Equipment Best quality lenses for Canon EOS

New to buying lenses. Which make has the best quality, and what should I look out for (f size, weight, adaptability and value)?

Also some lenses have a large range like from 28 to 710mm, are these lenses a compromise and should I be looking at 2 different lenses for each end of the scale for a better image result?

This is probably a complex question to answer, so if there are any guides you could point me to that would be great.

I currently have no lenses at all, but am interested in photographing wild life, portraits and landscape (in that order).

Many thanks in advance.

 

Best quality you can buy are Canons L series. I own a small photography studio and my gear includes 2 EOS 1DmkIII, 2 EOS 30D, and just ordered a EOS 1Ds MKIII. 95% of my lenses are Canons EF L series lenses. No one makes high quality glass like canon. I am more than willing to answer any questions you may have about photography but first head over to the forums at http://photography-on-the.net and do some reading. It is a canon only site and there is many pros and hobbyest alike that will be more than willing to lend a hand. If posting that link is not allowed I apologise. Please feel free to remove it.

 

Hey FragileSocks,

As oneslowz28 mentions, Canon's L-series are the best in class for image quality. Of course, they're also the most expensive lenses you can buy, with many well over $1000 per lens. There MIGHT be one below $500, but I have yet to see one.

Lenses are definitely a compromise - The lighter they are, the more likely they are to be for only APS-C sensors ("crop bodies" like most of us own) - which means they suffer from vignetting and often will have a smaller maximum aperture. That 17-700 zoom (exaggeration, we know) may look like the handiest thing on earth, but it could have a lot of problems at either end of the focal length with resolution, vignetting or chromatic abberations (CAs).

If you want to shoot wildlife, it's probably the most expensive one there is - lenses have to be long enough to keep you a fair distance from your subject (200-400mm at the long end), fast enough to get a good frame at low light (wide max aperture, like f/4 at the long end), and preferably have Image Stabilization (though this is not required, as wildlife will move on you anyways so it's not as useful as it seems for this). In that range, you're immediately up to $1000 glass at a minimum with Canon's 70-200L F/4 IS. Sadly, there is NO substitute for this kind of lens with your primary subject.

Portraiture, on the other hand, does not need all those expensive lenses. Some of the best portraiture is done at ~50mm - 80mm, which means that on a crop body you need a lens that can go from about 28mm-50mm. A wide max aperture will make for good bokeh (that creamy blur of the background). GREAT zooms are available in this category for around $450, like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Or, you can pick up a couple primes (fixed focal length) - a budget conscious person could pick up a Canon 35mm f/2.0 AND a "nifty fifty" Canon 50mm f/1.8 for less than that. Both will get you where you need to go without spending the thousands it would cost to do it with L-series glass.

Landscape is typically wide angle and doesn't really require a lot of bells and whistles - just a very clean picture at very narrow apertures (f/8 and above). Canon's 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is $700 and worth every penny for that. However, were you to buy that 17-50mm tamron, you'd be able to still get some great shots at the 17mm end of it without that investment. If you get serious about landscape, you'll need the proper wide-angle eventually, but by the sound of it that's your last concern and your wildlife habit will drain your budget quite rapidly.

All in all, lenses ARE a compromise - but between budget, portability, and need. All that L-series glass is great but if you don't NEED some of those components, you spend a LOT of money really quick on stuff that is actually too heavy to lug all around together, and you can spend time that you could be taking shots switching lenses because you bought a bunch of primes and 20mm zooms to get "top" image quality. On the other hand, some of the "all in one" lenses that cover 17-300 look great on paper, but there's a reason most pros break their lenses down into "groups" of wide angle, walkaround and telephoto - A lens that's great at 17 will not be great at 300, and vice versa.

All in all, my personal belief is that an amateur NEEDS 3 lenses - a wide angle, a wide-aperture walkaround, and a good telephoto. Anything outside of that is personal preference.

Anyhow, that's a long enough missive, I suppose. I tossed a post on this in my blog a week or so ago, as the whole point of my blog is about learning photography as an amateur hobbyist...maybe that'll help if I missed something here.

Good luck, and I hope to see some shots soon

 

Da Dego that is some great info. I agree that you do not need L glass to take a good photo. I have taken some amazing images with the default canon kit lens. (EF-S 18-55 f:3.5-5.6) I like L glass for its resale value and the fact that its IQ is hands down the best on the market today for DSLR's (I know there is some great Medium Format lenses out there too) What I recomend to new people is to just take your camera out and get used to it. Learn your settings and learn to read the scene. Then look at upgrading to better lenses. Also always rent or try out a expensive lens before you purchase one. I have had people sell there nifty fifty and buy a EF 50 1.4L expecting more than just a lower f stop.

 

Well. If you are looking for the BEST glass, look no further than Voigtlander and Carl Zeiss (I long for the CZ 21mm f/2.8 Distagon). OTOH, Canon L glass is among the best made to date (specifically primes). BUT with all great things comes great price to pay. Right now the cheapest L is approximately $600 New and ranges all the way up to $100,000 (yes, One Hundred Thousand) Certainly there are bargain lenses out there that provide phenomenal results, for instance the Nifty 50, 85 f/1.8, 18-55 IS, 70-300 IS, Tamron 17-50, Tamron 17-35, Sigma 12-24 & 10-20, Tokina 12-24, Sigma 18-50 Macro HSM....and the list goes on and on. The question you need to ask yourself is: what, where and how do you shoot?

I can agree with most of Bretts points, but where I'd like to elaborate is when it comes to certain style's of shooting (portrait, landscape...etc etc). I do agree there are specific lenses that do well in certain situations, for example the Tamron 17-50 makes for a great portrait lens BUT not only because of its focal length. There is a lot to be desired in wide apertures for portrait photography, anything f/2.8 or wider (f/2, f/1.8 ect) can generate beautiful, creamy bokeh (background blur) which will give the model/subject 'pop' or separation from the background. Many people like to categorize certain Fl's within certain genre's of shooting, like med-telephoto/50-85mm for portraits and or super wide angel/wide angle for landscapes but this does not exclude other lenses from outperforming them. For most of my portraiture work I use a 70-200 f/2.8 and a lot of the time I use it at the long end. One of the best portrait lenses canon makes is the 135L...hell I've seen people shoot portraits with a 300 f/2.8--it all depends on the situation and your shooting style. Point is utilizing different lenses for a range of tasks is possible. A 50mm is perfectly capable of shooting portraits one second and then a landscape the next (not to mention without any distortion and minimum sharpness fall off in comparison to a wide-angle). You know all those great panorama's you see? A lot of them are shot not necessarily with a wide-angle rather with a prime/telephoto lens. A photographers choices in lenses revolves around a photographers style of shooting, find your style...then pick your arsenal. A few questions you may ask yourself are:
Will I shoot in low light? Do I need fast apertures?
What do I like to shoot?
What focal length do I like best?
Do I want the flexibility of a zoom, or the compactness, IQ and low light capability of a prime?

Questions like that can narrow your options down significantly. Like Brett states, generally an amateur picks a well rounded kit of lenses which generally includes a wide-angle, walk around/general purpose zoom and possibly a telephoto zoom which will cover most if not all FL's for various uses. The most important thing you can do as of now is research...if you are new to DSLR's pick up a few books namely:
-'Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or Digital Camera' by Bryan Peterson
-'Understanding Shutter Speed: Creative Action and Low-Light Photography Beyond 1/125 Second' by Bryan Peterson
-'The Digital Photography Book, Volume 1' by Scott Kelby
-'The Digital Photography Book, Volume 2' by Scott Kelby

Also, do your research on lenses first and foremost before making a commitment's. I cannot count the amount of times I see people pick up horrible glass only because the price looked good.

You will find a lot of useful information here:
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=135524
and more specifically here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

Good luck, and if you ever have any questions feel free to post them.

-Matt

 

Thanks for all the replies and links. I have so much to learn

Really enjoying reading through the links, and will be signing up to more forums too.

 

I think I have found the one electrical consumer product that is cheaper in the UK than the US.

I could send you one for $800 including VAT

 

Where from?


Jeff.

 

Not the IS model though.