Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Lens suggestions for the 70D


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 🙂 


I wonder if you've done enough research to justify buying a 70D. If you really need a new camera soon, you might buy a high-end Powershot or something similar; then look into upgrading to a DSLR in a couple of years when you're more likely to understand your options.


That said, in my opinion the correct general-purpose lens for a 70D is the EF-S 18-55mm f/2.8, a fast, image-stabilized, constant aperture zoom lens that's well built and surprisingly sharp. The 24-105mm f/4 is a bit long for a crop-frame camera and should normally be bought only by someone who already has a full-frame camera or is contemplating an upgrade to one. And obviously you're not.


One other point, though: Sometimes the price difference between a camera with and without the kit lens is so small that they're practically giving you the lens. In that case you'd be crazy not to take it. A few years ago Canon's entry-level kit lens was pretty awful, but many think that the more recent versions are pretty good. Even if you don't use it much, it's a good spare for the beach or other equipment-hostile locations.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Thank you, Bob. I've had the chance to play around with a powershot and it's definitely not up to my expectations in a camera or quality of photo. I appreciate your feedback.


Sammy Jo 🙂



I have a differing opinion than Robert.  The 24-105mm f4 is the best buy of a lens in the Canon line.  It is an "L" quality which is the best Canaon makes.  It is readily availble at big discounts in the form of a "white box" version.  The exact lens with the exact warranty but was removed from a kit.  I have seen these sell for $700 or even less brand new.


As to it's being not short enough for a 70D is probably true but the advantage of a DSLR is you can have more than one lens! Besides what is lost on the short side is gained on the long end.  If you like wildlife this may be a good thing for you.


So many of these guys get hung up on the lens numbers.  But they are just that, numbers.  If the lens looks right and works for you, the numbers are meaningless.  What you see through the viewfinder is what is important, Right?


A 10-22mm and the 24-105mm would make a great combo for the 70D.  The 50mm not so much.  I bet if you get one it will get used very little.  It is pretty specialized lens but later on it could be interesting to play around with one.

Remember you don't have to get them all at once.  Another feature of a DSLR. You can add and add and add for a very long time!

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!

The 24-105mm is way out of my budget right now but I look forward to making that purchase in the future, I've heard so many good things about that lens. I called Canon and spoke to a specialist, he recommended that I get the kit, camera with the 18-55mm lens. Also get the 55-250mm STM lens as well as the 85-1.8 or 50-1.4 for my "bokeh" effect. What do you think?

Sammy Jo

Sammy Jo,

The kit lens will be a great start.  In time as you grow you may, probably will, want to upgrade them.

Personally, I would not buy a 50mm f1.4 and much less the 85mm f.8 or f1.4 right off.  They are very specialized lenses.


Get the 70D and the kit lenses and learn it.  Use it.  Think about a post processing software as great things come after the picture it taken.  A very good one is Photoshop Elements.


Here is a nice one Canon EOS 70D kit  There are others, too.

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!

I agree with the Canon guy you spoke to. The 18-55 is a good versatile starter lens. And if you need a telephoto the 55-250 kit tele is also a cheap way to get there. Since neither of these gives you good dim indoor shooting, nor are they going to wow anyone with nice bokeh blur, I agree you would do well with a prime like the 50 1.4, which is not bad at both and also reasonably priced. 50 is nice length for both portraits and general use on a crop camera. The 85mm would be too long on a crop for indoor shooting, unless it was in a gymnasium or some kind of big room with your subjects not being right close.

One other possibility is get an EF-s 17-55 2.8 lens on sale. It would do the job of both the 18-55 and the 50 mm pretty well and has image quality better than the 18-55. You lose 2 stops vs the 50 1.4 but it is 2 stops faster than the 18-55 at the long end and you gain versatility.

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?

Will the 10-22 lens give me the fisheye look. I want a side fun lens to play around with. Truthfully, the 24-105 is way too expensive for me for right now. However, I do look forward to purchasing that lens in the future.


Thank you 🙂

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.

@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.