What lens combination would I be best off with on a 70D (mostly stills with possible video work)

[handymanshandle]

I will be buying a 70D (or future Canon equivalent), so mostly I plan on spending up to $2,100 maximum on lenses for the 70D (18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM kit).

So would having that kit make the 18-35mm Sigma not really worth it even though the Sigma does have a much faster aperture.

I figure most of my selection/all of my selection is fairly well balanced with Prime and Telephoto (even though there is only one true prime lens I would suspect the 10-18mm is pretty close to being a prime since its zoom range is limited.) I also understand that both Sigma's do not have an image stabilizer, however for the potential video work I'd be using a Manfroto tripod or an AmazonBasics Monopod (I could extend the budget if I choose to exclude a battery grip and extra battery, however the battery grip I think could be useful (especially for extending the number of shots I can get from one run or filming).

I do plan on doing more nature-esque photography which could include occasional wildlife photography (however I'd try to be closer because then I generally can stop the lens down to a faster/wider aperture [because Bokehlicious is well bokehlicious] ).

[79wjd]

It really comes down to what you're planning on taking pictures of. As for the point of the 18-35mm lens, a faster lens can make all the difference. I currently have a 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 lens for my D7000 and mainly shoot wildlife/landscapes, and I'm seriously considering picking up a 70-200 f2.8g (preferably used for $1200~) lens solely for the fact the DOF I get with wildlife photography is pretty dismal even though I lose 100mm on the end (which is often VERY important due to the fact that I often can't get closer, and because I find cropping on my D7000 to be somewhat limited with only 16mp before getting grainy.

[handymanshandle]

It really comes down to what you're planning on taking pictures of. As for the point of the 18-35mm lens, a faster lens can make all the difference. I currently have a 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 lens for my D7000 and mainly shoot wildlife/landscapes, and I'm seriously considering picking up a 70-200 f2.8g (preferably used for $1200~) lens solely for the fact the DOF I get with wildlife photography is pretty dismal even though I lose 100mm on the end (which is often VERY important due to the fact that I often can't get closer, and because I find cropping on my D7000 to be somewhat limited with only 16mp before getting grainy.

Yeah I think I'd occasionally do wildlife photography (in Minnesota and in my region, the landscape isn't particularly breath-taking. I mean sure there might be an area in like Nebraska (Omaha specifically) or anywhere in the Upper Mid-West during mid spring where there is a lot of blooming things and some rolling hills which imo is gorgeous. 

[bob345]

The 18-35 1.8 no contest. You should probably get a telephoto too as the 18-35 limits your range. a used 70-200 f4 would be a choice if it fits in your budget.

[handymanshandle]

The 18-35 1.8 no contest. You should probably get a telephoto too as the 18-35 limits your range. a used 70-200 f4 would be a choice if it fits in your budget.

I plan on buying a couple lenses, so really I was more so asking if I should just go for the 18-35 and 30mm Sigma and whether I should ignore the 10-18mm Canon and maybe go for like a Sigma 70-200mm and possibly a 1.4x Teleconverter (since the sensor on the 70D will already work like a teleconverter for me but if say I need to get closer I could use a teleconverter to have it be the equivalent of a 210mm to 600mm which means that I wouldn't have to give up too much aperture if I needed to get "closer"). However, a Lexar Professional (150mb/s) 128GB SDXC should clean up the 70Ds buffer in a reasonable amount of time I would suspect.

[79wjd]

I plan on buying a couple lenses, so really I was more so asking if I should just go for the 18-35 and 30mm Sigma and whether I should ignore the 10-18mm Canon and maybe go for like a Sigma 70-200mm and possibly a 1.4x Teleconverter (since the sensor on the 70D will already work like a teleconverter for me but if say I need to get closer I could use a teleconverter to have it be the equivalent of a 210mm to 600mm which means that I wouldn't have to give up too much aperture if I needed to get "closer"). However, a Lexar Professional (150mb/s) 128GB SDXC should clean up the 70Ds buffer in a reasonable amount of time I would suspect.

The memory card usually isn't the issue with the buffer. The buffer has a limited write speed -- which at least on my D7000 is what's slownig my 'class 10' (not that that means much) sd card down. 

 

Like I said before, you really have to decide what exactly it is that you're going to be shooting and the conditions you're going to be shooting in. You said you occasionally take pictures of animals and landscapes -- so it also depends on what kind of landscapes, I have a 24-85mm lens, and the 24mm (36) is pretty good for landscapes most of the time, and most of the time you're going to be shooting landscapes around F11~. So the perk to those fast wide angle lenses is for night time photography, or when you're shooting a subject which isn't a large landscape (since MOST of the time you won't want a shallow dof -- but of course, this is also getting into artistic style...so). 

[yourdietsucks]

Im not a fan of non fixed zoom lenses so the 30mm 1.2 would be my pic

[Dw136]

I might be wrong but those Lexar 150 mbps card have an extra row of connectors which the 70D does not. So that card defaults back down to about 30-40mbps. 

 

 However, a Lexar Professional (150mb/s) 128GB SDXC should clean up the 70Ds buffer in a reasonable amount of time I would suspect.

[.spider.]

I'd buy EF-S 10-18

EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM

EF 50mm 1.8

and EF 85mm 1.8 USM or EF 100mm 2 USM or EF 100mm 2.8 USM macro

You shouldn't be too lazy to swap the lenses and to move around a bit.

And yes the 70D only supports the 100Mhz UHS-I mode which results in 43MB/s real live write speed.

[handymanshandle]

@Dw136 @.spider. I can't seem to find the pins/contacts of the Lexar Pro SDXC, if that's the case would a Samsung SDXC 64GB or Sandisk Extreme+  SDXC still achieve their maximum rated write speeds? Also .spider., is there any real benefit over those Canon lenses besides that they do/might have image stabilization and that I wouldn't have to create a whole new system if I were to stick to Canon for a full frame sensor. The only problem with doing one of the primes you suggested is that with and with out a 1.4x teleconverter on the 70D the range is a little weird with the lengths you mentioned (With the exception of the 100mm (since I could achieve about a 300mm equivalent if I had a teleconverter on it.) 

[79wjd]

@Dw136 @.spider. I can't seem to find the pins/contacts of the Lexar Pro SDXC, if that's the case would a Samsung SDXC 64GB or Sandisk Extreme+  SDXC still achieve their maximum rated write speeds? Also .spider., is there any real benefit over those Canon lenses besides that they do/might have image stabilization and that I wouldn't have to create a whole new system if I were to stick to Canon for a full frame sensor. The only problem with doing one of the primes you suggested is that with and with out a 1.4x teleconverter on the 70D the range is a little weird with the lengths you mentioned (With the exception of the 100mm (since I could achieve about a 300mm equivalent if I had a teleconverter on it.) 

Well, Full Frame lenses are usually much better quality, plus the center of any lens is always going to be sharper than the outer edges -- so an FX lens on a DX body will only utilize the center (sharpest bit) of the lens. So, better construction, usually sharper, and gives you room to grow -- so well worth the money.

[handymanshandle]

Well, Full Frame lenses are usually much better quality, plus the center of any lens is always going to be sharper than the outer edges -- so an FX lens on a DX body will only utilize the center (sharpest bit) of the lens. So, better construction, usually sharper, and gives you room to grow -- so well worth the money.

I suppose... I don't know I mean from what I read though those sigma's are really sharp from some of the reviews I've seen. Granted as we both mentioned I wouldn't have to create a whole new system if I were to at one point switch to a full frame sensor. (Though I could start off with the Sigma's (I could slowly phase them out when I had money to go for L glass so that if/when I decide to make the leap to better full frame sensor that I would be accustomed to the lenses and all that fun stuff (though I do want to try to keep my system/library/collection smaller so that I don't need to carry as much) So yeah...

[TheDefinitionOfInsanity]

Sigma 18-35 is the sharpest zoom lens you can put on an APS-C camera. Actually, it is sharper than most primes. With this lens there is no need for primes in that focal range unless you absolutely have to have 1.4 or 1.2. The only downside is the autofocus which is slow and inaccurate from my experience (even Canon 50 1.8 is faster and more accurate). Canon 10-18 would also be nice to have, it is good value for money. I would also go for Canon 55-250 STM, likely the best image quality you gonna get outside of that expensive 70-200 2.8/4 territory.

[.spider.]

@Dw136 @.spider. I can't seem to find the pins/contacts of the Lexar Pro SDXC, if that's the case would a Samsung SDXC 64GB or Sandisk Extreme+  SDXC still achieve their maximum rated write speeds?

The yellow Sandisk Extreme rated at 45MB/s is as fast as the camera.

The only benefit of a faster card is a faster import to the PC with an external USB3 card reader.

Also .spider., is there any real benefit over those Canon lenses besides that they do/might have image stabilization and that I wouldn't have to create a whole new system if I were to stick to Canon for a full frame sensor.

The EF-S lenses are not usable on a full frame camera.

The benefit it that they are sharper than zoom lenses and from my experience they increase your creativity because you can not just zoom in and out, thus they force you to move around.

The only problem with doing one of the primes you suggested is that with and with out a 1.4x teleconverter on the 70D the range is a little weird with the lengths you mentioned (With the exception of the 100mm (since I could achieve about a 300mm equivalent if I had a teleconverter on it.)

I don't know what you mean.

[handymanshandle]

(a.) The yellow Sandisk Extreme rated at 45MB/s is as fast as the camera.

The only benefit of a faster card is a faster import to the PC with an external USB3 card reader.

(b.) The EF-S lenses are not usable on a full frame camera.

The benefit it that they are sharper than zoom lenses and from my experience they increase your creativity because you can not just zoom in and out, thus they force you to move around.

(c.) I don't know what you mean.

 

a.) Okay 

 

b.) I know, however I was mentioning the EF glass you threw in on that list.

 

c.) The crop sensor acts as a 1.6x teleconverter, yes? So therefore if I put on a 1.4x teleconverter on a aps-c sensor it's as if I have put on a 3x teleconverter which would only force me to give up one stop, I however wouldn't have to go to the end of the zoom range on a lens hooked up to the teleconverter. Basically because at 100mm with the teleconverter would be the equivalent of 300mm, technically I'd have it in my range to use the kit 18-135mm IS STM that will come with the 70D if I put on a teleconverter but because it's fastest aperture is 3.5. However, the problem with this is that if I recall correctly that lens's slowest aperture is like f/5.6 so yeah... 

[handymanshandle]

Sigma 18-35 is the sharpest zoom lens you can put on an APS-C camera. Actually, it is sharper than most primes. With this lens there is no need for primes in that focal range unless you absolutely have to have 1.4 or 1.2. The only downside is the autofocus which is slow and inaccurate from my experience (even Canon 50 1.8 is faster and more accurate). Canon 10-18 would also be nice to have, it is good value for money. I would also go for Canon 55-250 STM, likely the best image quality you gonna get outside of that expensive 70-200 2.8/4 territory.

autofocus most likely wouldn't be much concern since I'm pretty sure focusing can be done from the camera itself rather than relying on the lens to focus for the camera. 

The benefit of the STM is the fact that it is quiet which I'm not sure will effect the work flow of that video work I was considering/might be able to do.) As far as image stabilization goes, when handheld and doing still work a fast shutter can allow for me to find which image will work the best, and for video work I'd be on a manfroto or monopod tripod or a slider.

[.spider.]

b.) I know, however I was mentioning the EF glass you threw in on that list.

Yes you could use these lens on a full frame camera.

 

c.) The crop sensor acts as a 1.6x teleconverter, yes? So therefore if I put on a 1.4x teleconverter on a aps-c sensor it's as if I have put on a 3x teleconverter which would only force me to give up one stop, I however wouldn't have to go to the end of the zoom range on a lens hooked up to the teleconverter. Basically because at 100mm with the teleconverter would be the equivalent of 300mm, technically I'd have it in my range to use the kit 18-135mm IS STM that will come with the 70D if I put on a teleconverter but because it's fastest aperture is 3.5. However, the problem with this is that if I recall correctly that lens's slowest aperture is like f/5.6 so yeah...

It would be like a 2x telconverter on a full frame camera the difference between 200mm and 300mm is quite big.

The primes would work quite well with a decent teleconverter, the 18-135mm wouldn't because the AF system of a lot of canon camera only works with apertures of f5.6 and bigger.

[mrswagbhinav]

Will this lens be good for my 60D?

[handymanshandle]

Yes you could use these lens on a full frame camera.

It would be like a 2x telconverter on a full frame camera the difference between 200mm and 300mm is quite big.

The primes would work quite well with a decent teleconverter, the 18-135mm wouldn't because the AF system of a lot of canon camera only works with apertures of f5.6 and bigger.

 I know.

 

Definitely. 1.6x is what the crop sensor does and a 1.4x teleconverter would make it 3x basically.

 

I suppose and yeah I would suspect that the 18-135 would be useless in terms of image quality. I mean since the 70D sensor does have enough pixels to make it so that I could crop and wouldn't run into the issue of the quality going down dramatically (also because there's more data that the sensor can capture). Like a prime 200mm would be like a 320mm equivalent. Also pretty sure the lenses I have for the 70D would be like:

 

The Sigma Prime (30mm) would be like a 48mm equivalent

The Sigma Zoom (18-35mm) would be a 28 or 29 to 56mm equiv.

The Sigma Portrait/Wildlife Zoom (70-200) would be like a 112 to 320mm equiv.

The Canon Kit (18-135) would be a 28 or 29 to 216mm equiv.

The Canon Zoom/Macro (10-18mm) would be like a 16-28/29mm equiv.

[79wjd]

 I know.

 

Definitely. 1.6x is what the crop sensor does and a 1.4x teleconverter would make it 3x basically.

1.4*1.6 = 2.24 =/= 3. You'd multiply the scaling factors together, not add them. 

[handymanshandle]

1.4*1.6 = 2.24 =/= 3. You'd multiply the scaling factors together, not add them. 

Hmm just noticed that.

[handymanshandle]

I'm considering maybe not doing a 70D and possibly a T5i or T6i (not a T6s since it's basically a smaller 70D and it cost about the same). Would a similar lens configuration be fine? 

[Williamchan87]

I would get the sigma art 18-35 1.8, canon 70-200 F4

[TroubleKlef]

As many other people have suggested, get the Sigma 18-35 and then a telephoto such as 70-200mm. The 18-35 is probably the bargain of the century as its sharper than a lot of primes for a lot less money. Few downsides is that its big, heavy, and it lacks IS. 

[handymanshandle]

As many other people have suggested, get the Sigma 18-35 and then a telephoto such as 70-200mm. The 18-35 is probably the bargain of the century as its sharper than a lot of primes for a lot less money. Few downsides is that its big, heavy, and it lacks IS. 

So even though I'm considering going with a used 60D instead, the 18-35mm would be a better choice even though it does cost more than say a standard [decent] prime (35mm or 50mm).