Need Recommendations: Lens for Canon T1i (1 Viewer)

[Brett_B]

After reading the multiple threads by Ron Epstein, I decided to start my own thread. I consider myself to be in the exact same position as Ron in regards to my entry into the DSLR realm.


I recently purchased a Canon T1i (with the kit lens), and have the EFS 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS telephoto lens as well (part of a package deal). I have read much about the disappointment of the kit lens with this camera. I was hoping to get some recommendations for replacement lens to get the most out of my camera.

 

[Sam Posten]

I don't shoot canon any more but I can heartily recommend my favorite lens from when I was, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8


No IS foolishness and at 1/3 the price of the any other fixed aperture zoom, it was a great bang for the buck entry level lens for me.

 

[Bryan X]

Not knowing what you are interested in shooting, it's difficult to suggest a lens. Just as important is how much are you willing to spend?


Without knowing that, my first thought was the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. It's not a fast lens, but does have IS. It's a good "everyday walkaround" lens and it's focal length would complement your current 55-250mm. It runs around $720.


Check out this website for great Canon lens reviews (and also Tamron and Sgima lenses for Canon cameras). This website and reviews were invaluable to me while building my camera and lens kit.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

 

[Sam Posten]

And this one:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Bryan is correct -- we need to know more about what you are planning to shoot and what your budget is before a lens recommendation can be made.


Assuming you are just trying to replace the range of the 18-55mm kit lens, the Tamron that Sam mentioned would be good for an inexpensive low light zoom, but it's downside is that it may not be nearly wide enough as a general purpose walkaround for a crop sensor -- 28mm is not nearly wide enough for me. You could certainly keep your kit lens to use in conjunction with this lens at the wide end, but you may find that you spend a lot of time swapping between the two lenses, depending on your shooting style.


Tamron and Sigma also make 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses both with and without image stabilization if that is what you are looking for. Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the "cream of the crop" in this category, but it is also over $1,000. I've owned this lens for several years, and it is a terrific piece of glass, but it was expensive even when I bought it (around $900).


If you can live without constant f/2.8, then the 15-85mm Bryan mentioned is an option, as is the Sigma 17-70mm (with or without image stabilization). I used to own the non-IS Sigma 17-70mm when I bought my first Canon Rebel XT, and it was a good performer for the price.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I went through this lens search as well a few months ago, and since I knew I'd be shooting in low-light conditions, I opted to spend the extra $$$ and got the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS lens as well, but I did consider the Canon 15-85mm F3.5-5.6 IS lens (with enough light, it's reported to be a very sharp lens, though pricey for its aperture capabilities). But if low-light shooting is not a priority, the 15-85mm should be lighter in weight, and a good walk-around lens. I also considered the Sigma and Tamron lenses, but, in the end, after reading some bits on their performance with Canon bodies, I opted to just go with a Canon lens. It costs more, but less headaches down the line (I hope) in terms of the communication between lens and camera body.

 

[Brett_B]

Thanks for all the responses. I greatly appreciate it.


In regards to the most pressing question I am reading here is that I intend on using my camera when I take my vacation out West (Yosemite, Las Vegas, and the Grand Canyon). I have never been to any of those location, and I do not know if I will EVER have to chance for a return visit. So I am hoping to take the best pictures (that I can with my limitations as a beginner photographer).

As far as the "willing to spend", I guess it depends on these recommendations. In other words, if one particular lens is being touted as a "must have" (for my trip in particular) I will be more than happy to spend the money.


From doing research on the camera itself, I kept reading that it would be in the best interest to replace the kit lens. I also wanted to get a zoom lens, which is why I took advantage of the package deal.


Based on the responses so far, it seems that the EFS 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens is a good quality lens to have. Is that a correct assumption?


Are there any good resources that would help me better understand what makes a good lens? I just remember a part of another thread by Ron Epstein where he listed a zoom lens (70-300mm), and it was pointed out to him that he would not want that particular lens and linked to another that was deemed "better" (I believe that both lenses were Canon).


The main reason that I referred to the threads started by Ron Epstein is that I feel I am in the same boat as him. I love to take pictures, and up to this point it was with a point and shoot camera (Kodak Z612). And, like Ron, after reviewing alot of my pictures I couldn't help but think, "I know I could have taken a better picture". I just seemed like there was something lacking in my photos. After seeing pictures taken from a DSLR I couldn't help but notice the clarity associated with those pictures compared to mine.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Brett,


If you plan on going to the Grand Canyon and Yosemite, then you will definitely need something wide -- that rules out Sam's suggestion of the Tamron 28-70mm f/2.8.


Have you tried your new camera with the 18-55mm kit lens yet, and if so, how do you find it lacking? If you are a beginner, the limitations will most likely be with your skills, not with the equipment. You need to spend some time learning how to take proper photos before your "once in a lifetime" trip.


For general landscape shots, I would think the newer 18-55mm kit lens would provide decent results, since you should be stopping down the aperture of the lens most of the time anyway, and this lens should perform very well stopped down in the f/8 - f/11 range.


Instead of replacing the kit lens, you may want to consider adding an even wider angle lens instead for some of those venues. The Canon 15-85mm IS that Bryan recommended would serve both purposes to some extent, but Canon, Sigma and Tokina all make ultra-wide zooms that can get you out to as wide as 10mm. However, these ultra-wide lenses are more of a specialty lens, so do not expect to use them for the majority of your shots.


I own the Canon EF-S 10-22mm ultra-wide angle lens, and it provides excellent results. I do not use it that often, but when I come across a situation where I do need it, the lens has been quite useful.


Here is an example of a shot I took using the 10-22mm on our recent vacation. It was from the top of the Skylon Tower in Niagara Falls. I wanted to get both Falls in the shot, and from the top of the tower I couldn't back up anymore, so my only option was using a lens wider than my walk around 17-55mm. Ignore the wide aspect ratio -- I cropped the bottom of the photo to remove the tower's viewing platform from the frame.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Brett,


Considering what you plan to do, I'd guess you need a good tripod setup (and learning photography) more than better lenses. I assume you have the more recent IS kit lenses.


I would think even your kit lenses will be pretty sharp (and w/ minimal light falloff, if any) at their sweet spots. According to photozone.de, the 18-55 IS seems to have its sweet spot right around f/8 though it seems similarly sharp at f/5.6 and f/11 as well. There's a fair bit of chromatic aberration though (especially around 28mm), and barrel distortion is fairly high at the wide end.


In terms of sharpness, according to photozone.de, the 15-85 IS is not any sharper than the 18-55 IS (and might even be ever so slightly less sharp). What you gain is lower amount of chromatic aberration (for the most part where their focal lengths overlap). Most other aspects probably won't be noticeably improved.


If your main concern is shooting landscapes at those places, I doubt you'd gain all that much by getting the 15-85 IS although having a wider lens, despite the issues at the wider angle, could be useful enough. I'm also don't know how correctable the CA is on the 18-55 IS.


Personally, if I'm gonna spend ~$700 on such a widezoom, I'd rather go all the way to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS (at ~$1050) instead. Either that or maybe go for something much wider than just 15mm at the wide end. The 85mm end of that lens doesn't seem all that good to matter much.


Anyway, better photography technique (and eye) and a good tripod setup are probably what you need most for landscapes given what you already own. The lenses you already own wil probably do fine at their sweet spots for landscapes (although you'll probably want to correct whatever CA and maybe barrel distortions in post).


_Man_

 

[Scott Merryfield]

It looks like Man and I were posting at the same time. At least we were giving comparable advice.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Heheh... Guess we were indeed writing around the same time.


BTW, although we mainly talked about widezooms, I would suggest not overlooking to usefulness of the telezoom for landscapes and such -- and for that, you'd probably need a tripod even more.


FWIW, the 55-250 IS also seems pretty good other than some CA, etc. and any build quality issues, etc. as typical w/ kit lenses.


If you didn't already own those lenses, then it may be worthwhile to get something a bit better for what you're likely looking to do. But if you don't really need the larger apertures for other uses, it may not be worth the $$$ (and extra weight) to go to f/2.8 glass -- well, Canon does have the nice 70-200 f/4L IS, but that's also pretty expensive (while not being as hefty as the f/2.8 ones), and you'd have to feel certain that's the right telezoom for you (vs various other options).


But yeah, if you do want to add a lens, you might want to consider one of those ultra-wide zooms that Scott mentioned. I occasionally revisit the idea of getting one, but I just haven't found enough use for one just yet...


_Man_

 

[Bryan X]

Originally Posted by Brett_B

Are there any good resources that would help me better understand what makes a good lens?

Check out the link I posted in the third post of this thread. The website is a great resource for reviews of all of the available Canon lenses.


Also, I missed the fact that you already have the 18-55 you got with the camera. I misread and thought you said you only had the 55-250. Considering that, the 10-22mm as previously mentioned by a couple others is an option. I have that lens and used it on occasion at Yellowstone and Glacier last year. I don't use it a lot, though. To be honest, my most used lens while I was in Yellowstone/Glacier last year was the 24-70mm f/2.8 L. In the few instances that it wasn't wide enough on my 50D, I used the 10-22mm. I also used the 70-200mm L, but only sparingly. However, my interests weren't wildlife, so I didn't need the tele much.


How soon are you going? You said you were a beginner, and if you are going soon (next few weeks) you may consider just using what you have and working on your technique between now and then. That may give you better results than expecting a new lens to improve your shots. Now, if you aren't going until next year, that's another story.

 

[Brett_B]

Originally Posted by Bryan X
How soon are you going? You said you were a beginner, and if you are going soon (next few weeks) you may consider just using what you have and working on your technique between now and then. That may give you better results than expecting a new lens to improve your shots. Now, if you aren't going until next year, that's another story.

Again, to all of you, thanks for the responses!


My trip isn't for another couple of months, so I still have time to get accustomed to the camera. I had purchased the book, "Canon T1i for Dummies" to give myself a better understanding of the camera. With my old point and shoot, I had toyed with the different manual settings such as the shutter speed, ISO, and aperture (unfortunately, trying to adjust the manual focus is borderline impossible on that camera) without really knowing what I was changing. The book provided me some better insight in how those components work together. Now I just need to get a feel of making those adjustments with a given setting.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Brett,


I'm not sure what that book goes through, but photography is not just about using the "best" settings for a given situation. You also want to learn to envision what you want and look for the situations to get what you want (among other things). At minimum, you want to understand some of the diffs between the quality of light between different times of the day, etc., eg. the golden hour is called that for a good reason. Things like fog can make a scene very interesting for instance, and naturally occuring patterns and such can also be very interesting too.


And for landscape photography, these kinds of things become that much more important.


Also, don't think a good telezoom is only needed/useful for shooting wildlife. I probably use my telezoom just about as much as my widezoom when I take a stroll thru Prospect Park (in Brooklyn, NY) -- and there isn't exactly a lot of wildlife there. It might take a bit more "looking" to "see" those shots for a long lens, but that doesn't mean they're not there to be found.


Enjoy!


_Man_

 

[Bryan X]

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong ).

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Heheh... Just thought I should at least clarify for Brett about using a telezoom (for something besides wildlife).


_Man_

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Actually, I think Brett said he was going to Yosemite, not Yellowstone.


Yes, a telephoto lens can provide some great landscape shots. One of my favorite shots from our trip to Hawaii last winter was a shot with my 70-200mm f/4 L IS of waves crashing against black lava rock... and I used a tripod, too. [/url]

 

[Bryan X]

Eh, you're right. I had Yellowstone on the brain.


Nice shot.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Originally Posted by Bryan X

Eh, you're right. I had Yellowstone on the brain.

.

I have that "problem" a lot. Yellowstone is probably my favorite place on earth to visit.