I know this is the ever lasting question, and it can never be answered in full, until they make a cheap, compact and lightweight 10-400mm F/1.2L ...
Edit: Now I have bought a 400D/Rebel XTi, and the only two lenses I was certain of getting were 50 mm 1.8 II and 10-22mm ... as you can see in my profile now.
I like candid shots - not because I am hiding anything, but because I usually prefer persons in reality over posing - especially in Asia, if people see you they have to make V-sign or otherwise look very unnatural. I just looove to catch expressions and emotions. For this I need either a long lens or lot's of megapixels and good optics - or a combo. If optics are good enough, cropping will compensate for a shorter lens. With no flash, it cannot be too slow. I like city the nightlife atmosphere (outside), so often I must cope with reduced artificial lighting.
I also like wide shots, either inside rooms, rather without flash than with, as I usually do not want to influence the atmosphere by flashing everyone. For that I got a the 50mm and 10-22mm ...
With my S2 IS and 35mm equivalent of 38-456 mm, image stabilization and a total weight of about a pound, it is hard to figure what long lenses to get for the 400D.
Then there is the weight and space issue. I travel a lot, and would NOT like to check lenses or camera in my suitcase. Same with laptop and other more valuable and fragile items. I know I can keep the camera around my neck besides the carry-on bag, but a bag of camera, lenses and other accessories would probably count as carry on on most airlines.
A wide zoom range tele lens like a 70-300 is appealing, but is it too slow then, and quality for the money, is it worth it? I was considering the 70-300 DO IS as a very flexible and compact lens, but then I heard some nasty things about it - and it is not cheap either. The 70-200 F/4.0L coming towards the end of the year, with IS - pricey, more than 6 inches long, but might be a good compromize? I would rather have a few good and expensive lenses than a lot of complementing lenses, but the 28-300 is both too large, expensive and shouts "I have tele capability!"
These are the lenses I have considered, and what I think of them. Please give me further advice
EF-S 17-85 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM or or Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO - was really hooked on the 17-85, seems like a good midrange lens for me. But it is not "L" grade, and not the fastest lens there is. With a 50 mm 1.8 and a 10-22, is the 17-85 obsolete?
Finally, Canons 70-200/70-300, with or without DO, L or IS ... I am confused! I might go for the 70-200mm F/4 IS when it comes out in November, maybe add a 1.4 or 2.0 to it ... I know it makes it slower, but some say it is still better than the 70-300 IS ...
Let me recap my needs:
1) Weight/space is an issue
2) Crisp/sharp candid pictures (from a distance)
3) Flexibility - not too many or heavy lenses
4) Wide option, for indoor or panoramic shots
5) I seldom use flash
If you have read this far, I hope you have time left to also comment on what to do for me as goes for the long lenses!
Thank you in advance
Message edited by author 2006-09-17 14:06:23.
|
