I don't know what lens to get next...

[poker]

Imagine you are the sales person and I'm buying a new lens. I've told you the following about my gear.

  

    
 
    
Focal Length (35mm) 
    
Focal Length (x1.6) 
    
Aperture
    
Uses 
    
Pro
    
Con
    
Yrs of use 
  
  

    
Canon EF-S 
    
18
    
55
    
18
    
55
    
f3.5-5.6
    
Best wide angle I have for my architectural shots. 
    
Light, 18mm, fluid zoom ring 
    
Slow, image quality is questionable 
    
less than one year 
  
  

    
Sigma Asph 
    
28
    
105
    
44.8
    
168
    
f2.8-4.0
    
General use 
    
f2.8 at 28mm
    
no longer a good widangle after the 1.6 mag. Stiff zoom ring. Zoom creep while pointing down
    
about 4 years. 
  
  

    
Canon
    
50
    
 
    
80
    
 
    
f1.8
    
All around especially portraits 
    
f1.8, light 
    
Plastic
    
about 4 years 
  
  

    
Canon USM 
    
85
    
 
    
136
    
 
    
f1.8
    
Portraits, still life
    
f1.8, crystal clear, USM 
    
A 136mm prime after 1.6 mag makes this lens usage situation specific 
    
about 3 years 
  
  

    
Canon USM 
    
100
    
300
    
160
    
480
    
f4.5-5.6
    
I don't recall ever really using it. Bought it back in my teens before I knew any better. I will use it for wildlife and sports I suppose. 
    
Best zoom in my bag, USM 
    
Slow and heavy 
    
Over 10 years (WOW!) 
  

My photo interest are in animals, plant life, people, events, and architecture.

I intend to try out sports, macro, and landscape in the future.

My concerns are lack of good wide angle, 1.8 and 2.8 only at specific focal lengths, and not having glass that address digital image flare.

My budget is under $1000.

Either suggest a lens to fill a void or to replace an existing lens.

Help me!! Thanks in advance.

[another view]

I'm a fan of wide angle lenses, and I'd say that 18 isn't that wide. Since you included all of the focal lengths x 1.6 for the crop factor, it applies to this lens as well (all lenses) but maybe that's just a typo. It has the angle of view of a 29-88mm lens. If it were me I'd probably look at Canon's 10-22 depending on what camera you're using. I'm not a Canon guy and I've heard that this lens only works with some of them. Another one to look at is Sigma's 10-20 which I bought recently and am pretty impressed with for about half of your budget amount.

However, lens choice is really a personal choice. Sounds like you shoot a lot of everything and a truly wide lens on a DSLR would be a good thing to have. But if you're not sure what you need next, I'd probably hold off until you know what you need next.

Don't worry about the 50 f1.8 being plastic. If you ever wear it out, you can easily replace it - but I've never personally known anyone to wear out a lens from too much use.

[poker]

Since you included all of the focal lengths x 1.6 for the crop factor, it applies to this lens as well (all lenses) but maybe that's just a typo.

I didn't multiply the first lens since it is a CANON EF-S lens which only fit the Canon bodies with th x1.6 issue. I believe the 18-55 is the true measure since it will not mount to anything except a Canon with the x1.6 factor. I might be wrong though. The following is a description of the lens.

The Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 EF-S (USM) lens is a standard zoom lens that features the smaller size image circle, exclusively designed for EOS Digital Rebel or 20D SLR (or newer models) cameras. The focal length is equivalent to approx. 28-90mm in 35mm format. It is compact and ultra-lightweight with impressive close-focusing ability of 0.9 ft (0.28m). 

Designed specifically for digital photography, the lens has specially shaped lens elements and Super Spectra coatings to suppress ghosting and flare, which can be caused by reflections off digital camera sensors. An exclusive optional lens hood can further reduce the incidence of flare. 

Note: Only fits on the EOS Digital Rebel or 20D SLR (or newer model) cameras 

If it were me I'd probably look at Canon's 10-22 depending on what camera you're using. I'm not a Canon guy and I've heard that this lens only works with some of them. Another one to look at is Sigma's 10-20 which I bought recently and am pretty impressed with for about half of your budget amount.

I was looking into the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. But with the multiplier....it still would not be wide enough for my architecture shots. I'll look up the 10-20mm range of lenses.

Don't worry about the 50 f1.8 being plastic. If you ever wear it out, you can easily replace it - but I've never personally known anyone to wear out a lens from too much use.

I had a cheap 28-80 Sigma lens years a go and it disassembled itself....literally! for the first time I saw the inside parts of a lens.

Thanks!

[dmm96452]

I didn't multiply the first lens since it is a CANON EF-S lens which only fit the Canon bodies with th x1.6 issue. I believe the 18-55 is the true measure since it will not mount to anything except a Canon with the x1.6 factor....

I don't believe that is true. I think the result will still be the same as a 29-88 on a camera without the 1.6 thing. The only difference is that there is a smaller image circle. Check the write-up below.

The Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 EF-S (USM) lens is a standard zoom lens that features the smaller size image circle, exclusively designed for EOS Digital Rebel or 20D SLR (or newer models) cameras. The focal length is equivalent to approx. 28-90mm in 35mm format. It is compact and ultra-lightweight with impressive close-focusing ability of 0.9 ft (0.28m).

[dmm96452]

I'm with AV, perhaps something a little more on the wide angle side.

The Canon 10-22 EF-S I've heard a lot of good things about. Unbelieveable low distortion for a wide angle lens.

The Tokina 12-24 f4 I have also read some good reviews about.

I personally am going to buy the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 as soon as B&H has them available. Good walking around range. Constant apeture. Decent price and I've seen results from some shots taken with it at a local shop. Sharp, clear and good color. This may be a good upgrade for the 18-55.

But what do I know I'm not a salesman.

[poker]

I don't believe that is true. I think the result will still be the same as a 29-88 on a camera without the 1.6 thing. The only difference is that there is a smaller image circle. Check the write-up below.

The Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 EF-S (USM) lens is a standard zoom lens that features the smaller size image circle, exclusively designed for EOS Digital Rebel or 20D SLR (or newer models) cameras. The focal length is equivalent to approx. 28-90mm in 35mm format. It is compact and ultra-lightweight with impressive close-focusing ability of 0.9 ft (0.28m).

Hmmmm.....the Canon EF-S 18-55 is equal to 28-90 on 35mm. BUT, a 28-90 on 35mm should be multiplied by 1.6 to get the measurement on a APS-C sensor making it 45-144.

Usually, you multiply a 35mm lens by 1.6 and get the larger number for a Canon APS-C sensor.

In the product description why is the APS-C measurement smaller than the 35mm measurement???




Thanks for you recommendation....I called my local store and they didn't have that Tamron yet.

[poker]

Never mind my last post...I think I get it now.

Why would they rate a DIGITAL APS-C only lens as 18-55 when you still have to multiply by 1.6???

Man, if I could only afford the 5D and above...I wouldn't be thinking of these things!!!

[greghalliday]

I want to confuse you even more. Here goes: Focal length is focal length. It doesn't matter what film format you are using. For instance: On 35mm format film, a normal lens is 50mm. On 6x4.5 a normal lens is 80mm. On 8x10" a normal lens is 300mm. All would give you relatively the same field of view given the correct associated film size. (but the perspective and depth of field is different.) What matters is the image circle and how much of that circle is covered by the film.. Wide angle on an 8x10 is 90-100mm. That would be moderate telephoto on a 35mm camera. Again, it all relates to the image circle. A 35mm film plate would cover a MUCH smaller area of the above 90-100mm lens's image circle than the 8x10 does. Hence, the apparent change in focal length. But the focal length itself does not change. It is just the size of the film area inside the image circle. If you need more information (and after this, you probably will) just Google it and you'll find much more organized, scholarly thoughts on the matter.

Greg

[dmm96452]

...Why would they rate a DIGITAL APS-C only lens as 18-55 when you still have to multiply by 1.6???...

As Greg said 18-55 is 18-55 is 18-55. The focal length of a lens is about the optics. It's the result that changes when you change between different recording sizes.

The picture I made below shows (without being to scale) what we are talking about. The outer circle is the image circle from a standard (non-digital) lens. The inner circle is the image circle of an EF-S or digital only type lens. The gray area is the portion of the image from a standard lens that is lost or cropped when you use it on a digital camers with an APS-C sensor. The image you get from either lens is the same the only difference is that with the digital lens less of the image circle is lost. They have more or less cropped the gray area out for you.

[poker]

Thank you Greg for the additional confusion. I'll just bring a calculator and print out of your post to the camera store everytime I buy a lens.



Do you have any suggestions to my original question? What do you think would compliment my lens inventory?

[poker]

Dan....we posted at the every same time....check the time stamp.....wierd stuff...

Thank for the additional info. The info on your illustration is something I'm familiar with. I just didn't understand how a lens got measured. I guess Canon can't adjust the numbers for EF-S lenses because as you both say, "18-55 is 18-55 is 18-55."

Thank guys.....

I'm still shopping for a lens...so far it looks like two have mentioned going wider than what I got.....times 1.6 of course.

[dmm96452]

...I'm still shopping for a lens...so far it looks like two have mentioned going wider than what I got.....times 1.6 of course.

Your table says that you don't remember using the 100-300 you have now so it seems that your options are to go wider or upgrade the mid range lenses you have now.

[another view]

The focal length of a lens never changes regardless of the camera it's mounted on. If you could mount that 18-55 on a medium format camera with some sort of adapter, it's still 18-55mm. On a medium format or 35mm SLR, that lens won't cover the full frame so you'll only have a circle in the middle of the film - like what was shown above.

The reason for the 1.6x is not for the focal length, it's really more for the angle of view. IOW, 18-55 is still 18-55 but since you only have the center crop (because the digital sensor is that much smaller than the film) the angle of view is similar to that of a 29-88mm lens. You don't actually have a 29-88mm lens.

[Sebastian]

I'm gonna have to be the pragmatist here and state that if you need to ask what lens to buy next that you should not be buying ANY lens and instead continue using what you have until you identify a definite need that is not being served by your current setup. Lenses are not cheap, buy them when you know you need them.

[poker]

I'm gonna have to be the pragmatist here and state that if you need to ask what lens to buy next that you should not be buying ANY lens and instead continue using what you have until you identify a definite need that is not being served by your current setup. Lenses are not cheap, buy them when you know you need them.

It's a combination of both. I'm out there shotting and I'm FEELING the need to buy a new lens. I just need the experts here at PR to push me over the ledge

I see what you mean though.

I just need help....I'm that type of consumer.

[racingpinarello]

I agree with Sebastian.... When I recently bought my Nikon F6 and Nikon D200 I only had one lens. From there, I found out that I needed a 28-70 to capture the images that I WANTED, but couldn't.

If you told me you are a nature photographer...I would say 18-35, or 28-70. The consumer levels are also extremely good.

If you told me you are a sports shooter..I would say 70-200.

I really have no ideal, but your lenses are a definition of what you like to shoot ,and need to capture.

Loren

[Sebastian]

SOunds to me like you feel the need to buy something, not that you have a photographic need that your current setup is not fulfilling. Nothing wrong with that, but it's good to be aware of it, it saves you money.

[another view]

If this is the case, how about a workshop or a trip somewhere? You might get more benefit out of something like that then a new piece of equipment. Just a thought.

[Sebastian]

AV makes an excellent suggestion. Seeing someone work and discuss the reasoning and vision behind the image is one of the greatest ways to learn.

[poker]

Here is my situation in more detail.

When I went to Italy last year, I discovered the true nature of the x1.6 issue when I used my DREBEL seriously for the first time. My Sigma 28-105 wasn’t wide enough. I had to turn to the kit 18-55mm lens for the 18mm with the f3.5. I new from the start this was an AIR lens without serious glass. The value was approximately $100 so without reading thorough reviews, I’m in Italy for the first time in my life using this throw away lens. Ultimately, my shot came out soft among other things as unfortunately expected.

As far as event photography, the x1.6 is a plus to my lens inventory. I can be stealthy and take shots from farther away without distracting the subject. The only time it bugs me is when I need to take group shots. I end up farther from the group of subjects than I’m use to.

On my last wedding shoot, during the “bride getting ready” part, I was in a small hotel room. Once again, I had to resort to the throw away lens for the wide angle. Whenever possible, I used one of my lenses with an f/1.8 to avoid using flash and to get better quality.

I tried out nature (plants and animals) and I think my lens inventory is fine so far but I have a new concern. I went up the Santa Monica hills and discovered looking for birds to photograph will be harder than I expect. The closer I get to the tree or bush, they sense my presence and fly away. I did find myself in position for some photo opportunities but I don’t know how well my 100-300mm will do. It’s relatively slow aperture wise. I don’t know if this will compel me to buy a better zoom lens.

So based on some of my current photography concerns and some of the recommendations on this thread, I just purchased the TAMRON 17-55 f/2.8.

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp

This lens will provide me with a 27.2mm wide angle and a fast f/2.8 throughout the 27.2 – 80mm range which is a huge improvement over my current lens inventory. Before this lens my best apertures are at
44.8mm with f/2.8
80mm with f/1.8
136mm with f/1.8

So down the road, I’ll either get an ultra wide prime (right before my next trip) and/or a faster zoom lens with at least f/2.8 (if I do more wildlife or sports).

I think the Tamron will compliment my lens inventory nicely.

Hey thanks for everyone’s comments and I’ll let you know how this lens turns out.

If this is the case, how about a workshop or a trip somewhere? You might get more benefit out of something like that then a new piece of equipment. Just a thought.

Understood. Both are in the works. Maybe Hawaii but camping this year is for sure. I almost attended a workshop at the Learning Annex but work got in the way.

AV makes an excellent suggestion. Seeing someone work and discuss the reasoning and vision behind the image is one of the greatest ways to learn.

I agree.