Canon 50D lenses sugestions

D

DeepReefExotics

New member
After looking around for a good while for a DSLR i have found a Canon 50D body at a great price from a friend but it comes with no lenses. So i have a few lense questions to ask:

What macro lens would you recommend for this camera? Canon 100mm f/2.8?

What about for full tank shots or moving action?

My wife also wants this camera to use for family pictures and some outside landscape shots so i need to get the right types of lenses for her too.

What would be a good general purpose lens for her?

Thanks in advance for all your help.
 
What macro lens would you recommend for this camera? Canon 100mm f/2.8?

Yes

What about for full tank shots or moving action?

Probably a lens with faster autofocus. I prefer the 24-70 f/2.8. The 24-105 f/4 or 17-55 f/2.8 would also be excellent choices. For "medium" choices there are too many options to list. Steer clear of the 75-300 or 18-55 though.

My wife also wants this camera to use for family pictures and some outside landscape shots so i need to get the right types of lenses for her too.

17-55 f/2.8 would cover both very well. The 24-70 would be great for your family but is a little long for most landscape applications. For general walk around it can't be beat though. Again for less quality there are other options.

What would be a good general purpose lens for her?

I think the best lens would be a 24-70. Again there are many, many, many options...I'm just listing the cream of the crop.


I like the 10-22, 24-70, and 70-200 (any of the 70-200's) and the 100mm f/2.8 for your tank. (Again these are the *best* at their respective jobs in my opinion.)
 
I have the 50D and I absolutely love my 17-55 F/2.8 IS. I had the 24-105 F/4L and wasn't impressed at all. The 24-70 F/2.8L would also be great as mentioned but I found 24mm a little wide for general use a the the weight/size may have been a bit cumbersome for the amount of travel that I do. The 17-55 is my perfect general use lens.

For a wide angle I love my Sigma 10-20mm and Sigma 150mm F/2.8 for macro stuff. I've owned the Canon 60 and 100mm F/2.8 lenses and each are extremely sharp, it just depends on how much reach you want.
 
Anyone have anything good or bad to say about the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. From what ive read it seems to be a good upper mid grade general purpose lense but cheaper than the 24-70 f/2.8L.
 
I don't have any experience with that particular lens, but I can add this: if you don't like it, you can sell it used for almost what you paid for it. SLR lenses retain their value to a large degree, so if you do decide to pick up a higher priced lens later, think of the current lens as a very inexpensive, long term rental.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14190472#post14190472 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DeepReefExotics
Anyone have anything good or bad to say about the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. From what ive read it seems to be a good upper mid grade general purpose lense but cheaper than the 24-70 f/2.8L.
Click to expand...
I can't stand the 28-135mm.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14190538#post14190538 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dendronepthya
I don't have any experience with that particular lens, but I can add this: if you don't like it, you can sell it used for almost what you paid for it. SLR lenses retain their value to a large degree, so if you do decide to pick up a higher priced lens later, think of the current lens as a very inexpensive, long term rental.
Click to expand...
Correction: you can sell HIGH QUALITY lenses used for almost what you paid. The 28-135 is not high quality. Nobody is going to want to buy a used 28-135 or 18-55, especially not at a close to new price. Now the 24-70 could probably be sold at a 10% loss.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14190472#post14190472 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DeepReefExotics
Anyone have anything good or bad to say about the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. From what ive read it seems to be a good upper mid grade general purpose lense but cheaper than the 24-70 f/2.8L.
Click to expand...
I can't stand the 28-135mm. The 24-70 is big leagues, the 28-135 is AA minor leagues.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14190538#post14190538 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by dendronepthya
I don't have any experience with that particular lens, but I can add this: if you don't like it, you can sell it used for almost what you paid for it. SLR lenses retain their value to a large degree, so if you do decide to pick up a higher priced lens later, think of the current lens as a very inexpensive, long term rental.
Click to expand...
Correction: you can sell HIGH QUALITY lenses used for almost what you paid. The 28-135 is not high quality. Nobody is going to want to buy a used 28-135 or 18-55, especially not at a close to new price. Now a high quality-high demand lens such as the 24-70 or 70-200 could probably be sold at 90% of the origional price.
 
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is selling at almost new cost on ebay currently but i would love to pick up that 24-70.

Anyone have any experiance with that Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Aspherical Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens? It seems to also be a decent option but does anyone have any experiance with it?
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14193843#post14193843 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DeepReefExotics
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is selling
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to be impatiently trying to sell one at that price. With enough time a buyer will probably come around, I just don't see it happening often.
 
for a macro lens, go with either the Canon 100mm f/2.8 or (just a bit cheaper) Tamron 90mm f/2.8. i've had both these and am pleased with both lenses.

A good all purpose lens is the canon 24-105mm f/4 IS. love this lens. If you are doing low light photography then get the 24-70mm f/2.8. I found the focal length of the 24-70 a bit limiting when i was travelling but love it when i at weddings

But if your only going to be using the camera "every so often" just go get a lens kit. it's a great starters kit and wont cost the earth.

Depp
 
I wouls go with either the 17-55/2.8 or any of the L lenses. Anything less and your pictures will not look very good. With the high resolution sensor, it picks up flaws of any lens. It will show in your pictures with a lower quality lens.

I havent used the 28-135IS, but I have used the 17-85IS which is of the same caliber and very similar. It was fine on my original Rebel, but even on the XTi, I was able to see a loss in quality. I now shoot with a 50D and in my bag I have the 17-55/2.8IS, the 100mm Macro, and the 100-400L. That seems to fit everything I need. For times when I just need to capture the moment and dont need to very best quality, I have my bckup Canon G9 which I love.
 
My 50D just showed up today. For the macro, the 100mm 2.8 is great. I can't wait to get it on this body and see what I can do.

I've had my 24-105L on it all afternoon playing with it and am pleased so far. For wide angle, its tough to beat the Tokina 11-16 though there are good choices from Canon and Sigma as well.

In telephoto land, I would love to have a 70-200 2.8 IS and a 100-400 but the funds aren't here yet.

Another great lens is the nifty fifty or for a little more the 50 1.4.

What you buy has a lot to do with what you want to shoot and what your budget is. If I were you, I would look at the macro, the 50, and a medium range zoom to start. IF you get into landscapes, add in a wide angle.
 
So far i got the 100m macro and the 28-135 as a walkaround since it came with the camera and i was able to get the camera and lense new for 1099 which was a great deal.

I would like a good tele that wont break the bank and i think ill be getting the 17-55 to upgrade my general purpose lense since i read very good things about it.

What tele would u all recommend? EF 70-200mm 2.8 or the 70-200 4?
 
I've used the 70-200 f/2.8L IS before, but ended up returning it. At the time, I was a photo nub and found out that I didn't shoot a lot of telephoto. Anyhow, one thing you will immediately notice is the size of that lens. It is massive. I mean really massive. The f/4 version is considerably smaller and while it is not a small lens either, the size difference may make a lot of difference to you. I would not want to carry around the f/2.8 version, but that's just me.

Besides the size difference, you will have to decide for yourself whether the type of shooting you do warrants a f/2.8 aperture. Do you find yourself taking a lot of indoor settings at telephoto length? Two great examples of this is wedding photography and indoor sports like hockey or soccer. In those situations, I think you would see immediate benefits of the bigger aperture. In higher light situations, there is still a good reason for f/2.8 if you want to blur the background of a far away target to isolate it. It really depends. From everything I've read, the f/4 IS is optically superior because it is newer and has a better IS system than the f/2.8 version. I can't imagine you would be terribly disappointed with either lens, but those I think are the big differences.

If it was my purchase decision, I would buy the f/4 IS.
 
I think the f/4 NON IS is considered optically superior. IS in itself degrades image quality whether you are using it or not. Of course if the image would be a blurry mess without the IS on, then the IS will improve the image. It is something of a paradox.
 
 
Last edited:
My advice is to not stress out over it. All three versions of the 70-200 are really sharp and are dynamite lenses. Buy the one that fits your budget and your shooting style.

Example. I shoot almost nothing that's not on a tripod. I could care less about IS. In my experience, the folks who agonize over which lens is sharper at the pixel level never actually get out and shoot. Don't fall into that trap.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
I have to agree that in real world use, the difference between a lot of these lenses is probably undetectable. I find them useful just to know that I did enough research on the lens candidates so I feel better about laying out the money for them. Most of them aren't cheap and I like a little peace of mind knowing that I did my homework. It would be hard to identify what lens and camera took a particular photo if they were taken by one of the 70-200's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dviper150
Which macro lens for Canon?
Replies
3
Views
2K
NikonN8
N
ReefsandGeeks
Orange gel filter?
Replies
2
Views
2K
JamesHolt
JamesHolt
F
Canon Macro Lens
Replies
15
Views
1K
phish96
P
J
Canon Lens Advice
Replies
0
Views
783
JJudge951
J
OrionN
Lense Recomendation
2
Replies
25
Views
7K
FastUno
FastUno
Back
Top