Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
all-in-one lenses. (for Canon)
- Thread starter wheelhot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here's what I suggest:
Canon 17-85 IS USM. About $300, lightweight, sweet focal length range (just about right for travel), durable and inconspicuous. This was my primary lens when I was abroad in the rainforests of Australia and it held up like a champ. If you're looking for something that you don't need to worry about because of expense or durability, this lens is a great choice. Plus its limited focal length cuts down on distortion significantly; if you get a super-zoom, it'll be much more distorted most of the time.
Canon 17-85 IS USM. About $300, lightweight, sweet focal length range (just about right for travel), durable and inconspicuous. This was my primary lens when I was abroad in the rainforests of Australia and it held up like a champ. If you're looking for something that you don't need to worry about because of expense or durability, this lens is a great choice. Plus its limited focal length cuts down on distortion significantly; if you get a super-zoom, it'll be much more distorted most of the time.
Wow, thanks for the advice guys.
Well for those who still don't know what camera I am using, I am using a EOS 1000D or Rebel XS, I'm still new to photography and like all things that I get myself into I will get my self involve with the accessories and etc. so when the time come I will have the knowledge into what I want and etc. (for now excuse me if my question sound childish or annoying, I'm learning!
) If I were to buy lenses (in the future) I will likely invest into the EF series lenses rather then the EF-S.
After reading through a lot of things about prime and zoom, it seems that most photographers use prime lenses because of the quality it produces. Either prime or zoom has its own usage.
I saw a photographer with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM (love the wide constant aperture and zoom) and of course its a very pretty lens and all but its freakishly huge, to me this kind of lens is more suitable for specific purpose and when you are on a photography journey. I don't think many people would walk around with such a huge lens around.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM looks impressive for general day-by-day use.
I like the fact that there is more prime lenses with wide aperture cause I love wide aperture lenses, I used my dad EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens and tried it outdoor with bright sunlight and it take excellent motion capture, its shutter speed is capable to reach 1/1000 and above and it makes the photo looks really good.
So let me get this right, if you are using prime, you can only use it at its fix focal length? So if you get a 135mm fixed length lens, you must walk further or nearer to the subject if you want to get the picture you want? Hmm, so what about sports photograph then? Wouldn't it be boring if the pictures is only taken at a fixed focal length?
Well for those who still don't know what camera I am using, I am using a EOS 1000D or Rebel XS, I'm still new to photography and like all things that I get myself into I will get my self involve with the accessories and etc. so when the time come I will have the knowledge into what I want and etc. (for now excuse me if my question sound childish or annoying, I'm learning!
) If I were to buy lenses (in the future) I will likely invest into the EF series lenses rather then the EF-S. After reading through a lot of things about prime and zoom, it seems that most photographers use prime lenses because of the quality it produces. Either prime or zoom has its own usage.
I saw a photographer with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM (love the wide constant aperture and zoom) and of course its a very pretty lens and all but its freakishly huge, to me this kind of lens is more suitable for specific purpose and when you are on a photography journey. I don't think many people would walk around with such a huge lens around.
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM looks impressive for general day-by-day use.
I like the fact that there is more prime lenses with wide aperture cause I love wide aperture lenses, I used my dad EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens and tried it outdoor with bright sunlight and it take excellent motion capture, its shutter speed is capable to reach 1/1000 and above and it makes the photo looks really good.
So let me get this right, if you are using prime, you can only use it at its fix focal length? So if you get a 135mm fixed length lens, you must walk further or nearer to the subject if you want to get the picture you want? Hmm, so what about sports photograph then? Wouldn't it be boring if the pictures is only taken at a fixed focal length?
Right, a prime lens by definition, has a fixed focal length so you may need to move your lazy legs a little bit.
Sports photographers are constantly moving, and use monopods instead of tripods to get the best shots on the go. Cropping helps too.
Most sports photographs are taken at a single focal length, but players move around the playing surface, vehicles move around the driving surface, boats move around the water...
Plus photographers also change their position.
The focal lengths chosen are generally to get close enough to the "action" to get good shots. Most sports photographs are taken with 300mm f/2.8 lenses for outdoor human player type sports- but most good shots are far from boring.
Prime lenses can still focus. That's why they still have a rotating ring on them. They just can't change their focal length (zoom).
Wheelhot:
Zooms and primes are fundamentally used from different philosophies.
Zooms are a convenience. They are versatile in that you can use any focal length within your lens's range and frame your shot however you'd like. You'd need a bag of primes for that. On the other hand, a zoom lens has more moving parts and is considerably less solid than a good prime lens. You're also going to get a relatively small aperture and lower image quality for the price.
Primes take a little getting used to, but it's well worth it IMHO. Yes, it'll take some extra footwork, as you must move yourself to frame your shots, but considering the advantages in price, larger aperture, and build quality, getting used to it is indeed worth it. I shoot with almost all primes now, though I cut my teeth on a 17-85 IS USM which was a wonderful choice for developing skill. To be honest, you'll probably end up getting a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 eventually if you are serious about photography; it's one of the most useful fix focal length lenses out there. With primes you'll usually get buttery smooth bokeh (out of focus background) much more easily than any zoom lens, and isolate your subject for a real eye-catching picture.
As for the focusing question, all lenses focus within their range. This is a general statement, to be sure, but all lenses work basically the same way whether they are primes or zooms. The vast majority of all lenses focus to infinity. Every lens has a minimum focusing distance; that is, if you get too close to your subject, your lens will refuse to focus. Within the minimum focusing distance and infinity, you should be able to get a focused shot.
Keep in mind that focusing on close-up subjects is often a bit harder than far-away ones, as you have a significantly smaller depth of field when you are close to your subject.
Ok, closing statement. You can take GREAT pictures with ANY LENS. It's a fact. Use what you can afford, upgrade when you must. Don't let anyone tell you you "need" something when it comes to photography; there are a lot of lenses and gimmicky pieces of equipment out there. They might help, but for the most part you can do wonders with the lens your camera comes with. There are pixel peepers out there who will disagree with me, and I admit, I have spent a lot of money on my equipment in the past year, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just go with your gut; ask yourself what you NEED and what YOU KNOW YOU WILL USE WITH CONSISTENCY.
Once you have decided what you absolutely need, consider investing a bit more on an upgrade to the next level of build quality. It might be a couple hundred dollars more, but it's worth it. Your investment in a good lens will pay off in ways you cannot imagine.
Zooms and primes are fundamentally used from different philosophies.
Zooms are a convenience. They are versatile in that you can use any focal length within your lens's range and frame your shot however you'd like. You'd need a bag of primes for that. On the other hand, a zoom lens has more moving parts and is considerably less solid than a good prime lens. You're also going to get a relatively small aperture and lower image quality for the price.
Primes take a little getting used to, but it's well worth it IMHO. Yes, it'll take some extra footwork, as you must move yourself to frame your shots, but considering the advantages in price, larger aperture, and build quality, getting used to it is indeed worth it. I shoot with almost all primes now, though I cut my teeth on a 17-85 IS USM which was a wonderful choice for developing skill. To be honest, you'll probably end up getting a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 eventually if you are serious about photography; it's one of the most useful fix focal length lenses out there. With primes you'll usually get buttery smooth bokeh (out of focus background) much more easily than any zoom lens, and isolate your subject for a real eye-catching picture.
As for the focusing question, all lenses focus within their range. This is a general statement, to be sure, but all lenses work basically the same way whether they are primes or zooms. The vast majority of all lenses focus to infinity. Every lens has a minimum focusing distance; that is, if you get too close to your subject, your lens will refuse to focus. Within the minimum focusing distance and infinity, you should be able to get a focused shot.
Keep in mind that focusing on close-up subjects is often a bit harder than far-away ones, as you have a significantly smaller depth of field when you are close to your subject.
Ok, closing statement. You can take GREAT pictures with ANY LENS. It's a fact. Use what you can afford, upgrade when you must. Don't let anyone tell you you "need" something when it comes to photography; there are a lot of lenses and gimmicky pieces of equipment out there. They might help, but for the most part you can do wonders with the lens your camera comes with. There are pixel peepers out there who will disagree with me, and I admit, I have spent a lot of money on my equipment in the past year, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just go with your gut; ask yourself what you NEED and what YOU KNOW YOU WILL USE WITH CONSISTENCY.
Once you have decided what you absolutely need, consider investing a bit more on an upgrade to the next level of build quality. It might be a couple hundred dollars more, but it's worth it. Your investment in a good lens will pay off in ways you cannot imagine.
Thanks flinch13, excellent write up.
Very useful and informative. And I agree with all you say.
I've been using the EF100mm f/2.8 USM Macro and I love the quality it produces, the image is sharper and leagues better then my standard 18-55 EF-S IS kit lens. Although with the crop field my 100mm becomes a 160mm.
I decided that if I were to get a zoom lens for daily use and for let say holiday trip which time is not on my side, a quality zoom lens like the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM would fit the bill.
Other then that I will try and get use with Primes. Its amazing there is a few primes with f/1.2, talk about indoor lighting.
P.S: Crap there is a small dot (I think its dust) at the top left of my DSLR mirror box and how the hell did a small black ant end up in my DSLR???
Very useful and informative. And I agree with all you say.
I've been using the EF100mm f/2.8 USM Macro and I love the quality it produces, the image is sharper and leagues better then my standard 18-55 EF-S IS kit lens. Although with the crop field my 100mm becomes a 160mm.
I decided that if I were to get a zoom lens for daily use and for let say holiday trip which time is not on my side, a quality zoom lens like the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM would fit the bill.
Other then that I will try and get use with Primes. Its amazing there is a few primes with f/1.2, talk about indoor lighting
.P.S: Crap there is a small dot (I think its dust) at the top left of my DSLR mirror box and how the hell did a small black ant end up in my DSLR???
I think what you're asking about is a focus limit switch. Many primes have a focus limiter on them so they can AF quickly inside a short range and not go outside that range then back to the range you want to focus on. For instance, if you're shooting something out at the long end, and something passes in front closer by, the lens won't go all the way to the close end of its focus, then all the way back out, making re-acquisition of your target easier. Not all primes have focus limit switches, but they're very useful at times if they're there- just don't forget to switch it back off once you're done.
You'll also find a focus limit switch on better zoom lenses, like L series zooms.
I know the 70-200 4.0 and 2.8 lenses have zoom lock.
And I would say if you're looking for two good lenses, the 24-70/2.8L and the 70-200/4.0L (IS if you can afford it) would be a good combo.
The 70-200 lenses are all the zoom you would ever need for a crop-sensor camera. Unless you're shooting bald eagle nests from 200 yards or something. The non-IS one is really affordable, too. One of the cheapest L-series lenses. The 2.8 is obviously a better lens, but it also weighs something like twice as much. It's a heavy enough that you want a tripod mounted to the lens instead of the camera at that point. The 4.0 non-IS is light enough to carry around...although people will stare at you because you have a big white lens on your camera...
It's kinda fun to point it at them when they stare, though...
I know the 70-200 4.0 and 2.8 lenses have zoom lock.
And I would say if you're looking for two good lenses, the 24-70/2.8L and the 70-200/4.0L (IS if you can afford it) would be a good combo.
The 70-200 lenses are all the zoom you would ever need for a crop-sensor camera. Unless you're shooting bald eagle nests from 200 yards or something. The non-IS one is really affordable, too. One of the cheapest L-series lenses. The 2.8 is obviously a better lens, but it also weighs something like twice as much. It's a heavy enough that you want a tripod mounted to the lens instead of the camera at that point. The 4.0 non-IS is light enough to carry around...although people will stare at you because you have a big white lens on your camera...
It's kinda fun to point it at them when they stare, though...
My favorite light-weight do-it-all combo is the 17-85/IS and the 70-300/IS.
If you want a one-lens kit, there's really only one option: the new EF-S 18-200.
If you want a one-lens kit, there's really only one option: the new EF-S 18-200.
That's the exact combo I use - it's good, although 24mm isn't very wide on a crop sensor.
Same here. I use 24-70 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L IS on a 40D. They play beautifully together, although the 24-70 is a touch soft at 70mm, but that's overcome by foot zooming.
I'm itching to get the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 just to get the gapless range from 12-200mm
Aaah okay, thanks guys.
So the 70-200 f/4L is the lightest among the bunch and cheapest. Owning such lens would be great for some outdoor events where you dont have the luxury of walking
The 24-70/2.8L would be great for day by day use lens and would be a definite upgrade over the kit lens. I guess if wide-angle-lens is required I can always go prime since wide-angle-lens is not meant for zooming
So the 70-200 f/4L is the lightest among the bunch and cheapest. Owning such lens would be great for some outdoor events where you dont have the luxury of walking
The 24-70/2.8L would be great for day by day use lens and would be a definite upgrade over the kit lens. I guess if wide-angle-lens is required I can always go prime since wide-angle-lens is not meant for zooming
It's also helped by not shooting wide open at f/2.8. At f/4 or 5.6 it's much much sharper.
Another nice and not too expensive L lens, if you can get by with a prime is the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM. It has no IS, but costs around $600.00, and is very sharp. As I mentioned before, sometimes I use it to take close-ups of flowers and such, as well as wildlife (large animals, or small ones at close range). I took these with that lens:
28-300mm
I loved the 28-300mm Canon lens, but you do need one of the bigger camera bodies to balance the weight of it. (Have since moved to Nikon and do miss it) These days zoom lenses are so well made that they are mostly as good as their prime lens equivalent. In shooting terms though zooms do make life easy- quips about being too lazy to move are slightly unhelpful- for every one photographer who got THAT shot, there are usually another three standing next to him who were changing lenses or just too far away (or too close) when the moment passed. I can't think of a news photographer that doesn't use zooms.
I loved the 28-300mm Canon lens, but you do need one of the bigger camera bodies to balance the weight of it. (Have since moved to Nikon and do miss it) These days zoom lenses are so well made that they are mostly as good as their prime lens equivalent. In shooting terms though zooms do make life easy- quips about being too lazy to move are slightly unhelpful- for every one photographer who got THAT shot, there are usually another three standing next to him who were changing lenses or just too far away (or too close) when the moment passed. I can't think of a news photographer that doesn't use zooms.
I got the 24-70,, nice lens, and 10-24 EF-S canon, pretty cool also, got some neat pictures with both at recent trip to DC,,, but in camera bag, they get very heavy,,,
Wow, not bad that is pretty sharp
Oh yeah does the Canon zoom 200mm lens size different? between f/2.8 and f/4? Cause I saw a 200mm and it seems smaller then the one beside it (in terms of diameteR)
The EF 200mm f.2L (above) is not a zoom, but a telephoto (a prime). A zoom would be one such as this: Tamron 18-50mm f/2.8 lens, or Tokina 12-24mm f/4.
This 200mm prime is not very heavy or large, so I often shoot offhand. I just place the lens barrel on my left hand (my fingers off the focus ring), and hold the camera and lens this way. You can also re-focus the lens manually while auto-focusing. However there is a way to do this without damaging the lens: press and hold the shutter button halfway, the camera/lens focus on the subject and disengages. Right then (with the shutter still half pressed) you can manually readjust the focus as needed. You can also flip the MF/AF switch to manual if you want
Heavy lenses mount directly on the tripod, and some include a threaded mount. Other lenses require the use of a tripod ring. It's a terrible idea to balance the lens with a camera regardless of how heavy this camera may be, because too much pressure is placed at the camera's base where the lens it's mounted on. It's like holding a 2"x4" horizontally by grabbing it by one of its ends
The camera should be in the air, being held in place by the lens. This is true when the heaviest lenses are used.Heavy lenses mount directly on the tripod, and some include a threaded mount. Other lenses require the use of a tripod ring. It's a terrible idea to balance the lens with a camera regardless of how heavy this camera may be, because too much pressure is placed at the camera's base where the lens it's mounted on. It's like holding a 2"x4" horizontally by grabbing it by one of its ends
Ever heard of ergonomics? The fulcrum (in this case your left hand or tripod) needs to be in the middle of the 28-300 to operate it properly. With a smaller camera body attached, your left hand needs to be somewhere other than the middle to balance it all up- and then you can't operate the lens properly.... no one should be using both hands on the camera body itself to support any SLR with any lens attached. (That would indeed be like holding a 2"x4" from one of the ends, and it would be silly and break your camera as you say.)