With this in mind...which lens?

[OchieGirl]

Hey all!

I was hoping for some advise on what lens to get. I have a RebelXSi with an EF-S 18-55 f5.6

What I want to add is:

EF 17-85 f/4-5.6
EF 70-300 IS f/4-5.6
EF 50mm f/1.8II


Right now I enjoy doing macros but my goal is to get really good at shooting people (esp candids but portrait as well) and over time get good enough to do weddings. Weddings are way down the line and by then I'd be ready to upgrade and get real equipment. Right now I want to be able to do macros, people (candid and portraits)

Based on that, do you think the lens selection is ok?

Thanks

[dcclark]

Although I am not a Canon guy, I think that (out of those 3), the 50mm f/1.8 will be most important for you. A fast lens like that will help you take shots indoors much more easily, plus it's a classic portrait lens -- you can get a nice shallow depth of field, for a blurred background that sets your subjects apart.

[RichardTaylor]

None of those will do macros'

+ 1 dcclark re the 50 F1.8

While the 17-85 is a step up from the EF-S 18-55 f5.6 with a very versatile focal length range it is still a slow lens and IQ is only fair (I used one for two years.)

The EF 70-300 IS f/4-5.6 is a great travel/vacation telephoto lens however not really suited for candids/portraits, again not real fast (I own one)

You can save a lot of money in the long run by buying good lenses straight up front. (I didn't)

If macro's are a priority then why not get get the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro - super lens for macros & ok for (longish) portraits/candids. or if your budget doesn't stretch that far the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

If portraits/candid are your priority I would suggest the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - A great walk around/Candid/wedding lens and portrait lens. - A bit long for general/landscape photography on a 1.6 crop camera, but great on a full freame camera. I don't own this lens. (I own a Canon 24-105 F4 L)

[inkista]

Originally Posted by OchieGirl

EF 17-85 f/4-5.6
EF 70-300 IS f/4-5.6
EF 50mm f/1.8II

Right now I want to be able to do macros, people (candid and portraits)

Based on that, do you think the lens selection is ok? ...

Er... no? this is just my (highly idiosyncratic) personal opinion, but...

If you want mid-grade "training wheels lenses", I'd actually recommend getting the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 over the 17-85, and the EF-S 55-250 IS over the 70-300 IS USM.

The 55-250 IS is not as good a lens as the 70-300 IS USM, but it's about 85% of the lens for less than half the cost. ($250 vs. $650). Given that you're not planning on shooting wildlife or sports, you may not really need the extra 50mm reach or the USM, and the max. apertures on the lenses are pretty much the same. When it comes to portrait shooting, those max. aperture numbers may become more important to you than the focal lengths.

The 70-300 and 17-85 aren't always great for portrait work because of their smallish max. apertures. They're "slow" lenses, not as handy for blurring the background out with a thin DoF, or for lower-light situations. You can certainly use them for portraits, but they will be limited in that capacity, particularly if you plan on shooting indoors or at night without a flash.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is, again, not a top-of-the-line type lens, but it's an affordable f/2.8 zoom--the same cost as the 17-85. You lose some reach, but you gain a lot more flexibility in terms of lighting conditions and DoF. Ideally, you'd want the 24-70 f/2.8L or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, but those are both four-figure lenses. Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina all make wide-to-normal f/2.8 zooms.

Also, I'd consider long and hard about whether or not you'd prefer to have the telephoto zoom or a macro lens, first. While a longer focal length will get you more magnification, the minimum focus distance will also increase, and you have to step back. The closest you can get to anything and get it in focus with the 70-300 is about five feet.

A dedicated macro lens would probably be a better bet if you plan on doing a lot of close-up work. If macro work is more of an occasional thing for you, then maybe putting extension tubes on a 50/1.8 or reversing the 50/1.8 in front of the kit lens will work for you until you can afford a macro lens. Also, a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens can double as a short telephoto portrait lens, if you don't mind it possibly being too sharp.

Just my thoughts.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by OchieGirl

EF 17-85 f/4-5.6
EF 70-300 IS f/4-5.6
EF 50mm f/1.8II

SImilar, though not quite the same, as Inkista: I'd replace the 17-85 with the newer and considerably better 15-85.

[inkista]

Except the pricetag is also considerably higher, and it's still f/3.5-5.6. In US$ off B&H

EF-S 17-85 IS USM = $450
EF-S 15-85 IS USM = $720

For that price, I'd be tempted to consider the EF 17-40 f/4L USM as well.

One other consideration I hadn't thought of--if you plan to eventually move to a 5DMkII for the wedding shooting, you may want to limit the EF-S lenses you get to ones with good resale value, since you won't be able to use them on a full-frame body.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by OchieGirl

Right now I enjoy doing macros but my goal is to get really good at shooting people (esp candids but portrait as well) and over time get good enough to do weddings. Weddings are way down the line and by then I'd be ready to upgrade and get real equipment. Right now I want to be able to do macros, people (candid and portraits)

Okay, I think everyone else's advice is more or less solid here but I'm going to throw my hat in the ring too.

I don't really think any of the lenses are a great idea.

It seriously behooves you to spend as much as possible on your glass. You can expect to upgrade your body; you don't really want to upgrade glass. Buy something now that will last you a lifetime (or at least until a new mount is introduced).

If you want to do macro, I agree that the 100mm macro lens is a good solid choice, and it can also double as a portrait lens (you don't have to use a macro lens as a macro lens all the time). There are also some good options for 85mm and 135mm. The 50mm primes are often cited as great portrait lenses on the Rebel bodies, and they are, but even though I love my 50mm f/1.8 I would advise taking the time to save up for the 1.4.

Candid shots... in what setting? You're going to find the crop factor of the Rebel body limiting in that sense, especially if you want to shoot indoors. Sure, you can get the 50mm f/1.8 and have good low light performance, but you're going to be really limited in what you can shoot; basically closeups unless you're in huge rooms. If you want to do indoor or street-style candid shooting, you'll probably want something in the 24-30mm range, with a fairly wide maximum aperture. With that in mind, you could look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 28mm f/1.8, or maybe the Canon 24mm f/2.8.

If you want a solid portrait lens that can also give you a little flexibility, as long as you plan on shooting in natural light or with studio lighting (i.e., not indoors/low light), the Canon 70-200mm f/4L is an excellent choice... one of the best lenses you can get under $1000.

The lenses you cite are unfortunately not that great optically. Sure, you could grab any one of them now and get some experience and practice in, but you're better off saving for a bit and investing in quality glass.

[OchieGirl]

Wow, my head is spinning! Lots of info to consider. In terms of candids I was considering street and indoors low light (i.e wedding reception/ walk around). Macro would just be an occasional "feed the soul" kind of thing. Everyone has said the same thing, save and get the best. So with all said...time to start saving! Thanks for all of your help guys