Lense suggestions

[Fdmcgady]

I own a Canon EOS Rebel T2i - I have a 10-20mm lense and a 28-300mm lense. I was thinking of getting something in the 28-70 range. I was looking for some suggestions.

[RobertTheFat]

How much are you willing to spend, and do you have any thoughts of eventually going to a full-frame camera (e.g., 5D or 6D)?

[Fdmcgady]

I probably will not being going to a full-frame camera any time soon. I was looking for something not too expensive. I've seen some Canon 18-135mm zoom lenses.

[TTMartin]

---

@Fdmcgady wrote:

I probably will not being going to a full-frame camera any time soon. I was looking for something not too expensive. I've seen some Canon 18-135mm zoom lenses.

---

Either the Canon EF-S 18-135 IS STM or NANO lenses are good choices.

Avoid the older versions of that lens.

[ScottyP]

You already have kit lenses.  The kit lenses don't have particularly large apertures.  Your lenses already cover the range from 10mm to 300mm.  

You should strongly consider getting something different from what you already have for your money rather than another variable aperture zoom.  

You do not have a bright fast lens, ie: a lens with a large fixed aperture.  You could do this two ways.

You could get a 17-55 f/2.8, which is a great lens for crop cameras.  This would let 4x the light into your camera at the long end, letting you shoot in dim light with a fast shutter speed without having to jam the ISO up to a level where your image quality suffers.  It is also very sharp.

You could go with even brighter glass, like a bright prime.  Something like a 50mm f/1.4, or an even cheaper 50mm f/1.8.  This would give you a lens that will work in low light and it will also give your shots a different look due to the shallow depth of field you get with a large aperture lens.  Even the 40mm f/2.8 pancake would be brighter than the kits lenses and would give a narrow DOF, and primes tend to be very sharp for comparatively little money.

[ebiggs1]

"You already have kit lenses."

I agree!  Why do you want another? The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens would be an excellent upgrade.

"I have a 10-20mm lense..."

Do you mean and you have the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens?  Perhaps the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens?

In either case the faster EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is still an excellent choice.

I also like the idea of a fast prime.  It will have better IQ plus a fast fixed aperture. Examples would be the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens or the more expensive EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens.

[Fdmcgady]

I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM lens

[Waddizzle]

---

@Fdmcgady wrote:

I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM lense

---

That's what I figured.  You might like Sigma 17-50mm lens, if you cannot afford the Canon. 

Keep in mind that the Canon DPP software is only able to do lens correction with Canon lenses.  If you do not use any post processing on your photos, I suggest that you shoot in RAW format, and give it a try.

[ebiggs1]

The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Canon EF has been discontinued.  It has been replaced by the very good Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM Autofocus Zoom Lens.  No lens in this range will be any better.  I would look to other focal lengths that you might like and not duplicate this one.

Do look at the different 50mil offferings.  BTW, there is no 'e' at the end of the word lens.  

[ScottyP]

If you have never done so, I recommend watching 2 or 3 free tutorials on YouTube or google videos, etc, on the "exposure triangle".  It gives you the central idea in photography, that there are 3 variables you can manipulate in order to get the right amount of light into your camera.  

These 3 variables are 1) the size of the opening in the lens, or "aperture", and 2.) the amount of time the camera opens up to let light in, or "shutter speed", and finally, 3.) the sensitivity of the image sensor , or "ISO").  

In addition to controlling the amount of light getting in, the variables have side effects that affect your images.  The side effect of aperture is the thickness of the in-focus portion of your photo. Sometimes you want everything in the shot to be in focus, from the flowers in the foreground to the mountains in the background. Other times, though, you only want your subject in focus and you want everything else to be gently blurred so they do not distract the viewer's eye from your subject.  It is a large aperture that gives you a shallow depth of field in focus.  Kit lenses don't have large apertures. Lenses that do have large apertures tend to cost more. As mentioned earlier, though, if you don't get a zoom lens, and you instead get a fixed focal length "prime" lens, like a 50mm or a 40mm or an 85mm, etc, they almost always come with large apertures, they tend to be lighter and sharper than zoom lenses of equal price, and primes generally cost less than zooms with equal image quality. 

This can give your your photos a look they do not already have. 

The obvious other advantage is that the large aperture lets more light in. A lot more. In some cases 8x more light than kit zooms. With 8x more lights you can keep a fast enough shutter speed without having to raise ISO. Your T2i will show image degradation by ISO 400 and bu ISO 800 it is looking pretty bad due to grainy static and loss of detail.  The larger aperture lets you stay at ISO 200 when a kit lens would have forced you up to ISO 800 or even ISO 1600, probably ruining your image.