Buying a T4i body only. Only room in the budget for one lens help me pick one

[reimero]

With the T4i, Canon is also rolling out a new autofocus motor type on some of their lenses (including the "premium" kit lens.) It's supposed to be faster and quieter than USM. Just something else to consider...

 

[superdisneydork]

With the T4i's ISO range and the IS on the 24-105 you can do a lot in lower lighting situations. If it were me and I wanted something faster to pair with the 24-105 f/4 for low light/night time I'd go with a fast prime to add to it.

This is very true, I forgot to mention the 24-105mm has excellent IS. As an example I included a photo I snapped with mine to test the IS, it is a handheld 0.5 second exposure, IS on, at 75 mm. It's not perfect but I think it's quite impressive, and the toy helicopter looks great with the blurred prop and blazing lights!

 

[NLD]

Okay, not a Canon shooter, but when it comes to focal lengths on a crop sensor...

17-55 f/2.8 makes sense. That gives you a good walkaround lens plus the 2.8 for the character meals.

Then if you supplement with telephoto, nothing high end, you have that for the times you want telephoto at Disney.


Either that, or something like 18-135 with a variable aperture as the walkaround, and then a fast prime--in the 30 or 35 mm range--for character meals and dark rides.

24mm as your widest just seems awfully constraining for Disney, IMHO. I'm not a wide angle fanatic, but even I found there were plenty of times I wanted wider than 28mm--on a full frame--so that's the equivalent of 18mm for crop sensor. I'd be really, really hesitant to recommend a set up for a crop shooter that doesn't go wider than 24mm.


P.S. My first trip to Disney was with a crop-sensor, and I had a 18-105mm variable aperture lens, plus a 35mm 1.8. That set up pretty much covered my needs.

 

[nbaresejr]

24mm as your widest just seems awfully constraining for Disney, IMHO

I agree 100% with that statement. 24mm on a crop body is not anywhere wide enough for disney. When i last went i had the kit 18-55 and the 55-250. the 55-250 was only used at the animal kingdom. I found myself many many times wanting to go wider then the 18mm gave me.

Some people may disagree with me but i dont see the need for an L lens on the t2i, t3i, t4i. Unless you plan on upgrading to the 7d or a full frame camera save your money.

The 17-55 2.8 is considered the best crop body lens but its really expensive. I opted for the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and saved about 500 over the canon version and i couldnt be happier. Just got back from Rome, Italy and pics are super sharp.

 

[photo_chick]

Some people may disagree with me but i dont see the need for an L lens on the t2i, t3i, t4i. Unless you plan on upgrading to the 7d or a full frame camera save your money.

Any camera will see the same benefits from L series glass. Sharper images, better contrast and clarity as well as better focusing, full time manual focus and a more solid build. And that clarity and sharpness can also diminish the appearance of noise and I don't know a single photographer who wouldn't want that.

I absolutely do not think you need L series glass to make great images. But I also believe that every photographer could benefit from L series glass. Most of us just can't afford it.

 

[NLD]

I think really good glass is always beneficial.

That said, I wouldn't sacrifice appropriate focal lengths to get L glass. (Note: I'm not saying any posters here have said to do that, either. Just stating my opinion.) It is possible to get glass with really good IQ with appropriate focal length ranges.

Again, not a Canon shooter, but.... the Canon 17-55 2.8 is a highly rated lens. The fact that it doesn't have "L" in the title wouldn't stop me from buying it, if I were a Canon APS-C shooter.

I suppose if you're considering going full-frame at some point, then something that starts at 24mm and is a FX lens makes sense... and you just forego any wider shots at Disney. But since you (OP) are just getting the T4i, it doesn't seem you're thinking about full-frame at this point!

 

[photo_chick]

Again, not a Canon shooter, but.... the Canon 17-55 2.8 is a highly rated lens. The fact that it doesn't have "L" in the title wouldn't stop me from buying it, if I were a Canon APS-C shooter.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is built like an L series lens. It has L quality glass and an L series price tag. It's not part of the L series because it's an EF-S lens and can't mount (at least without modification) on the full frame "professional" Canons.

 

[MolonLabe]

I went to my friends house today and played around with his T4i (and his 1D).

The 24-70 lens he has is pretty cool. I liked it and it seems like I can get pretty close with that 24 lens.

I think a 17-55 is not going to have quite the reach the 70 will.

I think looking at some various stuff today, the 24-70 is what I want.

So the question to every advocating 17 vs 24-

Won't the 17 give too much distortion for portraits?

The main reason for getting this camera and setup is for taking pictures of my daughters. Scenery, buildings ect. are secondary right now.

I think the 24-70 f2.8 will be the best lens for me right now and then a 70-200 IS with a 1.4 teleconverter as the other lens I'll order in a month or so.

unless you guys/gals have any more thoughts?

 

[superdisneydork]

I went to my friends house today and played around with his T4i (and his 1D).

The 24-70 lens he has is pretty cool. I liked it and it seems like I can get pretty close with that 24 lens.

I think a 17-55 is not going to have quite the reach the 70 will.

I think looking at some various stuff today, the 24-70 is what I want.

So the question to every advocating 17 vs 24-

Won't the 17 give too much distortion for portraits?

The main reason for getting this camera and setup is for taking pictures of my daughters. Scenery, buildings ect. are secondary right now.

I think the 24-70 f2.8 will be the best lens for me right now and then a 70-200 IS with a 1.4 teleconverter as the other lens I'll order in a month or so.

unless you guys/gals have any more thoughts?

The 24-70mm lens is quite a nice lens, you'll be giving up a bit of reach, but if you plan to eventually get the 70-200, that is no big deal. The 17-55mm is also an excellent choice, I'm not sure you'll miss the reach if what I'm hearing about Disney and wide angle lens is true, we'll find out in September!

As far as L-glass vs 'regular' glass, especially on a Rebel body, I think there is absolutely an advantage to L glass for a few reasons:

• As stated above, the lens is quite sharp, it has excellent color and contrast!
• They are an excellent investment, they hold their value very well, so even though they're pricey now, they'll resell much later if you need/want to.
• They're ruggedly built, and hold up to abuse (not that we ever abuse our lens.... intentionally ) quite well.

That being said, one of my most favorite photos I have ever taken came out of a 18-55mm f/3.5 kit lens! So you most definitely do not need L-glass to take photos that make you happy.

Another thing to keep in mind, is the weight, the 24-70mm is considerably heavier than 24-105mm and other lens because of the wide aperture. You're going to be toting this around Disney with Florida heat! I'm not saying not to get the lens, if that is the one that you enjoy using, but don't discount the weight, something that only seems just a bit heavy during a test drive, feels really, really heavy after its on your neck for 4 hours!

 

[mom2rtk]

The 17-55 f/2.8 is built like an L series lens. It has L quality glass and an L series price tag. It's not part of the L series because it's an EF-S lens and can't mount (at least without modification) on the full frame "professional" Canons.

I absolutely concur on this lens. I struggled with this very decision a couple years ago and that lens is on my T2i 90% of the time now.

I knew I wanted:

1) something a step up from a kit lens

2) something 2.8

3) something fairly wide

4) something with IS

To get to 17 or 18 on the wide end (which just suits my personal style of shooting, especially at Disney) I was looking at a 17-55ish lens.

I considered all the options. Here's what I came up with:

1) Tamron is sharper than the Sigma version.

2) Tamron has a stabilized version, but it lost some of the sharpness it's known for when they added the VC

3) The focus motor on the Tamron was more than just slightly loud. It was annoyingly loud. Don't buy this lens without youtubing it so you can hear it.

4) The Canon version had it all.....range, speed, IS, IQ.......... and unfortunately a hefty price tag.

I swallowed hard and decided that I was tired of always wanting a better lens and went for the best. I haven't looked back or regretted that purchase for a moment. I have used it to bits and continue to love it.

I have 3 trip reports linked in my signature. Most of the photos in all 3 trip reports were taken with that lens.

Here's my philosophy on lenses. The most expensive lens is the one you buy twice. If you're the sort to talk yourself into a cheaper lens, then regret it later .......... just get the good one from the start. Trust me. It's cheaper in the long run.

 

[MolonLabe]

Ok so I forgot to add I am going to buy a Sigma lens. Otherwise, I couldn't afford two canons right now and it seems sigma is going to be very close to canon in terms of quality.

I did find a sigma 17-70 with optical stabilizer... it's a f2.8-4.

With the optical stabilizer, would I still be able to take low light shots at 70, with a f4 stop?

whoops linked to the 35mm one.

Here is the right one.
http://www.adorama.com/SG1770SEOSA.html

a constant f2.8 but 17-50... probably not enough reach though
http://www.adorama.com/SG1750EOS.html

 

[mom2rtk]

Just because you don't have enough to consider already.......

Take a look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It's a great focal length to use on a crop body. And if you want to shoot dark rides at Disney, it's a great choice. It also has great IQ and beautiful bokeh.

 

[MolonLabe]

Just because you don't have enough to consider already.......

Take a look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It's a great focal length to use on a crop body. And if you want to shoot dark rides at Disney, it's a great choice. It also has great IQ and beautiful bokeh.

Looks cool, I may have to consider it later on.

Right now I'm going with this one:
http://www.adorama.com/SG1770SEOSA.html
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS (Optical Stabilizer)

Seems like a winner.

 

[bob100]

Ok so I forgot to add I am going to buy a Sigma lens. Otherwise, I couldn't afford two canons right now and it seems sigma is going to be very close to canon in terms of quality.

I did find a sigma 17-70 with optical stabilizer... it's a f2.8-4.

With the optical stabilizer, would I still be able to take low light shots at 70, with a f4 stop?

whoops linked to the 35mm one.

Here is the right one.
http://www.adorama.com/SG1770SEOSA.html

a constant f2.8 but 17-50... probably not enough reach though
http://www.adorama.com/SG1750EOS.html

I think the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc, are better choices and they are rated higher but they are not 70mm. For zooms there's also the Canon 15-85 and 17-55 2.8
The kit lens (18-55IS) is a good option until you learn more about the different lens and the types of things you shoot. The 18-55IS is sharp and practically given away with the camera, it just doesn't have the build quality of the more expensive zooms.
here's one resource for lens comparisons - www.photozone.de

 

[nbaresejr]

I was deciding about a month ago between the sigma 17-70 and the 17-50 2.8. I really wanted the 17-70 for the extra reach but everything i read pointed me to the 17-50 being a better lens. Im glad i did so much research and went with the 17-50 2.8. Its super sharp. Take a look at my flickr link. Most of my Europe shots are with the 17-50 2.8

 

[NLD]

I think the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc, are better choices and they are rated higher but they are not 70mm. For zooms there's also the Canon 15-85 and 17-55 2.8

Agreed.

Also agree with the idea of just getting the body with the kit lens. Really, it's so cheap to just get that kit lens, and then you'll be able to actually know, from real life experience, if that 18-55 range works for you.

Yes, it means that once you upgrade you'll have duplicate focal length ranges. Yes, you might end up putting away that kit lens and not using it much again. But you'll have a back-up lens then (always a good thing) at a very low cost.

 

[NLD]

I went to my friends house today and played around with his T4i (and his 1D).

The 24-70 lens he has is pretty cool. I liked it and it seems like I can get pretty close with that 24 lens.

I think a 17-55 is not going to have quite the reach the 70 will.

I think looking at some various stuff today, the 24-70 is what I want.

So the question to every advocating 17 vs 24-

Won't the 17 give too much distortion for portraits?

The main reason for getting this camera and setup is for taking pictures of my daughters. Scenery, buildings ect. are secondary right now.

I think the 24-70 f2.8 will be the best lens for me right now and then a 70-200 IS with a 1.4 teleconverter as the other lens I'll order in a month or so.

unless you guys/gals have any more thoughts?

Here's the thing: you won't be taking many portraits at 17mm. You are correct. However, you still have the 30-55mm range for portraits.

With a 17-55 2.8, you get the following:

wide angle
large aperture
portraiture
good IQ


With a 24-70 2.8, you get:

large aperture
portraiture
good IQ


Maybe take a peek at mom2rtk's trip report, so you can see what that Canon 17-55 2.8 is capable of at Disney... in terms of the range of shots you can get (including people shots).

 

[NLD]

Here, did some quick research on Amazon.

If you pick one lens from the first list, and one lens from the second, you'll have 17-150 (or 200) covered, all at f/2.8. I listed the prices as they currently exist on Amazon, but something to keep in mind--you could buy used. I've bought used on keh.com and been happy.



Canon 17-55 2.8: $1088

Tamron 17-50 2.8: $499

Sigma 17-50 2.8: $669





Sigma 50-150 2.8: $1099

Sigma 70-200 2.8: $899

Tamron 70-200 2.8: $769

 

[photo_chick]

I went to my friends house today and played around with his T4i (and his 1D).

The 24-70 lens he has is pretty cool. I liked it and it seems like I can get pretty close with that 24 lens.

I think a 17-55 is not going to have quite the reach the 70 will.

I think looking at some various stuff today, the 24-70 is what I want.

So the question to every advocating 17 vs 24-

Won't the 17 give too much distortion for portraits?

The main reason for getting this camera and setup is for taking pictures of my daughters. Scenery, buildings ect. are secondary right now.

I think the 24-70 f2.8 will be the best lens for me right now and then a 70-200 IS with a 1.4 teleconverter as the other lens I'll order in a month or so.

unless you guys/gals have any more thoughts?

Will 17mm give too much distortion for portraits.. well, the short answer is it depends. Lens design and distance to subject come into play here. More importantly, many photographers prefer a longer prime lens for portraits of individuals (like an 85mm) and wouldn't even use the 17mm end of a lens for that purpose. But it really comes down to how an individual shoots and their personal preferences.

Where that 17mm wins over 24mm is when shooting a large group. I keep a 28-105 on my crop camera during my kids field day and every time they gather the class up for a group shot I can't get my shot. Everyone else swarms in front of me with their wider kit lenses and super wide point and shoots since I have to back way up and by the time everyone else moves so I can take my shot the kiddos have lost interest.

Now.. my honest opinion... your posts are why I advocate buying the body with the kit lens if you don't know your shooting style. It's clear you're trying to make a decision when you have no idea what kind of photographer you will be with a DSLR. You have to find your style. Trust me, dropping $500 or $1000 on a lens only to figure out in a month or two it was the wrong lens for you is a painful lesson.

 

[mom2rtk]

Will 17mm give too much distortion for portraits.. well, the short answer is it depends. Lens design and distance to subject come into play here. More importantly, many photographers prefer a longer prime lens for portraits of individuals (like an 85mm) and wouldn't even use the 17mm end of a lens for that purpose. But it really comes down to how an individual shoots and their personal preferences.

Where that 17mm wins over 24mm is when shooting a large group. I keep a 28-105 on my crop camera during my kids field day and every time they gather the class up for a group shot I can't get my shot. Everyone else swarms in front of me with their wider kit lenses and super wide point and shoots since I have to back way up and by the time everyone else moves so I can take my shot the kiddos have lost interest.

Now.. my honest opinion... your posts are why I advocate buying the body with the kit lens if you don't know your shooting style. It's clear you're trying to make a decision when you have no idea what kind of photographer you will be with a DSLR. You have to find your style. Trust me, dropping $500 or $1000 on a lens only to figure out in a month or two it was the wrong lens for you is a painful lesson.

You describe exactly the reason I always say "go WIDE" at Disney. By the time you back up far enough to get your shot, lots of other people fill that space in.

I do think I get some distorion at the 17 end of my 17-55. But it's not terrible and I try to zoom in just a little to avoid it. But sometimes you just can't. I'd rather have a little distortion than miss the shot. My first SLR lens was 28 on its widest end. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I replaced that camera and it came with a 17-55 lens instead. Suddenly I could take photos of my kids standing next to me in line or sitting in the car WITH me on a ride.

And as for the kit lens debate....... I'm with photochick on this. The kit lenses these days are really good, and don't cost that much more when you get them bundled with the body to begin with. And honestly, if you're getting the T4i and that kit lens will autofocus in video....... GET IT. I don't use my video on my T2i because of the lack of auto focus.

Also, the kit lens is great to have if you ever want to upgrade your camera and sell your old one. Once you get great glass, you won't want to part with it. And your camera will be much easier to sell bundled with a lens.