Lens questions...help?!

[tulips*n*truffles]

I've settled on the Canon Rebel XSi and after a bit more research, I'm hoping to have a kit customized with a few accessories.

 

I need to make a couple of lens decisions relatively quickly.

 

Would you choose a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS or the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS?

 

And would you choose a 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS?

 

Also, what generally would you shoot with a 50mm f/1.8 II that you wouldn't with the 17-85 or 18-55? I can add that lens really cheap, but not sure if I "should"...

 

With this much investment, I know it's a personal choice, but I really don't have much to go on. I'll mostly use it to shoot on this (and future) cruises, at my nephews' soccer and basketball games, and at some random concerts, that kind of thing. Any input there?

 

Also, the kit I'm looking at includes a standard wide-angle converter lens and a standard telephoto converter lens (no numbers or anything). Does anyone actually use those? And in what capacity? In addition to your mega-lenses?

 

Thanks so much! I did post this as part of another thread, but thought a new topic made more sense. Thanks thanks thanks!

[Suzieb]

Not a Canon shooter, but I would pick the 18-55 lens due to the slightly larger aperture at its wide end, and then I would pick the 70-300 lens due to your trip to Alaska that would give you a reach of 450mm, due to the sensor conversion. And as for the 50mm 1.8 lens that would be great for low light situations but then the lens converts to 75mm, So if you can find one look for a 35mm 1.8, that converts to 50mm, the old standard in 35 mm film days. And it would be a great lens for low light and what is called a prime lens, you get a slightly better photo, although I am not sure I would be able to see the difference. The pro portrait photographers used a 35mm lens to shot the portraits on our recent Princess cruise

 

My $.04 worth hope it helps a little bit, we all know what $.04 can buy!

[pierces]

I've settled on the Canon Rebel XSi and after a bit more research, I'm hoping to have a kit customized with a few accessories.

 

I need to make a couple of lens decisions relatively quickly.

 

Would you choose a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS or the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS?

 

 

The 18-55 is moderately sharper according to SLRGear.com (the only place I could find both lenses tested by the same method). With IS, the slightly faster f/3.5 aperture on the 18-55 isn't a deal-maker or breaker, but it seems that the choice comes down to how much zoom range you want.

 

Bottom line, no bad choice here.

 

And would you choose a 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS?

 

Both test out about the same (once again on SLRGear.com) with the edge going to the 70-300. Again it boils down to reach, The Canon multiplier is actually 1.6x, so the 300mm becomes 480mm equivalent (tripod time). That is on the very long end of hand-holdable, even with IS. The extra reach is good for wildlife, so I would choose the reach in this case with all other factors being equal. The 70-300, however, costs twice as much as the 55-250 and the 55-250 weighs half as much.

 

Also, what generally would you shoot with a 50mm f/1.8 II that you wouldn't with the 17-85 or 18-55? I can add that lens really cheap, but not sure if I "should"...

 

 

The 80mm equivalent length of the 50mm f/1.8 and the fairly large aperture makes a classic portrait lens. The wide aperture gives it a much shallower depth of field than the two zooms and that is often desirable for single-subject portraits. On a full-frame camera like the 5D, it would be a good low-light lens for walkabout photography but the 80mm equivalent on the XSi makes it a bit long for that.

 

 

With my 2¢, that make 6¢ now...

 

 

Dave

[donaldsc]

One other point - if you decide that you do not want the standard lens that comes with the kit, you can probably buy just a camera body and then select the exact lenses that you want. This will save you a few bucks.

 

DON

[TheRoff]

Here are a couple more reviews of the two lens:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

With 5.6 with both lens extended, you may have trouble catching “stop action” sports shots in a typical school gymnasium. Even with a 1600 ISO you may have to shoot at 1/00 of a second.

 

My money would go (and has gone) to the EF 70-200 mm f2.8 L IS.

 

My .08$..Larry

[pilotdane]

I've held the 55-250 in my hand and it just does not feel like a quality lens so I'd pick the 70-300 if your choice is between those two.

 

The "nifty fifty" (50mm f1.8) does give a lot of bang for the buck. They can easily be found used for about $50. The image quality is good for a $50 lens. If you get the 18-55 I doubt you will use this lens much. The faster 1.8 aperture will help in low light but it does not have image stabilization and the shallow depth of field at f1.8 limits its use. The lens is a bit soft wide open (1.8) but gets sharper when you stop it down, but then you've lost the benefit of the faster lens. It is a good lens to have but it is good for a specialized purpose. I would save my money and get the 50mm f1.4. It is a much higher quality lens and is still reasonably priced ($300).

 

---

Another lens to remotely consider is the 70-200 f4L. It is about the same price as the 70-300 and is a MUCH higher quality that will produce superior images. It does not have image stabilization which is a big negative. The IS version will cost you about $1'000 but it would be a lens you would keep long after you upgraded the camera body.

 

I would not consider the 70-200 f2.8. It is an incredible lens but it is way beyond your price range and is quite large and heavy. A bit much for somebody just getting into the hobby, and I know many people with this lens that also buy the f4 version to have something more travel friendly (smaller & lighter).

[TheRoff]

I would not consider the 70-200 f2.8. It is an incredible lens but it is way beyond your price range and is quite large and heavy. A bit much for somebody just getting into the hobby, and I know many people with this lens that also buy the f4 version to have something more travel friendly (smaller & lighter).

 

I think you are correct in this case. I seem to have acquired the dreaded "L" disease. ;)

[pierces]

I think you are correct in this case. I seem to have acquired the dreaded "L" disease. ;)

 

Closely related to the Sony "Zeiss-itis"!

 

Cough...cough... :D

 

 

Dave

[pilotdane]

I find that one high quality lens a year can keep my condition under control, though my condition is worsening. I have recently started to shake uncontrollably when I see a telephoto prime.

[Hoppalong]

I'd like some thoughts on including a polarizing filter in my camera kit. Will this help bring out the color in glaciers? Improve landscapes? Add to whale photography?

In short is this a "must get" accessory?

Thank you

[pilotdane]

If you use a linear polarizer your autofocus may not work so make sure you get a circular polarizer. Their affect is the same but the circular polarizer is made a bit different so it does not screw-up your autofocus.

 

Polaraizers are great way to cut reflections or glare. They can also sometimes bring out more color or contrast. One drawback is that it does filter (consumes) light so it slows your camera by about one f-stop and makes the image in your viewfinder a bit darker so I use them most often on bright, sunny days. Because they slow the camera it makes it harder to use a long focal length lens and fast moving subjects are harder to catch without bluring.

---

For me polarizers are small and light so I always take one for each lens on a cruise. They do a great job making the sky blue and the clouds "pop" and cut the glare from the ocean. It is also great if you are shooting down into the water to catch dolphins.

 

[Hoppalong]

I have ordered a circular polarizer.

[WalleyeLJ]

I've settled on the Canon Rebel XSi and after a bit more research, I'm hoping to have a kit customized with a few accessories.

 

I need to make a couple of lens decisions relatively quickly.

 

Would you choose a 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS or the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS?

 

And would you choose a 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS?

 

Also, what generally would you shoot with a 50mm f/1.8 II that you wouldn't with the 17-85 or 18-55? I can add that lens really cheap, but not sure if I "should"...

 

With this much investment, I know it's a personal choice, but I really don't have much to go on. I'll mostly use it to shoot on this (and future) cruises, at my nephews' soccer and basketball games, and at some random concerts, that kind of thing. Any input there?

 

Also, the kit I'm looking at includes a standard wide-angle converter lens and a standard telephoto converter lens (no numbers or anything). Does anyone actually use those? And in what capacity? In addition to your mega-lenses?

 

Thanks so much! I did post this as part of another thread, but thought a new topic made more sense. Thanks thanks thanks!

 

 

You've gotten some good advice so far, but I'll toss mine in as well. I have a Canon XTi and just recently bought a 50D. For the short zooms, I think you need to balance speed/low ligt vs. flexibility. My personal choice would probably be the 17-85mm IS. If your shooting sporting events after Alaska, you're going to be extending that lens all the way out to 55 or 85mm to frame the action, at which case both lens will start at f/5.6. At the wide angle lens, you'll gain enough breadth of field that you won't notice the half stop difference at 17 or 18mm.

 

As for the other choice, I have not used the 55-250mm, but I do have the 70-300mm IS, and that lens is terrific! I use it to shoot NASCAR races (I'm about to get my first "L" - the 70-200mm f/2.8). Generally speaking, of course the more expensive the glass, the better the color and clarity in a given photo. I would love to have a "L" series galss, but alas tis' not the case. The 70-300 IS I bought runs about $529 (I didn't get the DO version at the $1,000 level). While the 70-200mm f/4 is a really nice lens, in Alaska I'll probably like having the added 100mm to work with. Many of your shots should be taken with plenty of light, so the f/5.6 at 300mm would cause as much of an issue as if might shooting indoor sporting events.

 

One other option is to rent one of two lens for your trip. I'm going to rent the Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS for just around $100 for the trip. There are many types of lenses available for rent, and even thought it's renting instead of buying, it let's you see which lens you really like the most. If I hadn't test drive the 70-200 "L" twice, I'd be a lot more worried about the money I'm about to spend.

 

To anwer the polarizer question - absolutely get a circular polarizer - especially for your wider lens choice. I make a world of difference when shooting syies, water surfaces and a number of other applications. They also funtion as a 1-2 stop ND filter, which is useful for achieveing slower shutter speeds for things like waterfals and streams.

 

Have a great trip and happy shooting!

 

L.J.

[TheRoff]

I would like to report that my case of “L” disease is in remission. I just purchased the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. With just a few photos this afternoon, I am seriously impressed with the sharpness of the lens. After reading a lot, and looking at a lot of cruise vacation pictures, (Thank you Dave for spectacular galleries.) I believe this focal length(s) will be perfect for cruising shots. Now if I can just compose and expose decently.

 

This one was at 80 mm, ¼ sec. f/22 and 1600 ISO. IMHO, not bad in low light.

[fototaker]

I think that the 17-40 f.4L is the choice lens. the lens is relatively cheap for "L" glass (670.00 dollars). The difference between 18-55 and 17-40 is astronomical. The images with L glass are superior in sharpness and color, and at 670 bucks a bargain. Especially if you want your vacation pix to look like post cards! I should also mention the 28-105is, its not as sharp as the 17-40 but its close, and you can expect about a stop of usable stabilization making low light a little easier