Lens suggestions for the 70D

[sjp711]

Hey photo people! I'm looking into buying the Canon 70D but I can't decide on what lens to purchase with the camera or if I should stick with the lens that comes in the kit. This is my first "fancy" camera purchase so it's a little challenging for me as far as knowing what to buy and what will fit my expectations. I really enjoy capturing the "bokeh" effect images so I'm thinking that I want the 50mm 1.8 or the 50mm 1.4 for sure which will be my second lens. As for my primary lens, I want something that will capture my 1yr old daughter running around, such as candid shots. Also, family photos,  special events (indoor and outdoor), our local motocross races, maybe even perhaps a wedding or two if I get lucky. My best friend asked me to do her maturity photos coming up soon, so mainly stuff like that. I don't do wildlife, travel, etc. With all of that being said, I'm seeking help in more experienced photographers to help guide me in the right direction in hopes to narrow down my hunt for a great lens that I won't regret buying or putting money into but also within my budget. 

I went to a local camera store earlier today and the gentleman who was helping me tried selling me the Canon 24-105mm F4 lens. What are your thoughts on that lens? Should I spend that much? I've been doing some research and I noticed that a lot of Canon fans are recommending to stay with the lens that comes in the kit. I've also read a lot about the 10-22mm lens. This hunt is overwhelming, especially since I'm still pretty new to learning the higher-end camera equipment. What would be the ideal general purpose lens that I can keep mounted most of the time for the types of photos that I want to capture? The lens part is challenging for me because I don't really know what I'm buying but I'm trying to be patient as I reach out for help. I'm slowly getting into photography and have some events coming up that friends and family asked me to photograph for practice so I want to be ready, well as ready as I can be. So, what is a good list of lens I should be looking at for the 70D and also for the type of photos I listed above? Please help. Any advice, suggestions, opinions and/or referrals are welcome. Thanks x a million everyone! 

With appreciation, 

Sammy Jo 🙂 

[ebiggs1]

"Will the 10-22 lens give me the fisheye look."

No it will not.  It does have some distortion as any WA lens will but htis one will still shoot pretty "normal" shots.  Only a very large angle of acceptence.

[sjp711]

Thank you for answeing my questions.

[Skirball]

---

@sjp711 wrote:

What I'm wanting is a nice but non-expensive everyday lens that will allow me to take pictures of my active 1yr old, indoor events, outdoor adventures, candids and family portraits. A second lens to give me that "bokeh" effect that I love shooting and the 3rd lens to have some fun with, like the fisheye effect.

---

As biggy mentioned, the 10-22 won't give you a fisheye effect, but it is wide.  And instead of taking out the distortion in post you can go the other way and add more to give an exaggerated distortion.  Like so:

I think the 10-22 is a "fun lens", but I'm not really into full blown fisheye effects.  Not for more than a photo or two.  An ultrawide allows for some fun distortion but is still useful for architectural and tight spaces.  That said, a 10-22 costs almost as much as a cheap 24-105, so if you're looking at that you might want to reconsider your purchase.  Besides, Canon recently came out with a new 10-18 that looks quite sharp, adds image stabilization and costs half as much as the 10-22.  As much as I love my 10-22, I wouldn't recommend it since release of the 10-18.

All that said, an ultrawide (UWA) would be the last lens I got out of the three mentioned above.  First get a decent all around lens with a bit of reach to try to keep up with the 1 year old.  Then I'd get a fast prime, then the UWA.

The 24-105 mentioned before truly is a great lens at a great price.  But if you're not willing to spend that much perhaps look at the new 55-250.  It's not near the quality, nor will it do quite as well in darker settings (indoors will be a problem), but it's a decent lens at a cheap price.  Plus it gives you lots of reach for when that 1 year old turns 2.

Primes are a tough call.  A fast 50 is always nice to have, in my opinion.  However, having children, I couldn't imagine not having a macro lens to get up close to all those precious little features.  A 60mm macro would fit both requirements, but won't get the super smooth bokeh of a faster lens on a 70D. 

[sjp711]

Wow that is a very awesome and "fun" photo. I would love to take pictures with that effect, does it take a lot of practice or come natural with the lens? I feel like I am reading another language when reading about lenses, I know very little about them which males it difficult to understand what I'm searching for. Are you saying don't get a "bokeh" effect lens? What is a 60mm macro lens? I apologize.

[Skirball]

Yes, cameras and lenses are complicated things, which is why I really recommending starting small and learning what you have and what you need before dropping a lot of money on things.  I really wouldn't get a 70D to start, I'd rather put that money tow

Every lens creates bokeh, in some amount, but some create more than others. Despite seeming simple, bokeh is actually kind of complicated. There are many an internet debate over it’s quantity and quality versus different variables: iris size, aperture, magnification, subject distance, subject size, camera sensor size, focal length, etc. I’ll try to summarize just the points applicable to this conversation, but I’m going to not fully explain things and I’m sure someone will point out my errors.

The larger the aperture (smaller “f number”), the more bokeh you’ll get out of a lens. When people think of lenses that create bokeh they think of fast lenses, i.e. lenses with a small f number.  The 60mm macro I mentioned has a maximum aperture of 2.8, which is on the large size of standard. Most consider anything below this number to be a “fast lens”. The 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, etc.

I don’t want to complicate it too much, but there’s more to it relevant here. A macro lens gets you closer to your subject than most lenses. Closer means more magnification, which means more bokeh. But only when close. Too much bokeh (we call it a “small depth of field”) is actually a problem for macro photographers. But again, I digress. To summarize, if you really, really want bokeh, you probably want one of the lenses I mention above. These lenses will also help in dim lighting. But the 60mm macro has a little less bokeh, but is a much sharper lens and will allow you to take detail shots of little baby fingers and eyes and whatnot. Honestly, it’s a tough choice if it were me.

[sjp711]

Thanks for explaining all of that for me. I feel like I learn something new everyday about photography and it's equipment which has been exciting for me. I was looking into the 70D, as mentioned but I got to thinking and now I'm considering buying the 6D with the basic lens for now. I've heard really, really amazing things about the 6D. I figure it might be more beneficial for me to focus on buying the more high-end camera now, learn, practice, get comfortable then I might I have a better understanding on what lenses to buy that will best fit my expectations. Just a thought, I could be wrong but I figured I would throw my idea out there to get some feedback on it.

Thanks 🙂

[ebiggs1]

You did not mention your budget?  If a 6D is now in your sights the 24-105mm f4 makes even more sense.

The photo you seemed to like above is a product of post processing and not just the camera and lens.

[Skirball]

---

@sjp711 wrote:
Thanks for explaining all of that for me. I feel like I learn something new everyday about photography and it's equipment which has been exciting for me. I was looking into the 70D, as mentioned but I got to thinking and now I'm considering buying the 6D with the basic lens for now. I've heard really, really amazing things about the 6D. I figure it might be more beneficial for me to focus on buying the more high-end camera now, learn, practice, get comfortable then I might I have a better understanding on what lenses to buy that will best fit my expectations. Just a thought, I could be wrong but I figured I would throw my idea out there to get some feedback on it.

Thanks 🙂

---

Sorry, but you have it backwards, in my opinion anyway.  Get good lenses before the camera.  Lenses will still be good in 5 years, the 6D will be old by then.  Earlier in this discussion you said that the 24-105 is way out of your budget... that lens is the "kit lens" for the 6D.  With only a few exceptions, the 6D requires expensive lenses. 

More importantly, I think the flexibility and performance that you would see out of a couple of good lenses and an ok camera is much greater than that of a good camera and one ok lens.  The above image isn't really a good example, it was just a fun shot... but it was done with a 450D; an ancient camera by today's standards.  A 600D or 700D will not 'hold you back', as a photographer.  Perhaps you'll have a few images taken in dim lighting that would have been better with a 6D, but most of the time you probably won't even notice the difference.  And others will probably be far better because you'll benefit from things available on consumer level cameras that aren't always on pro line, like flash (6D doesn't have one), or swivel screens, or auto modes.

[sjp711]

I just realized that the 6D is $2,500 with the lens kit. I was trying to stay right under $2,000

[ebiggs1]

Did you check this out?   Here is a nice one Canon EOS 70D kit   No tax unless you live in New York and no shipping charge right to your door.