Bahhh! I can't make up my mind (lens purchasing)

[From_the_NEK]

Now that I've started selling some prints, I can justify to my wife that I need some upgraded equipment.
I'm shooting with a Canon EOS Rebel T3i.
I currently have these that came with the camera package deal, pretty much the two cheapest lenses Canon makes.:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...mm_f_4_5_6_iii
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum..._3_5_5_6_is_ii



Basically I'd like to have a long lens that can produce sharper images.
I'd also like to have a good standard lens that is capable of good wide angle shots along with a large enough aperture that I can get decent low light/nighttime shots.

Basically I'm looking at these:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM - http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...mm_f_4l_is_usm (is the IS just a "nice to have" $509 upgrade over the non-IS model?)

Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM - http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...5_f_2_8_is_usm

Or as a one size fit all alternative?
Tamaron 16-300MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro - http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/pro...php#ad-image-0

Recommendations/Thoughts?

[Tye 1on]

Also shooting a T3i, but am a hack. However i did do a little homework before lens buying, but hopefully smmokan and other actual smart photogs will chime in.

I went with the OG Canon 80-200L 2.8, aka 'Magic Drainpipe'. Didn't read that the IS was so super-needed on it, but it is the f/2.8 not f/4 so it's heavy as fuck. But sharp.

Then went with the Sigma 10-20 f/4. This is for crops only, but since it's on a crop it's really a, what, 15-30 or sumpin.

I'm sure there are pluses and minuses with this set-up as well...

[Brecher]

I personally never missed the IS on the 70-200, but people might disagree with me here. Definitely a great lens. 2.8 is nice to have, but like Tye 1on said, it's HEAVY. Wouldn't want to have that in my pack when on the mountain.

As for a decently priced wideangle I really have no clue. I'm using the 17-40 4.0 and am more or less satisfied so far, but I'm using it on a full frame body. Might not be wide enough if used with crop.

What I can recommend to everyone though, is the 50mm 1.8. Can't get more lens for a hundred bucks. And yes, I know you asked for something different, but believe me: It's worth it. And dirt cheap.

[Bronic]

A few thoughts after a few years with a 60D...

I started with the 15-85 and really loved it. For the money its a great lens and I would recommend it to anyone. I ended up shooting with some borrowed 2.8 glass and decided I needed some myself after some photo based earnings. I got the 17-55 a few months ago and it's fantastic. The build quality is great and its sharp as shit. I also got the 70-200 2.8 mark 1. They can be had for just over a grand used. Sure its heavy but its a classic lens. I'm really happy with the two and can't see changing until I go FF.

The 50mm 1.8 was fun for sure but I found the length to be super limiting. I'd look at the 35mm f2 for crops.

[smmokan]

Given the two lenses you have listed (70-200 and 17-55), I have two questions for you:
- Do you need IS?
- Do you need constant f/2.8?

Those are questions only you can answer... meaning, it all depends on what you're shooting. If you're shooting in good light with the 70-200 f/4 zoom, then I personally believe there's no reason to spend the extra $500 on the IS version. The f/4 non-IS is one of the best values for the money on the market today. If you want a lower-budget option, the 70-300mm IS USM is also a nice zoom option that I've had luck with. With regards to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, it's a great lens and would be a fantastic upgrade to what you already have. If you're shooting portraits or in low light, then it's probably worth the money. If most of your shooting is outdoors (like skiing and landscapes), then take a look at the lens Bronic mentioned, the 15-85mm. It offers a wider range in a smaller/lighter lens body, and has very similar IQ with a lower price point.

In terms of two lenses vs. one, I'm in the camp that it's nice to have two higher-quality lenses than one do-it-all like the Tamron. As long as you're OK with carrying around the extra lens, that's my recommendation.

Oh, and make sure you get a good CPL filter for whatever you choose, they're key for good landscape photography.

[Teague]

^good advice.

For years I had a 17-55 and a 70-200 f/4. It's a great pairing that provides excellent bang for you buck. My advice would be to save some $ for the moment and try the 15-85 with the 70-200 f/4. If you buy used, the lenses shouldn't lose much of their value of the course of your ownership. If you really run up against the limitations of one of the lenses, sell it and trade up. Alternatively, I have a minty Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC w/UV & CPL I'd sell you for $200 if you want to test the Tamron waters.

[LightRanger]

Note: I borrowed a buddy's Tamron 17-55 for my crop Canon. The glass was fast and sharp, but the autofocus with it was godawful.

[From_the_NEK]

Thanks for the advice everyone .
I'm leaning toward the 70-200 f/4 first since the pictures that come through the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III that I currently have piss me off more than those from the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II.

Has anyone bought used from eBay? Looks like there are some decent deals on there.

[Tye 1on]

Bought a couple things on POTN, but looks like they've changed it so you can only get to gear swap if you've been a member for 30 days and put up 30 posts [lame].
Otherwise i've bought on the Canon refurb site and from here...

[smmokan]

I've purchased a few lenses from eBay with fairly good luck... no major problems to speak of. I think sellers are more cautious these days with representing items since eBay protects the buyer WAY more than the seller.

With the 70-200 specifically, check the date code to see when it was manufactured. It's a well-built lens so it shouldn't be an issue if it's 10 yrs old, but you might want something newer.

[Rubicon]

I have purchased a couple of lenses on ebay with no problems. In general I would agree with what Smmokan said about the age of the lens. But I did buy a 10+ year old Nikon 80-200 off of ebay a couple of years ago and it was in perfect condition. Many of the older telephoto lenses are built like tanks and age really well.

Also check out Adorama's used lenses. I have had good luck with them as well.

[geomorph]

If you have 150 to spare after buying the tele, take a look at the new ef-s 24mm 2.8. Initial reviews seem to be very favorable. I'll probably pick one up after Christmas unless I get one then as a wide-normal prime to go with my 50 1.8.

[LightRanger]

If you have 150 to spare after buying the tele, take a look at the new ef-s 24mm 2.8. Initial reviews seem to be very favorable. I'll probably pick one up after Christmas unless I get one then as a wide-normal prime to go with my 50 1.8.

On that note, and since this thread is up:
Since the 40mm 2.8 pancake is available, is there a good reason to buy the Nifty Fifty over the pancake for a crop body? Body is an SL1 and I'm going to be on some kind of crop for the foreseeable future. Pancake on that body is just absurdly tiny so it seems like it doesn't make sense not to do it.

[smmokan]

Well.... the 40mm is f/2.8 and the 50mm is f/1.8. If that doesn't matter to you, then grab the 40mm pancake.

[Tye 1on]

and the 50 is going for $85 on the canon refurb site.

[LightRanger]

Yeah, the extra stop would be nice, but I'm thinking the tradeoff for the compactness would be worth it.

[sal the salmon]

for what its worth, im tired of cannon zoom lense on the wider angle side of things. id look at buying fixed focal length primes to cover what you need to do.

my dream hit is a 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, a 100-400, and a 100mm macro.

[From_the_NEK]

After trying to take pictures of my daughter's Christmas concert in a auditorium under low lights with my EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, I realized I will likely be in this situation a lot more over the coming years. Therefore, I've changed my mind and have started looking at the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. I think I will finding myself really wanting the 2.8 even if it is heavier.

[Tye 1on]

After trying to take pictures of my daughter's Christmas concert in a auditorium under low lights with my EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, I realized I will likely be in this situation a lot more over the coming years. Therefore, I've changed my mind and have started looking at the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. I think I will finding myself really wanting the 2.8 even if it is heavier.

might google 'magic drainpipe'. I'm biased, as i bought one, but it's their OG 80-200 that was built stout- way ahead of it's time, has a bit of a cult following [and a couple watch-outs, like af/mf switch]...

[smmokan]

Check out the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS as well... it's a killer lens (I've used the non-OS version, and the newer lens is supposed to be much improved) and I'm pretty sure it offers a significant savings over the Canon 70-200. Just a thought.

Or.... depending on setup and where you're shooting from, you could go with something like an 85mm f/1.8 and a longer prime.

[From_the_NEK]

Well, I convinced my wife to let me buy my Christmas present .
Unfortunately I have to wait until Christmas morning to see what the 70-200 2.8 can do. It is a heavy beast

Thanks again for all the advice from everyone.

[ex-powderbroker]

Another vote for the 70-200mm f4 non-IS. Great value, nice to hike with, always sharp. It's very easy to get comfortable with.

edit to add, I see you got yourself a 2.8. Have fun with that, looking forward to pics!

[summit]

Do need the long shot or do you mostly shoot in the normal range like most people.

I use the 17-55mm ALL the time.

I rarely use my 70-200 2.8 in comparison.

[grskier]

I've rented the Canon 17-55 a few times... it's a great walk/ski around lens.

[flatland_Dave]

I've got the 10-22 and the 24-70 2.8
It's the combo I see most with pro-Sumer level photographers
The tokina 17-50 is also solid for budget stuff!