Full list of lenses

[carolyn0219]

Why is there an organized lens lineup here: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

and then a bigger list here: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/categorySiteMap.action?pageKeyCode=categorySiteMap&nodeCid=0901e024800...

???

I'm trying to buy my first non-kit lens and I don't even know what list I should be choosing from.

[MikeSowsun]

The bigger list includes older, out of production lenses because it is in the "Support" section of the Canon website. It's not a complete list of every Canon EF lenses ever made. I assume it only includes lenses which Canon still supports. That list could be helpful if you were shopping for a used lens. 

[ebiggs1]

"I'm trying to buy my first non-kit lens ..."

Without doubt the one to get is the 24-105mm f4 L IS. It is an absolutely great place to start.  IMHO. of course.

[carolyn0219]

See, that makes sense to me.  Everything I read tells me that everyone's first lens is a "nifty fifty".  I was going to go for the f1.4 USM, with the f2.5 compact macro still in the running (just because I like macro a lot).  I wasn't going to spring for the L series in a fixed focal length. 

What was holding me up is not understanding why I would not go for a zoom.  It is more versatile, and as long as I get a quality one, it should take photos at 50mm at the same quality as the fixed focal lenght one, right? 

Everything looks great about the one suggested except the f4.  I know that mine is a kit lens, but my 18-55 goes to 3.5 and still has trouble in lower lighting (indoors).  That could be a result of my inexperience in compensating for the lighting.  But if I can't do it in manual and really want a shot, I switch to auto and it still has trouble.  Do you find this to be a problem with the f4?

Please let me know what you think.  What I want is a lens that I don't have to switch often.  I can add more specific lenses later.  I plan to take hopefully one main lens on trips where it would not be practical to carry a bunch of gear, and I will be in quite a variety of settings, and without much control over the lighting.

Please help!  I only know other newbies and don't really have anyone to ask who would have this info.

[TCampbell]

The lens you should buy next really depends on what you want to do with it.  The whole point of being able to swap lenses is that each lens is optimized for certain types of tasks and no single lens is best for everything.  

So the real question is... what do you love to shoot with your camera that you are struggling to shoot with the kit lens you already have?

The point of the "nifty fifty" is that it's cheap.  The best quality of the lens is it's affordability.  It's in-focus image quality is actually pretty good.  But everything else about the lens is designed with affordability in mind... so the focus motors are not the high performance motors... they're slow.  The build quality isn't the high end build quality... it's a cheaper build.  it doesn't have lots of well-rounded aperture blades... it just has 5 and it creates a pentagonal aperture opening.  But... it IS AFFORDABLE and that's why it's called the "nifty fifity".

The 50mm f/1.4 doesn't technically have noticeable different optical quality for in-focus parts of the image.  But everything else about the lens is higher end... build, mount, focus motors and speed, aperture blades and out-of-focus image quality, etc. are all better on the f/1.4.  

A 50mm was only ever a "kit" lens back in the days of 35mm film cameras.  I have a Canon AE-1... it came with a 50mm f/1.8 "kit" lens (that's an FD lens... it pre-dates the EOS system).  

Today the kit lens is always a zoom.  It's typically a zoom with a little wide-angle and a little telephoto ... but nothing too extreme.  This makes a nice affordable general-purpose walking-around lens.  If you're doing something specific... like shooting action photography or sports -- then there are much more appropriate choices.

f/2.8 zooms are HIGHLY desirable.  But f/2.8 zooms are expensive and part of the point of a "kit" lens is not to break the bank.  Hence the "kit" lens for a higher end body such as a 5D III (if you buy it as a "kit") is typically the 24-105mm f/4L -- even though the 24-70mm f/2.8L has some qualities that are preferable -- it's a significantly more exspensive lens.

If what you want is a 50mm low focal ratio lens (and, btw, you should ONLY "want" this lens if you know WHY you want this lens... don't buy anything just to have another lens because so there are so many other things that might benefit you -- alas I digres) AND if you can comfortably afford either the 50mm f/1.8 or the 50mm f/1.4... then get the f/1.4.  No question.  It's a better lens.   The 1.8 exists (as I stated above) primarily for "affordability" reasons.

Often when someone just has the kit lens (which has a variable focal ratio that isn't all that low) and they are taking lots of indoor shots, they discover the camera struggles to focus and/or shutter speeds are too slow and they get motion blur in the shots or they have to crank up the ISO to compensate but then they get a lot of "noise" in the images.    In THESE cases, a lens with a much lower focal ratio is a nice choice BECAUSE those lenses collect a LOT more light when the shutter is open.  An f/1.4 lens collects SIXTEEN TIMES more light than an f/5.6 lens.  That's a huge difference (and for the record... I don't recommend shooting at f/1.4 all the time.  Back off to f/2 and you'll probably be much happier.)

A 50mm lens offers a somewhat narrow angle of view on a crop-frame camera (I don't know which camera you have) and that means taking a group photo indoors can be problematic... you may find you need to knock a hole in the wall so you can shoot from a bit farther away to get everyone in the shot.  As such... less narrow lens might be a better choice (e.g. such as a 35mm or 28mm focal length -- both of which are closer to "normal" angles of view if you have a crop-sensor camera body.)

[carolyn0219]

Thank you for the additional information.  I have a Canon T3i, the standard kit 18-55mm and a kit telephoto that I really don't use.  I'm feeling confident based on your responses that my instincts were correct and a 50mm is not for me. 

It sounds like the best idea is a quality zoom lens.  What I use it for the most is pictures on vacation.  While backpacking through unfamiliar territory with friends, and with photography not being the primary purpose of the trip, dragging equipment makes the trip less fun.  In the same day, I may take a group picture of my friends at an outdoor cafe, nature close-ups, larger scenes/landscapes, historical buildings, a cityscape, or indoor pictures.  I like to share these pictures with my friends, enter then in local online contests, and print them to hang in my home and office (I haven't printed anything above 8.5x11 yet).  I take product pics and review videos for a local website, but they are happy with my kit lens.  I would like to expand to take photos that other people and local businesses would like to display, but I'm not planning on being in competition with specialized photographers for many many years.  Although I can later add specific lenses to optimize each of these settings, the most important thing is versatility. 

It looks like the aforementioned 24-105 f4L IS USM has a very large range, quality, motor, IS, a good rating, a solid recommendation, which is almost everything I want.  It is expensive, but not in comparison to buying a decent 28 or 35mm, a 50mm, and an 85. 

Before I finalize my decision, I would just like to hear from people about whether they think that the quality of my images at these various focal lenghts is comparable to individual lenses, considering I would not spring for the L series for a fixed length.  So, for example, I would be comparing the 50mm f1.4 USM to the 50mm point on the 24-105 f4L IS USM.  Also, do you think that I may be frustrated with the f4.0, or will it work in at least the majority of situations?

Also, is the quality drastically better than, say, one of the 18-135mms or 28-135mm, which are half the price?  I am not sure how to quantify photo quality in a message.

I would like to hear from anyone with any experience and/or opinion, and if possible, I'd like to hear from ebiggs1, who initially recommended this lens.

I'm also curious where to buy from.  I would love to get accident warentee coverage if that's a thing, so that I'm not paranoid at all moments, but I'm guessing it's not.  I would consider buying used if I knew that I could trust that it was in "like new" condition.  But this question is secondary to which lens to buy.

Thank you all for your help!

[MikeSowsun]

"Also, is the quality drastically better than, say, one of the 18-135mms or 28-135mm, which are half the price?  I am not sure how to quantify photo quality in a message"

The photo quality is not drastically different from those lenses. It will be better, but almost any lens when stopped down will give excellent results. If you are not getting sharp images from your 18-55mm IS then you probably need to work on your skills and technique.

With an "L" lens you do get improvements in build , auto focus, weather proofing, and image quality, but these improvements are difficult to quantify with dollars.  Many people will appreciate the build quality and workmanship that goes into an "L" lens, and because they can afford it, wouldn't do without it.  Only you can decide if it is worth it.

Here is a great website where you can directly compare the image quality of different lenses at different focal lengths and apertures. :  18-135 vs 24-105   (place your mouse over the test image to change from one lens to the other) 

Make sure you select the same camera (Canon 60D) on both lenses when comparing to get more accurate results.

One thing to keep in mind about the 24-105 is that since it is designed for Full Frame cameras, the starting focal length of 24mm is not wide enough for many people on a 1.6 Crop camera like your T3i. If you have ever wished for a little wider angle of view than you 18-55mm lens can give you, then the 24-105 is not for you.  

If you do decide to get the 24-105,  you should probably keep you 18-55 for wide angle shots, or add an Ultra-wide like the Canon 10-22mm. 

[TCampbell]

The "STM" version (which is somewhat new) of the EF-S 18-135 has a nice improvement over the original EF-S 18-135mm (that's the non-STM version which is still for sale.)    There's also an EF-S 18-200mm but this is another "convenience" lens -- image quality doesn't rival other lenses with less agressive zoom ranges that tend to be more optimized for their less ambitious range.  The 18-200 is a fairly ambitious zoom so it does compromise slightly on optical quality to achieve that goal.

The 24-105mm f/4L is an excellent lens... but keep in mind that this lens was original produced with full-frame cameras in mind.  A 24mm focal length is a nice wide-angle when you have a full-frame sensor.  On a full-frame camera, a 50mm lens is considered "normal" in that it produces an angle of view which seems neither zoomed in to telephoto... nor stretched out to wide-angle -- but that's for a "full frame" camera.  

On a T3i (an APS-C "crop frame" size sensor) the equivalent to a "normal" focal length works out to about 31mm.  Nobody makes a 31mm lens (that I know of) but 35mm and 28mm are both pretty close.  But notice that 24mm isn't very much lower than 28mm (just 1/7th wider).  So a 24mm isn't particularly "wide".  The 18mm end of the EF-S zooms (18-55, 18-135 and 18-200) provides a "comfortably" wide view (there's also an EF-S 10-22mm  which is considered an ultra-wide zoom).

The EF-S 17-55mm (note that's just 1mm wider than your kit lens) is considered the high-end EF-S zoom lens BECAUSE it can provide an f/2.8 focal ratio all the way through the zoom range.  That's fairly significant because each full f-stop literally doubles the amount of light collected by the lens.  So... suppose you want to take a shot at the 50mm focal length -- the "kit" EF-S 18-55mm can only provide an f/5.6 focal ratio at 50mm.  The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM can provide an f/2.8 focal ratio at any focal length... and f/2.8 is 2 full stops of extra light.  That means the lens is collecting FOUR times more light as compared to an f/5.6 lens.  It also means the lens achives a shallower depth of field and a stronger blur to the background.  The downside to all of this is that f/2.8 lenses are heavier... they must be because they have to allow more light to enter the lens so each element is physically larger, there are more elements (the bigger each element the worse the chromatic dispersion of the lens and the more compensating elements that have to be added to correct for "chromatic aberration") and all of this means it's also quite a bit more expensive.

If you hop over to pixel-peeper.com, they index images based on the equipment used to create the image.  So... if you want to see images that were created using any specific lens, you can pick the lens and they'll show you hundreds of images taken by that particular lens.  You can get a pretty good idea of what a lens is capable of doing. 

[ebiggs1]

As a person that actually used a camera to put groceries on the table and in my humble opinion here is what I would do.

First, the 50mm f1.4 is not an "L" lens, if you may have gotten that idea. It is a fine liens, however.

Avoid the nifty-fifty 50mm f1.8, don't waste your money.

Personally I would never buy any of the "kit" lenses that Canon offers, or even any of their so-called consumer lenses.

There is no comparison between the lens you have and a 24-105mm f4. Your current lens is only f3.5 part of the time. It is not a constant f-ratio like the 24-105 is. Everything about the 24-105 is better.

I shoot weddings and portraits in my retirement and the 24-105mm is on the camera more than any other lens I have except for my 24-70mm f2.8. I didn't mention it because of it's very high cost. The 24-105mm can be had for less than $700 brand new. But the 24-70mm f2.8 is the ultimate if you feel you must have the very best there is.

Another consideration is the 24-105 is not an EF-S, so if you graduate to a better, full frame, camera, in the future, it will go with you.

If you feel a need for a wider lens, as you crop factor is a penalty here, the EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 is a nice choice. It is not an "L" either, however. And possibly the EF 17-40mm f4 would be a better choice. It is an "L". Costs more! Is better.

Look at it this way. You have a "kit" lens so why buy more lenses that are essentially "kit" lenses. If you are ready to make the move, get a good lens, or lenses. I never subscribed to the, "if you stop it down, it's pretty good" hype. Who buys a lens to stop it down in order to use it? Another piece of advice is don't read the pixel peepers. They rarely have anything to say about how any lens actually performs in the real world.

Get the 24-105mm f4, for a starter, you will love it.

[carolyn0219]

Thank you for getting back to me. 

I understand that the 50mm f1.4 is not an L lens.  Are you saying that basically anything that isn't an L series is of "kit lens" lens quality, at least as far as the actual glass lens?

Someone pointed out that the 24-105 is meant for full frame cameras.  Are you sure that it would work as nicely with my T3i?

Can I assume that it has a nice quick autofocus when needed?

Do you find it to be exceptionally heavy?  Would you carry it around on a long walk or an all-day outing?  I'm used to being able to carry mine around my neck for long periods of time, but I'm sure I could find a side strap.

It's frustrating that there is no way to test any of these before buying them, or even to see/hold them in person.  I've only been learning for less than 2 years, although I put more time in than most beginners.  I have to say that I'm nervous to move to an f4 when ideally I wanted to go in the other direction.  I do find myself frustrated in lower lighting, even after trying auto settings.  I'm afraid that there are certain shots I just couldn't get.

As a beginner, I don't undertand what they mean by a constant f ratio.  If I normally adjust this to adjust depth of field, would that not be an option on this lens??  Would it be a constant low depth of field?  Sorry if that's a stupid question.

You said that the 24-105mm can be had for less than $700 brand new. 

Where would I find it at that price?

Again, thank you very much for all of your help.  It's a lot to figure out on my own and your input is greatly appreciated.