New Lens Advice

[KingNine]

Hey guys, I was hoping to get an oppinion on a lens or lenses to help round out my set up. My body is the T4i and I had the kit 18-55 and the EFS 55-250. I replaced 18-55 with the Sigma 17-50 2.8 to get better low light shots of my daughters on stage as they danced in recitals. Wow it took great pics of them but at the 17-24 range it just blurred almost every photo. After researching some I found out the lens was getting known for the same issue. I was tired of loosing all my good picturs which looked good on the little screen but were terrible after I brought them into the computer. Too many shots of my daughters as they left for a dance were gone. I purchased the Canon 24-105 L used from a photographer and took it with me to DC this past week. I loved it so much the 55-250 never got attached to the camera although I could have used the extra reach a few times. (I didn't carry my bag with me as I was chaperoning a school trip and had to choose one lens to bring) I have not had the opportunity to take a portrait style picture with it yet such as my daughter and her date leaving for a dance but I will this weekend as she is about to gradutate. I loved the 2.8 of the Sigma and was wondering just how much trade off for a bokeh effect I'll see if and when I use the canon at 4.0? I've considered purchasing the nifty fifty but at 50mm will I need to stand too far away indoors to get shots? My problem with the Sigma was the lower focal length and that was way below the 50 it extended to and obviously where I was forced to stand in my house or the other locations I used it. Is there anything in a 17-30 range ish that would serve a better purpose than what I currently have? I'm a fan of Imagae stabilization and autofocus. I'm also a fan of saving my money lol. I feel the dance recitial coming up the following weekend will be served well with the canon 24-105 as will taking pictures of her walking the stage this weekend. 

Edit: I might one day upgrade to a FF body so I'd take that into consideration when I"m looking.

[ScottyP]

You went from a blurry lens in the 17-24 range to one that doesn't have a 17-23 range. You also have no brighter aperture than f/4. 

The least expensive way to get a bright lens is to go with a prime.  What focal length would you want for a bright lens?  You said 50mm on a crop is too long. 

[KingNine]

The main function of the lens was to take pictures of my daughters on stage. It happened to fill my other need as well. I just turned out it didnt do a good job of it. I think I can get away with 24 as a min with it but would like opinions on what the best options are in the range and brightness I'm now lacking. (17-30 ish) I'm not opposed to a prime or two but if there is a great option in a small telephoto I'd probably be more interested. Multiple functionality is always a plus as long as it does it well. I don't know if the 50 would be too long as I've not tried it.

[Waddizzle]

"I don't know if the 50 would be too long as I've not tried it." 

You can get a feel for what 50mm would be like by using your 24-105mm lens.  You will find it to be a bit too long for most indoor scenarios, although it could work out well in a larger room.  Because the quality of zooms has so improved in recent years, prime lenses are almost becoming specialty lenses, for special applications.  I like them because it brings out my creativity, because it forces me stop and think about each shot more so than with a zoom.

-------------------------------------

"I'm a fan of Image stabilization and autofocus."  

Me, too.  I think most all of us love the convenience of AF, and the confidence boost of IS, but they should not become mandatory requirements.  One of my best lenses, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, does not have IS, but because of its' wide aperture, I can use shutter speeds on still photos that are fast enough to make it not needed. 

One of my most favorite lenses, the Rokinon 14mm T3.1 Cine ED AS IF UMC lens, is fully manual focus and does not communicate with the camera at all.  The short focal length allows me to dial in focus close to infinite focus, and everything beyond 10 feet away is in perfect focus, which is perfect for outdoor photography.

[ebiggs1]

This is the lens you should have bought and still may be the best lens for you, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens.

It has one down side as it is a ef-s design and will be useless if you go FF, later.  But in its category it is a winner all around.

The truth of the matter is you are going to need more than one lens. I do the same thing for our local school district.  I have been on 25 or 30 school trips as their photographer. BTW, a backpack is your best friend.

I agree with the above statement that primes are not the way to go.  They have become specialized lenses and are more difficult to use.  If you must the ef 50mm f1.8 is pretty cheap and not a big loss if it remains largely unused.  I wouldn't buy one but that is me.  I have the ef 50mm f1.2L which is even a more specialized prime lens and certainly not for everyone.  Beside being very expensive.  I love it.

What is your budget? The lens I recommended above, Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens, and your current ef-s 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens will do.  I have a big dislike for variable aperture lenses like the  ef-s 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens and would very much prefer the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens.  But it is very expensive to the max.

If you are feeling faint of heart after seeing the price there is an alternative.  The Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Zoom Lens for Canon. I can personally vouch for its abilities.  It is a fine lens at a decent savings.  It works on either Rebel or FF cameras as does the preffered EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens.

[ebiggs1]

"I loved the 2.8 of the Sigma and was wondering just how much trade off for a bokeh effect I'll see ..."

Between f2.8 and f4 at the same focal length and distance, not much.  Remember, although, it sounds like a bigger deal by the numbers, it is only one stop.

The advice of setting one or your current lenses at 50mm and trying it is a valid one.  Try it before you buy anything else.  A 50mm on a Rebel can be an excellent portrait lens.  Plus the f1.8 or much better f1.4 version can make some pretty nice portraits.  Bokeh and OOF backgrounds and all.  But it is really just a portrait lens and therefore the 'speciality lens' branding.

[KingNine]

Thanks guys. I ran across the lens that was recomended last night (Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM) while I was reading the other form questions. It seems like a great lens with an L price lol. I do love having the fixed apperature so my settings don't need to change between zooms. The next purchase will be to replace the efs 55-250 but it is lower on my priority list. Ultimately i would love to stay below 500 on the purchase. I was able to get the 24-105 L right around 500 in great used condition from a photographer. Man I love that lens! the Shots I got with it were amazing. My favorites were at Arlington National Cemetery and the changing of the guard. Anyway I'll try the lens at 50 and see and I'll also check out the other two lenses you guys mentioned. 

[kvbarkley]

Nit here.

Bokeh has nothing to do with the *amount* of blur. It is about the *quality* of the blur, some lenses have good bokeh, some don't and it is very subjective.

[Waddizzle]

" Is there anything in a 17-30 range ish that would serve a better purpose than what I currently have?" 

If you want to stick with full frame EF lenses, then the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens is a choice to consider.  While it doesn't have Image Stabilization, I don't think IS matters as much on a wide lens as it would on a longer telephoto.  If you  really want IS, then the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM is an option.  I use the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, which doesn't have IS, and don't miss it, either.

[ebiggs1]

"I use the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, which doesn't have IS, and don't miss it, either."

Me either. I don't buy any lens because it has IS.  If two lenses are identical with one having IS and the other not, I will choose the one with IS.  But if a lens doesn't have IS , it doesn't bother me a bit.  No IS is not a deal breaker.