# What Lens Next?



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

Following on from this thread I'm looking for some advice on new lenses (instead of upgrading to a 700D as I originally planned).

I've got a Canon 1100D with the 18-55 kit lens, a cheap (sub £100) Tamron 70-300 and my favourite is the Canon 50mm  which cost me about £80.

What do more experienced photographers advise I spend my money on next? I'm thinking about one of these...

This Canon one is £215. It's 18-135 f3.5/5.6 IS.
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-s-18-135mm/MTAwMDAwMg_A_A

This Sigma one is is £219 and is an 18-200 F3.5-6.3. I don't understand what DC OS HSM means
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/sigma-18-200mm-f3-5/MTMyMzM_A

This Canon one is £300 and is 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-s-18-200mm/NDM4OA_A_A

This Canon one is 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 and costs £419
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-s-15-85mm/NzUyOA_A_A

This Canon one is 55-250 F4-5.6 costs £129 but I don't think it would add anything to the lenses I already have. 
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-s-55-250mm/MjE4NA_A_A

This Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 is £289 but I'm not convinced I'd use it very much as I don't use my Tamron 70-300 much just now.
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-70-300mm-f/OTE0

I think the 18-135 or an 18-200 would get the most use but the 15-85 is tempting too. I just don't really understand what the pros and cons of each lens are. I like my 50mm prime because it takes great pictures in bad light indoors and it's great for portraits (is that because it's got a low 'f' thing so it's 'fast'?). The 18-135 or 200 are tempting because they're more versatile than my 18-55 and I'd be able to go most trips without bringing my 70-300 along too. I worry they're too big for everyday use though. The 15-85 is tempting because it won't be as bulky as the 18-135 or 18-200 but still has a wider range than my 18-55mm. Would being able to go down to 15mm make much difference for wider angle indoor shots?

Can anyone help me work out which would be best? I'm also trying to make sure I buy something which makes sense as far as future lens purchases go. I don't have huge amounts to spend and a £400 lens is about as much as I can get away with £200-£300 would be more comfortable.

Finally can anyone explain why these three lenses which are all Canon prime 50mm lenses vary in price from £80 to nearly £1000.

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro...tandard_and_Medium_Telephoto/EF_50mm_f1.8_II/

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro...andard_and_Medium_Telephoto/EF_50mm_f1.4_USM/

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Pro...ndard_and_Medium_Telephoto/EF_50mm_f1.2L_USM/


----------



## rob28 (Nov 7, 2008)

The 3 50mm lenses are all different aperture sizes. The larger the aperture, the more expensive the lens as the optics will be better, probably have more elements and will generally be bigger. It will (usually) be a better quality lens too - although the nifty 50 f1.8 is a cracking lens even though it is the cheapest.

Do you know what you like taking photos of yet? What lens gets the most use just now?
So much depends on what you want to do. For me, I also got the 50mm 1.8 as my first 'next' lens. After that I thought long and hard before deciding on a wide angle lens as most of my stuff is landscape. Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.

In my opinion, something like an 18-200 lens is convenient - and that's it. Yes you can take a variety of photos with it but the quality will not be as good as a better quality dedicated lens. If you want that range without changing lenses, just buy a good quality point and shoot.
If you want the reach for sport, wildlife etc, have you thought about primes? My next purchase will probably be a 400 f5.6 prime as whenever I put on my current 70-300, it's always at the 300 max zoom and the 70-299mm range is unused.
There is no one lens that will fulfill all requirements so think of this as a long term project of getting 3 or 4 good quality lenses to cover most eventualities.


----------



## lobotomy (Jun 23, 2006)

Ok,

Lots of questions... and I'll say firstly I'm not a Canon man, but in general it depends where you'll be doing most of your shooting.

The first thing to understand when buying a lens is the max aperture of the lens, and can actually explain the difference in price between your list of 3x Canon lenses at the bottom:

Photography is all about light! And Photographers talk about light in stops. The 3x things we can control (*ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture*) in Photography can be measured in stops of light (_usually on your camera in increments of 1/3, 1/2, 1/1_)

So If you were lucky to have all 3 of the 50mm lenses above and shot them all wide open at the maximum aperture:

f1.2 is ~1/3 stop faster than f1.4
f1.2 is ~1 1/3 stop faster than f1.8

f1.4 is ~2/3 stops faster than f1.8

So essentially in a low light situation where you might want to grab action buying the f1.2 "affords" you the bandwidth to either increase the shutter speed by 4/3stops over the f1.8 lens (1/125 >> 1/320) *or* decrease the ISO by 4/3 stops (ISO800 >> ISO320) or a combination of the 2 and maintain and equal exposure.

You can see the benefits of this for indoor photography without speedlights, for noise, or for grabbing action. In good light the bigger (lower f stop) gives better seperation (shallower depth of field) of the subjects than a smaller aperture lens of equal focal length.

[edit]

Primes will always deliver better "IQ" (image quality) over zooms for the sheer fact that they're less "complicaed", but mean to cover all the focal ranges you may need in a trip you'll have to carry more!

18(*74deg*)-55mm(27deg) vs 15(*84deg*)-85mm(18deg)

So you'll get an extra 10 degrees field of view at 15mm according to the specs on t'internet. So imagine that on a protractor centre point on your camera and kind of imagine what an extra 10degrees would fit in the frame (quite a lot depending on distance)

[/edit]


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

I'm not sure I fully understand this bit. I get that my 50mm F1.8 takes great pictures in low light e.g. people dancing at weddings/parties but I don't really understand why the F1.2L is 10x the price of the F1.8. Maybe it's because it's my hobby rather than my livelihood.



lobotomy said:


> So If you were lucky to have all 3 of the 50mm lenses above and shot them all wide open at the maximum aperture:
> 
> f1.2 is ~1/3 stop faster than f1.4
> f1.2 is ~1 1/3 stop faster than f1.8
> ...


Am I right in saying the quality of these three lenses should be around the same because they all have the same F3.5-5.6? Am I also right in saying the quality will be similar to my 18-55 kit lens as it's F3.5-5.6? 
18-135 £215 
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-s-18-135mm/MTAwMDAwMg_A_A
18-200 £299
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-s-18-200mm/NDM4OA_A_A
15-85 £419
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-s-15-85mm/NzUyOA_A_A

I'm actually thinking this Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 lens might be a nice addition if I'm going to go down the prime route as sometimes I find the 50mm a bit limiting if I can't move far enough away...
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/94165/Show.html?

As for the style of photography I do I don't really have a style per se.
Here's some of my favourite stuff to give you an idea...

Images from 1st practical lesson:













































1








2








3








4








5








6








7








8








9








10








11









1








2








3








4








5








6








7








8








9








10








11








12








13








14








15








16








17








18








19








20








21








22








23








24








25


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

I've just been for a look in the shops and I'm seriously considering one of these two...

Canon EF-S 18-135 f3.5-5.6 STM at £229
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-s-18-135mm/MTAwMTExOA_A_A

or

Canon EF-S 18-200 f3.5-5.6 at £300. 
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-s-18-200mm/NDM4OA_A_A

If there was an 18-200 f3.5-5.6 with the STM function for a wee bit more I'd probably go for it but I don't think there is.

I'm still to look around at prices though.

I'm not sure if it's a good or a bad thing but my wife now has here eye on a 100D after showing no interest in photography at all!


----------



## Geordieexile (May 21, 2013)

As far as I'm aware the STM function only really matters for video mate, I may be wrong but if I'm not then you may be better using the extra pennies on aperture rather than STM. (Unless video is your thing). My 18-55 lens is STM but I don't think I've ever used it for video more than once. I believe they're also a bit slower to autofocus than standard USM lenses because of their design to avoid hunting.
As for the prices of the canon prime lenses, as an amateur I always just think about the fact that more control equals higher price across a range. The larger aperture lens will cost far more to make and I think the f1.2 is L series. It's explained above in more technical terms but the control over this wide aperture allows shallow focus and, therefore, it is easier to create the blurring, often described as bokeh. I had a go of a mate's f1.2 and the difference to my f1.8 was amazing, though not enough to ever justify me spending that kind of money on it. If I was doing it for a living I'd buy it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

It's about £14 extra for STM but the STM is for video only and won't work on my 1100D. 

For £14 it would be worth having for my upgraded camera (or her 100D!) I think.

I'm leaning towards the 18-200 more for convenience than anything at this stage. I'd then start buying more primes after that I think.


----------



## pooma (Apr 12, 2008)

I shoot with Sony, and started with 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses, my next purchase was a tamron 70-300 which was a bit of a waste of money tbh but hey-ho hindsight is 20-20 right? Then I got a 50mm 1.8 and love it, still my favourite lens. Then onto the 18-200, this has been another great buy and bought it because on days out I constantly found myself changing between my 2 kit lenses, with 2 kids, on days out this lens gets put on the front of the camera and gets forgotten about, it covers everything I need it to, obviously not as quick as the prime in low light but I can live with that and the camera I have now is much better than my old a230 at higher ISO. Next lens will be either a wider prime or a wide angle for landscapes.

So in my experience, if you constantly find yourself changing between your 18-55 and 70-300 and it's getting on your nerves then you'll love the 18-200. That said, for indoor shooting I'd love wider prime.


----------



## Buck (Jan 16, 2008)

When I had my 500D the best lens I owned was the 17-55 f2.8 - beautiful image quality coupled with the 2.8 aperture meant it stayed on my camera for most of the time.

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...mpwPTdXICZyUPxK1nmRtSAkLvMgDbX7b_8aAvxy8P8HAQ


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

Buck said:


> When I had my 500D the best lens I owned was the 17-55 f2.8 - beautiful image quality coupled with the 2.8 aperture meant it stayed on my camera for most of the time.
> 
> http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...mpwPTdXICZyUPxK1nmRtSAkLvMgDbX7b_8aAvxy8P8HAQ


Looks like a brilliant lens but it's a bit out of the price range at the moment (the one you linked to was spares or repair).

I've been reading up a lot about lenses and what the different numbers mean.

I think my ideal lens would be a 12-300 f1.2 for £400. I'd buy that!

Having learned a bit more and from some of the help from here I've got a better idea of what my options are and what routes I should go down.

I still think an 18-135 or 18-200 would be used but can't help but thinking I should be going for another prime or possibly a shorter range, faster zoom lens.

The current options are 
EF 20mm f2.8 for £319 
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-20mm-f-2/MzM_A

EF 28mm f1.8 for £326
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-ef-28mm-f-1/NzQw

My EF 50mm f1.8 is one of my favourites but I could do with a shorter focal length. (There's the EF-S 24mm pancake lens coming out but I'm not sure what the cost is).

Then there's a few options for 17-50 f2.8 from Tamron and Sigma

£219 Tamron
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/tamron-sp-af-17-50mm/MzQxNQ_A_A
£231 Tamron
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/tamron-sp-af17-50mm-f/ODExMQ_A_A
£290 Sigma
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/sigma-17-50mm-f2-8/OTc4Mw_A_A

I don't really know what the differences between these three are tbh. I'll need to look into that.

At least I'm beginning to understand more and getting out of this 'Wider focal range is the best' mindset!


----------



## msherry21 (Jun 24, 2007)

I have the Canon 17-85mm lens, great lens for travelling with. No need to change lenses and does everything I need. You can get them for a great price too. 

Cheers, Michael.


----------

