Lens recommendations?

[DesertBell]

I have a Canon Rebel XSI, and I have the 18-55mm kit lens and a 75-300 f/4-5.6 III. (I am also waiting on a 50mm f/1.8 from Amazon.) I have been playing with them both, and neither meets my needs for a "walk around" lens. The 18-55 mm takes nice enough pics, but I am not satisfied with the zoom range.

I am taking both indoor and outdoor portrait and action shots, as well as some landscape photography. I also take a fair number of shots in poor lighting conditions. I want to branch into other areas as I learn, so I would prefer something versatile. (For instance, I really REALLY want a macro lens.)

My other question regarded brands. Just looking around, I am rather boggled by the differences in cost. I've never subscribed to the theory that cheap= low quality (ok, sometimes it does, but sometimes it absolutely DOESN'T) so what inexpensive lenses are an unbelievable find for the money? I don't mind spending a lot on a lens to get good results, but at the same time, I don't want to miss out on any great lenses because I don't know what to look for.

Thank you so much for your help!

 

[Anewman]

My other question regarded brands. Just looking around, I am rather boggled by the differences in cost. I've never subscribed to the theory that cheap= low quality (ok, sometimes it does, but sometimes it absolutely DOESN'T) so what inexpensive lenses are an unbelievable find for the money? I don't mind spending a lot on a lens to get good results, but at the same time, I don't want to miss out on any great lenses because I don't know what to look for.

Thank you so much for your help!

IMO the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8...

It comes in at about $365, while the Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8 L is over $1100. Yes I would agree that the Canon is much better built, but when it comes to optical quality the difference is not as huge as the price would suggest.

 

[ukcatfan]

Let me try to sum this up:

More zoom
indoor portrait shots
outdoor portrait shots
indooraction shots
outdoor action shots
landscape photography
shots in poor lighting
macro
affordable

All this combined = doesn't exist

Anewman's lens suggestion covers much of what you want, but still not everything. I believe you are looking for something in the 18-200mm range, but those do not have large apertures, so not effective for low light. Keep in mind that with more focal length range, the IQ typically decreases. Also, for landscape photography, 28mm is not likely wide enough. Then to throw in macro capabilities... It sounds like you are looking for the ultimate do everything lens that everyone wishes existed, but it does not.

 

[DesertBell]

I realized how that sounded after I posted it and meant to fix it but never got back. I don't expect one lens to be able to do all that (And if it could I expect I couldn't afford it anyway!) I just wanted to throw my interests out there in case there were lenses that could cover more than one of my needs at once. Sorry about that, and thank you for the replies.

 

[BorisMD]

Here's my 2 cents worth--

I use the Canon 24-70 2.8L. It's a great lens, with great focus speed and sharpness, and great low light capabilities and a decent zoom range. On the other hand, it weighs a ton. And, it's not so cheap.

Other lenses I would consider as a walk around lens are the Canon 18-55 2.8 IS, but that doesn't have much more zoom for you.

I've also borrowed and taken some great shots with the Canon 17-85 EF-S IS lens. It's not a real low light lens, but the IS makes a big difference.

I tried and did not really care for the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens. I just didn't find the images that pleasing (that could be attributed to the photographer, as well, but I decided against buying it).

I had the same lenses as you, and have since upgraded to the following:

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L
Canon EF-S 10-22

Those three pretty much cover everything I need. YMMV. I don't have to pack an extra suitcase of photo gear when I travel. I just put each of the two lenses not being used into a lowepro lens case, and toss them into my backpack. That is not the quickest lens changing system around, but I don't change lenses all that much.

Good luck,

Boris

 

[DizzyV6P]

I found my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 not wide enough so I sold it to get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. While not as wide as I'd like it, its good enough for now. Since you don't like the zoom range of the 17-55, you probably won't like the 17-50. I loved the 28-75, but I wanted wider w/o having to go for a full ultra-wide (see below), so the 17-50 plus feet zoom was my best option. Poor lighting and zoom really doesn't give you many options besides the ones mentioned already. (You'd want f/2.8 or better).

The Canon 70-200 F/4L or the 70-200 series in general is always a good buy. You can find used 70-200 F/4 L's used for $500.

Ultra Wides:
Canon 10-22 can be expensive. Good 3rd party lenses are the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24 f/4. I used the Sigma during the Disney Med Cruise and found it a fantastic lens to use.

 

[DesertBell]

So here's what I decided on- feel free to tell me if I am making a mistake I know I have a lot to learn.

I think am going to get the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and a Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I am going to wait for awhile on a super wide lens. I considered going with a 18-200 zoom, but all the reviews I read and the pictures I saw suggested that the picture quality with the Tamron was far superior.

Thank you all so much for your (hopefully continuing) help and advice