be very hard on the lens so i realy cant justify the extra 200$ for one Fstop

I might actually check out a local camera store i want to see if they rent out lenses as i really want to try a couple different ones to see what i really want.

I really would like to do wildlife, but holy crap the lenses you need for solid photo's of wildlife are HUGE $$$...maybe some day

Me too. Some day I will get a good prime lens. Like this $6600 beauty:

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM

Oh heck, maybe I'll just rent it for $25/day.

 

[eclark53520]

Me too. Some day I will get a good prime lens. Like this $6600 beauty:

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM

Oh heck, maybe I'll just rent it for $25/day.

MMMmmmmm L glass!

I'm sure u already know but Canon will make a 1200mm 2.8/f(i think) lens on special PREPAID order...for around $75,000

I about crapped myself when i saw that price tag...

 

[Eracer]

MMMmmmmm L glass!

I'm sure u already know but Canon will make a 1200mm 2.8/f(i think) lens on special PREPAID order...for around $75,000

I about crapped myself when i saw that price tag...

That was the 'Brown Noise'.

(Actually, it's a 1200mm/f5.6 lens)

 

[MIKE1218]

I considered the 55-250 at first, don't want that much telephoto. I'm mainly looking for something to replace the kit lens, but with a little more telephoto. Plus I'd like to get away from the plastic mount, no distance scale, etc. The 28-135 IS sounds like exactly what I want. The reviewer Eracer suggested likes it as well.

I will probably get a 50 f/1.8 just because of the price. And I still haven't found a wide/superwide lens that I can afford. I think I will probably go for the 28-135 and just use the kit lens at 18mm. I've noticed that it isn't sharp at all wide open at 18mm though. Gets a little better around f/8.

 

[ualtim]

The 50mm 1.8 is a steal at the price they are giving it away at. I doubted it, but bought one anyway and have been very pleased with the results. While the 1.4 is obviously better build quality, you can buy four of the 1.8's and still be ahead. Focus time on the 1.8 is pretty much normal for a mid to low grade Canon lens, but since I am not shooting high speed action with it, it does not really matter. Its a great low light lens and produces some excellent bokeh when needed.

I have gotten to the point where I will no longer pay for slow glass. I rather go with Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma and get faster glass at affordable prices. The lone exception is in the telephoto arena. f2.8 glass over 200mm is just plain expensive and outside of my budget.

The next piece of glass that I may eventually get into will be a 70-200 f2.8. Canon, Sigma, and Tamron all make fine examples with the Sigma and Tamron version being a lot more affordable.

Current bag of glass:

Prime:

Canon 50mm f1.8
Tamron 90mm Macro f2.8

Zoom:

Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Tokina 80-400mm f4.5-f5.6

I have a few other lenses in the big bag, but the are just slower Canon versions of the above lenses.

Spend a little more and get the faster lens if you can afford it. I have been very pleased with my Tamron glass especially in low light situations. Its not a Canon L series, but picture quality is very close to an L series but at half the price on most occasions.

 

[LyleG]

Not a canon guy but I agree with Tim in that older primes are the way to go. I just purchased 2 primes and a 3 pack of extension tubes on ebay for a song. Its hard to be the prices on older lenses that have fallen out of favor.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

I considered the 55-250 at first, don't want that much telephoto. I'm mainly looking for something to replace the kit lens, but with a little more telephoto. Plus I'd like to get away from the plastic mount, no distance scale, etc. The 28-135 IS sounds like exactly what I want. The reviewer Eracer suggested likes it as well.

I will probably get a 50 f/1.8 just because of the price. And I still haven't found a wide/superwide lens that I can afford. I think I will probably go for the 28-135 and just use the kit lens at 18mm. I've noticed that it isn't sharp at all wide open at 18mm though. Gets a little better around f/8.

I have always staggered my lenses as opposed to intertwine. So I have the 18-55 and then a 55-200 USM. I actually wish I had gone 55-250 or even 300. Although I also didn't golf when I got my current lens setup.

Although that being said, and the reason I didn't mention this before, is that if your main goal is for golf course use I like the idea of a 28-135. While I am on the course I mainly use the 18-55. Although If I want to capture something in the distance, up to 135 would be very nice on the course. I either need to switch lenses or live without. I am pretty good at switching quickly as I have been doing this for a long time, but trying to do so during a round and if people are behind you or with you would be an issue. So while I have always been happy with my set up, I have even given consideration to going to something in the 28-135 range for golf courses.

Here are 2 examples just from the last round I played and remember encountering the issue where I really didn't have the time to change lenses. The first would have been a great shot if I could have captured the cart in the trap as well as the back people but the 55 just didn't cut it, by the time I took this and changed they were gone. Once I got to the fairway, it just wasn't the same shot. The other would have been great from further back, only during the round I had to pick what I thought would be the best in the time allowed, so instead of both I just got this one. Again, the time constraints you run into on a course may dictate the shot you get if you need to change lenses. A 28-135 may be ideal IMO. In either of these cases, I am not convinced I got the better shot, but probably the opposite. Just as when I try and capture any kind of wildlife the 55 just won't cut it, and by the time you change lenses it may be gone. I have missed many a shot of wildlife on the course because I use the 18-55 by default. In cases where 135 would have worked fine. Also in using two lenses you need to make sure both are set up with the Polarizer and such prior to starting the round. Nothing worse the making the change in the nick of time, only to realize you missed the shot because the last time you used the other was with a Neutral Density Filter or non at all.

Although 250mm is definitely in no way too much IMO. You are likely in time going to want out to a 250-300. I have also been looking into a 220-400, but will likely get something in the 28-135 range first.

 

[MIKE1218]

Thanks for all the opinions. I'd like to say again, I'd like to get the 28-135 as a good 'everyday' lens, then my next purchase would be on the wider end of things. Perhaps a Tamron 10-24.

 

[ualtim]

All I can tell you is this...

Look for the lens within your budget with the widest possible aperture (lowest 'f' number) at any given focal length.
Everything else is secondary.

This guy is an expert lens reviewer.

Which Canon lens(es) should I buy?

I 100% agree with Eracer on this statement. You would be amazed at the difference in photo quality a fast lens will make. Even if you stop down the fast lens to to slower lens equivilents, you still get a better picture with the fast lens in my experience. Better quality glass makes a difference.

That is also a great article that Eracer linked to. I use that web site quite a bit when making lens purchase decisions. While I had not read that particular article, I have read many of those lens reviews. Its probably no coincidence that I have 3 of those lenses in my bag. The Canon 50mm f.18 and the two Tamrons at the end of the article.

Of course, being the lens ho that I have become, I may have found my next lens in that article. :laugh: