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.

[ebiggs1]

"Ultimately i would love to stay below 500 on the purchase."

This is going to be a challenge.  It almost dictates you buy used.  And if that is the way you go, avoid ef-s and off brand lenses.  Stick with "L" lenses.  If you know the history of the lesser lenses, ef-s or third party, they might be OK but be certain they work first.

On a limited lower budget make sure you don't duplicate what you already have.  Make every focal length count.

[KingNine]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

This is going to be a challenge.  It almost dictates you buy used.  And if that is the way you go, avoid ef-s and off brand lenses.  Stick with "L" lenses. 

Great advice. I could probably go a smidge higher but with the other lens purchase and my daughter about to go to college I'll have a dofficult time with "the boss" if I get another big lens expense. This will require a little more thinking on my part as I assemble my new arsenal. The 16-35 L that was mentioned is intriguing me but I'm sure I'm about to blow way past my budget. Am I going to have sticker shock when I look it up? 

[Waddizzle]

"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." 

My advice would be to not settle for a compromise on any lens purchase, just to have something.  You will only be disappointed in the long run.  Save up a few more dollars and buy the quality lenses that you really want.   Your budget price point should not be the driving factor behind lens purchases, hopefully.

The EF 24-105 f/4L is a really good lens, and a workhorse of a lens, as far as the average photo enthusiast is concerned.  It, and the 55-250mm, will serve you well until you can make another quality lens purchase. I recommend sticking with EF lenses, although there are a number of quality EF-S lenses out there.

I would suggest your next lens purchase to be a wide angle lens, which could extend your focal lengths below 24mm.  For an EF-S body, this would mean focal lengths extending down as far 10-12mm. Wide angle lenses tend to be more costly than standard focal lengths and medium telephoto lenses, especially in the EF lineup.  The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is a great lens.  This lens is priced just above your budget.

Or, you could replace the 55-250mm with the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM lens as your next purchase.  This lens, too, is priced just above your budget.  There is a distinct difference in lens quality just above the budget limit that you have set for yourself.  Again, i suggest saving up  for a bigger lens purchase.  You won't have buyer's remorse, especially with "L" glass.

[KingNine]

Thanks. I'm content with the 55-250 right now. It will suffice till I can get a better lens with that kind of range. The lower end is really where I'm focusing my attention. I'll look into the one you recommended soon. Thanks again! You'd think $500 would get you something good to take pictures with but as usual I have inncorrect assumptions. I'll research all the lens options given and see which the wind is blowing for me.

[Waddizzle]

Check out the Canon Online Refurbished Store.  The lenses are all factory checked out, BY HAND, which in my mind makes them more valuable than a new lens off the mass production line.

All of Canon's refurbished lenses have a one year warranty.

Many professionals do not like the refurbished lenses, probably because extended warranties are typically not available.  Pros can shoot hundreds and hundreds of pictures in a week, and wear a lens out in less than a year.  But, for the average photo enthusiast, the refurbished lenses are more than adequate. 

[KingNine]

Thanks! I'll definitely give that a look see!! I'm always a fan of factory refurbished gear. I've purchased many different types over the years and have never had an issue.

[KingNine]

Well I'm going to have to save my pennies to make my next lens purchase. I've been looking at three of the lenses mentioned and a 4th. They all seem to range budget wise from $750 - $1100 ish. The two Canon sister lenses 16-35 IS 4L and the 16-35 2.8L, The Canon 17-40 4L and the Tamron 15-30 2.8 Di VC USD that I don't think has been mentioned. Needless to say I'm getting pretty confused. Oh yeah, The EF-S 2.8 lens mentioned to is quite intriguing. I think i'm just having mental hangups with it as the new L lens I have has sold me on high quality lenses. Am i just being a lens snob now and over looking the right equipment for me? I dont' want to spend 800 on it and turn around and buy a FF then go through this again. 

I've heard the newer 16-35 sister lens at f4 and with IS is much sharper than the older more expensive lens is. Is the one stop worth it that much? I also saw a bad review of the 17-40 which worried me. If I can use f4 to catch my daughter dancing then I'll probably still be using the new 24-105 I have. And if that is the case then this lens will be more for indoor and outdoor pictures of people and nature. If I"m taking pictures of people I'll probably want more than just a f4 to get more of a portrait look for my daughters.

I just found myself wanting a little more of a wide angle than the 24 allowed me on that trip. If I was ever to upgrade bodies maybe now is the time and not purchasing a new lens. The FF body would make the 24 much wider wouldn't it? Sorry I"m thinking outloud as I type. Sorry for rambling and thanks for listening to me.

Edit: I went to the canon refurbished website and they had the 50mm 1.8 STM on sale for 89 since it was so cheap I purchased it. If I don't like it I'll sell it or just stash it away for special occasions.

[ebiggs1]

First of all, read reviews with a lot of skepticism.  Most of them are done by people that don't actually have the lens or they don't know any more about it than you do.

Here are some 'facts' you can believe.  Canon "L" lenses have more going for them than just the best glass.  They are built stronger and weather tight for day in and day out use by Pros. 1000's upon 1000's of photos. This is a big part of their cost increase over other lenses. They are not necessarily the best choice for everyone.

Tamron and Sigma lenses can be a good alternative choices but careful selection must be used. Some, mostly the older ones are pretty scary and should be avoided.  Some may not work with your camera at all. In a Sigma if it has 'Art' or 'EX' in its name, it is probably good.  Matter of fact, they can be very good.  Tamron isn't as easy to tell.  Avoid older ones but current models are mostly OK.

The older ef 16-35mm f2.8 isn't as good as the f4 version.  But the new 16-35mm f2.8L II is the best of the three.  It has become a mainstay in my bag.  Does that really mean much to an amateur?  Not really as any of them is really nice.

EF 17-40mm f4L is a great lens.  Don't believe anything else about it.

"I dont' want to spend 800 on it and turn around and buy a FF then go through this again."

You need to "STOP" and make this decision right now.  Before you proceed.  Unless you like buying lenses. Is a FF in your future?  Yes, no?  Make this decision first.  For most amateur's there are few to no reasons to go FF.  Plus there are some good reasons to not go FF.  Bigger and heavier and mostly more expensive.  It that what you want?  And what do you expect in return?  You want UWA, I guess, as you asked for it. "The FF body would make the 24 much wider wouldn't it?"  Well the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens is an "L" quality lens that is as wide as you will ever want or need.

How about this?

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens (already yours)

Pretty nice bag in my book.  And you can have it for the cost of one "L" lens!  Throw in that ef 50mm f1.8 to play with and go make beautiful pictures and memories.  In the end that is all that is important because you only get one chance in life.  Don't miss the moment especially because of hype from some inner web keyboard jockey. Stop reading the reviews.

[kvbarkley]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

 Canon "L" lenses have more going for them than just the best glass.  They are built stronger and weather tight for day in and day out use by Pros. 1000's upon 1000's of photos. This is a big part of their cost increase over other lenses.

---

As Ken Rockwell says, they call them "L" lenses because they are as tough as 'L

[ebiggs1]

"As Ken Rockwell says, they call them "L" lenses because they are as tough as 'L"

Or as expensive as "L"?