Looking for my second lens

[aslsw]

This is my first 'real' post ie. after my introductory one. I know this comes up a lot, but I think I want to invest in a new lens.

What do I use now?

Currently, my only lens is a Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC. I bought it because I was travelling a lot for work, wanted to keep my gear to a minimum and thought it would make a great general-purpose walk around lens.

I knew from the reviews that there would be some compromises, but after using it for several years I absolutely love it. It's flexible, light, has a great range in focal lengths, and the vibration compensation means I can get great handheld shots down to quite low speeds. I feel like I've been very spoilt by how good this lens is.

My photos are on Flickr. Pretty much any of the photos from the last three years have been taken exclusively with the Tamron lens.

Looking at the EXIF data from these photos, I can see that:

• 18% of my photos are taken at 18mm,
• 44% of my photos are taken in the 18-50mm range,
• 58% of my photos are taken in the 18-85mm range,
• 66% of my photos are taken taken in the 18-135mm range, and
• 22% are taken at the 270mm end.

How do I use it?

I've been travelling between Australia and Europe for work for the last 4 years, so most of my photography has just been of places I've visited for both work and pleasure.

As I'm now in Geneva for a while, I've been trying to practice my skills in photographing street scenes, black-and-white photography and people. I find the 270mm end of the lense to be very useful for getting in close, without being in people's faces. As you can see, I also like the wider end for architecture and there are days I would be happier with something even wider.

Wildlife, macro and sports photography are out of the equation for now, but I am trying to develop my portrait skills.

What do I want?

To be honest, I'm not quite sure. Now that I've upgraded to a Canon EOS70D I have this niggling feeling that I should buy a lens where the quality matches my new camera. My thoughts so far:

• Zoom: because I like the flexibility and don't want to carry around a number of fixed lenses
• Aperture: I've borrowed a few of my brother's lenses over the years, and know that f2.8 yields more flexibility as well as shallower depth of field,
• Quality: as I say, something that's a bit of a step up in terms of quality from my current jack-of-all-trades Tamron,
• Focal length: clearly, something up to 85mm is going to cover much of my needs,
• Price: not really an issue, but I do believe in maximising bang-for-buck ie. I'm not going to buy a Canon just because of the label.

Clearly, something in the 18-85mm range will cover most of my needs but what is out there that is a step up in quality (ie. not just a kit lens)? I have previously borrowed my brother's Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is sitting there for more at the wider end.

But what other suggestions do you have?

[Glenn NK]

It seems that you use a wide range of focal lengths - scattered over the full range of 18 mm to 270 (crop equivalent = 29 to 432 mm on a Canon).

I won't suggest prime lenses because:
a) I have three zoom lenses and am favourably disposed to them,
b) The quality of zoom lenses has increased immensely in the past ten years,
c) You would need a lens bearer or a wagon to carry enough of them (my backpack is very heavy),
d) Some people suggest "foot zooming" with primes - utter nonsense in many situations.

The drawback to zooms:
1) a zoom range of greater than 4:1 tends to produce some extreme distortion at the ends,
2) they can be heavy (but you are familiar with this).
3) they may not be as fast as primes (how often do you really need to shoot at f/2?)

Hence you won't find one good zoom to cover the FL's you shoot at.
On a FF body, the most versatile lens is the 24-105 f/4 ISL. This would cover a large part of your desired range (I use it on my ancient 30D - a crop body - it's quite useful and effective).

On my (crop) 30D, the most useful and effective lens is my 17-55 f/2.8. Other manufacturers have developed similar lenses in this range - Tamron comes to mind.

Another very effective lens is the 70-300. It's not a fast lens (can't recall the f/stop, but it varies from about f/4 to f/5.6) but is a very compact lens for this range - no longer than my 24-105. (I wish I had this lens).

If you require longer FL's, then size and weight will start to be problematic; I have an f/2.8 70-200 and it's awkward. With a 2X extender it's downright nasty to carry and handle but on a crop it effectively becomes a 640 mm lens.

All my lenses are Canon - so I didn't respond to the thread about Canikon lens snobbery. Having said that, I have never had any issues with my Canon lenses, and they all communicate perfectly with both Canon bodies - something that isn't always the case with other brands - something to keep in mind. If you have trouble, where do you turn to?

Glenn

[JR1]

BLIMY...........................

Never thought getting a lens was sooooooo complicated.

I don't really see the one most important thing you need to say in your extensive "report", what you shoot.

On the assumption that a greater percentage of what you shoot is architecture, as opposed to say sports, then it is simple, the Sigma 8-16mm.

I am a snob I use good lenses, Sigma and Nikon and Canon.







In my work I use and would highly suggest

Sigma 120-400 (Canon) , 150-500 (Nikon), 8-16mm (this is NOT a fisheye, Nikon), Canon 28-135, 100mm macro, 18-105 Nikon a VERY good lens, but one that lives on one of my cameras is Nikkor 28-300,

Tamron do a 28-300 and it is THE most versatile around length wise.

[DanK]

What do I want?

To be honest, I'm not quite sure. Now that I've upgraded to a Canon EOS70D I have this niggling feeling that I should buy a lens where the quality matches my new camera.

Stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect a new lens.

I could recommend all sorts of lenses for different parts of what you wrote, and your flickr site doesn't help narrow it down because you shoot a lot of different things. My advice is: forget about buying a lens just to have a 'better' one. A lens will be better only if it lets you do something you can't do well now. Instead, decide which change from your current lens would help you do something specific. E.g, if you want a higher-quality outdoor walk-around that tops out at 85 mm, one logical choice would be the EF-S 15-85, but if you want a faster lens with narrower DOF, that would obviously be a bad choice.

The only general advice I would give is that your desire for convenience and not switching lenses is going to conflict with your desire for higher quality. Lenses with zoom factors of 15x will not come close to the better of those with zoom factors less than 4.

So, my suggestion is that you narrow it down and decide one particular type of photography that you would like to be able to do better than you can with your current lens. then re-post, and my hunch is that you will get a number of very helpful and specific suggestions.

[Polar01]

Anura welcome to CIC, as for a suggestion, keep the 18-270mm and get something in the 10-20mm, you will enjoy shooting architecture more with the wider lens. Fast glass is not all cracked up as it use to be, now with higher ISO levels and better noise reduction in camera, and post processing programs, not really need as in the time of slow ISO's.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

Get a fisheye, it'll be different from anything you are doing now.

[wyogirl]

I will throw my 2 cents in...
I think that everyone should own at least one fast prime lens. You can learn a lot with a cheap 50mm 1.8 prime. For $100, I think it should be in everyone's bag.
For one, it forces you to move and see things differently that you would if you could just zoom.
For two, its fast at 1.8 and you can learn a lot on how to manipulate depth of field. It also gives you options when in poor lighting.
For three, 50mm on a crop body is a great focal length for a lot of situations.
And lastly, the $100 Nifty Fifty is a pretty sharp little lens.

I can honestly say that while I love me some zoom... I could do an entire photo walk with just a 50mm prime.

[JR1]

Get a fisheye, it'll be different from anything you are doing now.

And a complete waste of money if it is never used after the initial wow effect.

Rent different lenses for the weekend before purchace

[Manfred M]

I tend to suggest that people do not duplicate focal lengths that they already have, UNLESS there is a very specific reason for doing so. It sounds like the lens is totally adequate for most of your shooting. Your Flickr page shows that you are very much a generalist photographer; with a bit of a bias towards aircraft and architecture. You don't seem to be into portraiture per se, but do some snapshots and street photography.

If you are feeling rich; your could look at one of Canon's TS-E (perspective correction) lenses for architecture; although I suspect that they might not be what you are looking for on a crop-frame camera. Something a bit wider than you have could also be interesting for architectural shots, especially interior ones.

The type of shooting you are doing doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to get a lot of benefit out of fast glass; I don't see a lot of low light or shallow depth of field work.

I think a similar comment goes for getting a longer lens; you already have good range at 270mm and unless you get into birds or wildlife, the 400mm - 500mm range might not do much for you.

Other than you wanting to buy another lens; I really don't see much to suggest that you need one, based on the shooting you are doing. If you absolutely want to get more class, going to an ultra-wide angle is probably be the most likely direction.

[Manfred M]

Get a fisheye, it'll be different from anything you are doing now.

That is probably my least used lens, but if you are looking at getting one, have a look at the Samyang line (it is sold under a number of different brands; f/3.5 8mm, well built and far less expensive than the competition. There is no electronic coupling to the camera body and no autofocus.

[ajohnw]

Looks to me like you might get on well with a Canon 24-105mm L. Your then shooting roughly 36 - 157. It's a pretty vice free general purpose lens probably designed for wedding photographers. It doesn't gain much over the 18-135mm on resolution, just a bit more even across the frame. Lot less vignetting as it's a full frame lens. It's usable wide open at F4 past 1/2 of it's range but behaves at F5.6 at the top end.

I tend to look at a site that tests lenses that people take to him and he has been known to send some back to the manufacturer. Of the EF-S lense the 18-135mm looks to be pretty good. I would say better over that range than the one you are using and not really loosing out much against the 24-105mm L lens. As nearly always corner vignetting is worse wide open even a bit worse than your 18-270.

Must admit this sort of problem on crop cameras annoys me. The usual answer to better lenses is fit full frame yet they always make a decent lens of the 18-100mm odd type of range for crop but not with more aperture. Go full frame and and the wide end is lost or use say a 17-85mm which suffers in some ways because it has to do 17mm on full frame and has no more aperture.

My 70-300m often finishes up at the 300mm end. Maybe a canon 28-200mm might have filled the need for walk around lens and then you could have forgotten the other 18 to what ever and gone for a wide angle zoom for architecture but that one has turned into a 28-300mm, off white coloured and not that small. Canon do still show the 28-200mm on their web site. I vaguely remember that Colin is fond of this lens for landscape work. Not sure.

I see you problem. I've been there several times but budget does matter.

John
-

[Shadowman]

And a complete waste of money if it is never used after the initial wow effect.

Rent different lenses for the weekend before purchace

The "if" makes all the difference.

[JR1]

The "if" makes all the difference.

100% agree, however, there are some things that need much more consideration than others, as the poster said they are looking for their 2nd lens which means they are not aiming at a specialist field so want a general purpose lens, I have as many have a 100mm Canon macro, in my case, use it about 5 times a year, I also could may get a fisheye but would use that about the same amount.

I suggest that until, or perhaps never, someone decides to go down the route of specialist lenses they hire and try first, I have seen many many people buy and regret once the initial thrill has worn off.

After all one could suggest tilt/shift as he shoots architecture but perspective control in photoshop is a lot cheaper and a wide such as a 8-16mm can be used almost daily

I think I would bore very soon with a fisheye

[aslsw]

Wow! Thanks for the replies everyone. The variety of responses probably reflects my thinking, which frankly is all over the place.

Part of the problem of using my history as a guide is that it is, by definition, limited to what I have right now. And as I said at the beginning, I feel really spoiled because I like what I have now.

And your comments about what I shoot also reflects the fact that I have been all over the place for a while. Planes will always feature heavily, but I'm prepared to invest in a 70-300 one day for that alone. Once I exclude the longer end of the range, it really does seem to be about architecture - but thanks to some photowalks in Geneva, I really do want to keep pushing out of my comfort zone and include more street scenes and people.

I really like the idea of something in the 17-50/55 range, as it fits in with around 50% of what I use now. I also like the idea that a shorter range will force me to be more creative - a long zoom does make me lazy.

I forgot to mention that I do in fact have a Canon 50mm f1.8 but it inexplicably stayed in Australia when I left and my son has "borrowed" it - I don't think I ever got around to using it!

Seriously, thanks for the ideas everyone.

[Glenn NK]

I really like the idea of something in the 17-50/55 range, as it fits in with around 50% of what I use now. I also like the idea that a shorter range will force me to be more creative - a long zoom does make me lazy.

Why would a long zoom lens make you lazy?

G

[aslsw]

The range on my Tamron lens means I can walk around Chamonix taking street shots but then zoom in for shot of the alps! I know if I had something shorter I would be forced to think more about what I want to photograph, where I will put my body to get the best shot and about swapping lenses for different needs.