If you could only have one Canon lens...

[dizmo]

Which one are you choosing? For an APS-C DSLR.

 

I'm kind of leaning towards the 18-135, but I can also get the 15-85. Another option is the 50 F1.4.

Want something better than the kit lens.

 

It's for all around photography, likely no video. Camera is a Canon 70D, or 77D.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Id go 18-135mm if it was me. The tele is nice to have, and its a overall pretty good lens. The 24-105 is a nice lens, but Its nice to go wider than 24mm on aps-c, and your paying for and carrying the extra weight of a lens thats made for full frame.

 

50mm is a bit too tele for me on crop as a only lens. 

 

Anouther option is the canon 17-55 2.8 and the sigma 17-50 2.8 and simmilar versions. I have one and its a pretty nice lens. Good zoom range, and 2.8 is nice to have with is. But its pretty big and heavy.

[CommanderAlex]

Personally, I'd get a 24-70mm and love it more than the 24-105 for it's sharpness. 

 

Actually, I sold me 24-105mm f/4L as the 24-70mm f/4L was lighter and better imo. The f/2.8L II is a fantastic lens and got it real cheap through a friend of a friend. 

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Which one are you choosing? For an APS-C DSLR.

 

I'm kind of leaning towards the 18-135, but I can also get the 15-85. Another option is the 50 F1.4.

Want something better than the kit lens.

 

It's for all around photography, likely no video. Camera is a Canon 70D, or 77D.

Canon's lenses are so expensive. Go to Sony

[ToboRobot]

I had a 60mm EF-S macro lens with my 7D that was pretty awesome.

[dizmo]

7 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Id go 18-135mm if it was me. The tele is nice to have, and its a overall pretty good lens. The 24-105 is a nice lens, but Its nice to go wider than 24mm on aps-c, and your paying for and carrying the extra weight of a lens thats made for full frame.

 

50mm is a bit too tele for me on crop as a only lens. 

 

Anouther option is the canon 17-55 2.8 and the sigma 17-50 2.8 and simmilar versions. I have one and its a pretty nice lens. Good zoom range, and 2.8 is nice to have with is. But its pretty big and heavy.

Hmm interesting, I hadn't thought of the wider aspect.

 

The 17-55 I haven't found any reeeally killer deals. There's one or two though. I'll keep that in mind. Any particular reason you'd choose that over 15-85?

How do you like the quality of the Sigma (if that's the one you have)? Of the few reviews I read on other Sigma lenses it was hit or miss.

7 minutes ago, CommanderAlex said:

Personally, I'd get a 24-70mm and love it more than the 24-105 for it's sharpness. 

 

Actually, I sold me 24-105mm f/4L as the 24-70mm f/4L was lighter and better imo. The f/2.8L II is a fantastic lens and got it real cheap through a friend of a friend. 

I haven't found any really good deals on that lens, but it was one that I was also considering.

How much lighter is the smaller lens?

6 minutes ago, CHICKSLAYA said:

Canon's lenses are so expensive. Go to Sony

She doesn't want Sony, she want's Canon. Plus Sony bodys are ridiculously expensive.

Might try to get her to go into a more mirrorless setup in the future as she plays around with my cameras, but that's for another time.

[dizmo]

Just now, ToboRobot said:

I had a 60mm EF-S macro lens with my 7D that was pretty awesome.

What kind of shots would you use it for?

[Thomas4]

Each lens has a different purpose, so there is no good answer.

It all depends on what you want to take photos of.

 

A 50mm lens is good for getting an image similar to what you see with the naked eye. This is the stock lens usually supplied.

The 15-85mm lens used at 15mm will let you get more detail on a close object and at 85mm will make a distant object appear a little closer than the stock 50mm.

The 18-135mm lens like the above will give you a little less detail on close-ups and will make a distant object appear a little closer than the stock 15-85mm.

 

If you're still not sure, either go to your local camera store and speak with a knowledgeable salesman or go go your local library and look through their collection, as there are many books hat will show you the differences in photos.

 

[ToboRobot]

19 minutes ago, dizmo said:

What kind of shots would you use it for?

Macros plus using it as a general 60mm lens.   So very similar to the 50mm but it also works to take nice close ups of CPU pins and stuff.

[Electronics Wizardy]

32 minutes ago, dizmo said:

The 17-55 I haven't found any reeeally killer deals. There's one or two though. I'll keep that in mind. Any particular reason you'd choose that over 15-85?

Its nice to have a 2.8 aperture. A good amount faster than most of the zooms. Its nice esp for the older crop bodies like your picking between as it saves you 1-2 stops of iso noise which can be a good amount. Its also just a pretty good lens in most other ways.

 

 

[CommanderAlex]

47 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I haven't found any really good deals on that lens, but it was one that I was also considering.

How much lighter is the smaller lens?

It feels at least a couple ounces lighter (subjective I know). The EF 24-105mm f/4L is 670g while the EF 24-70MM f/4L is 600g. Since the 24-70 is smaller, it does feel heavier just because it's a bit denser. I got mine at an incredible price on FB Marketplace. The macro function is ok, problem is you have to get so close to the object and there's hardly enough light in front so it's not a particular favorite of mine for macro-better off with a dedicated macro such as the infamously popular EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro.

 

I really should have answered the original question but out of all those lens, the super-zoom 18-135mm is a great walk around lens due to the zoom range. IIRC, the 50mm f/1.4 is an older optical design but still regarded-given the fact that it's a prime lens and prime lens have better optics than zoom. The 50mm you can't go wrong with though so it depends on what you're looking at shooting it with. I've never heard of the 15-85mm so I'm unsure about it. 

 

Christopher Frost does really excellent lens reviews that I watch so that's where I'm getting my information from. 

 

[porina]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

It's for all around photography, likely no video. Camera is a Canon 70D, or 77D.

I voted 15-85 since I actually got that as a kit lens with 7D in past. It's ok as a general zoom. Quite likely the 18-135 would do much the same job, but I don't have experience of it. 24-105 gives up the wide end so you'd have to be really sure you don't need/want it to go that route. Don't get swept away by it being L lens. It's best as a standard zoom for full frame. 50/1.4 is its own niche. Great if that's the sort of lens you want.

 

Over time get more lenses if needed. Used prices may drop as DSLRs are out and mirrorless is in.

[porina]

7 minutes ago, CommanderAlex said:

I've never heard of the 15-85mm so I'm unsure about it. 

15-85 is similar age to original 18-135, but it is higher tier. 15-85 has ring USB. 18-135 IS has no-suffix, STM, nano-USM depending on the specific model. I think some even called the 15-85 like an L lens in optical quality, but Canon don't give that designation to EF-S.

 

Looking it up, the 15-85 was the higher end kit lens for 7D, with the first 18-135 serving as the lower end offering. How much that difference is in the real world would take further research.

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, Thomas4 said:

Each lens has a different purpose, so there is no good answer.

It all depends on what you want to take photos of.

 

A 50mm lens is good for getting an image similar to what you see with the naked eye. This is the stock lens usually supplied.

The 15-85mm lens used at 15mm will let you get more detail on a close object and at 85mm will make a distant object appear a little closer than the stock 50mm.

The 18-135mm lens like the above will give you a little less detail on close-ups and will make a distant object appear a little closer than the stock 15-85mm.

 

If you're still not sure, either go to your local camera store and speak with a knowledgeable salesman or go go your local library and look through their collection, as there are many books hat will show you the differences in photos.

Yeah, I've been watching a few YT videos.

There aren't really any camera stores here, so there isn't anyone with that kind of specific knowledge. I'd just be asking on FB or a similar site, and I likely get the same or better information here. I did state in the original post that it's general purpose photography though; a little of everything.

1 hour ago, ToboRobot said:

Macros plus using it as a general 60mm lens.   So very similar to the 50mm but it also works to take nice close ups of CPU pins and stuff.

Ahhh I think that's a little out of the realm of what she'll be using the camera for, but thanks!

1 hour ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Its nice to have a 2.8 aperture. A good amount faster than most of the zooms. Its nice esp for the older crop bodies like your picking between as it saves you 1-2 stops of iso noise which can be a good amount. Its also just a pretty good lens in most other ways.

Hmmm good to know!
I've added it to my search list and have found a couple of options for it.

49 minutes ago, CommanderAlex said:

It feels at least a couple ounces lighter (subjective I know). The EF 24-105mm f/4L is 670g while the EF 24-70MM f/4L is 600g. Since the 24-70 is smaller, it does feel heavier just because it's a bit denser. I got mine at an incredible price on FB Marketplace. The macro function is ok, problem is you have to get so close to the object and there's hardly enough light in front so it's not a particular favorite of mine for macro-better off with a dedicated macro such as the infamously popular EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro.

 

I really should have answered the original question but out of all those lens, the super-zoom 18-135mm is a great walk around lens due to the zoom range. IIRC, the 50mm f/1.4 is an older optical design but still regarded-given the fact that it's a prime lens and prime lens have better optics than zoom. The 50mm you can't go wrong with though so it depends on what you're looking at shooting it with. I've never heard of the 15-85mm so I'm unsure about it. 

 

Christopher Frost does really excellent lens reviews that I watch so that's where I'm getting my information from. 

 

Yeah, I actually just watched one of his other videos! When I get home from work I'll have to check out some more.

Kind of leaning to the 18-135 USM.

49 minutes ago, porina said:

I voted 15-85 since I actually got that as a kit lens with 7D in past. It's ok as a general zoom. Quite likely the 18-135 would do much the same job, but I don't have experience of it. 24-105 gives up the wide end so you'd have to be really sure you don't need/want it to go that route. Don't get swept away by it being L lens. It's best as a standard zoom for full frame. 50/1.4 is its own niche. Great if that's the sort of lens you want.

 

Over time get more lenses if needed. Used prices may drop as DSLRs are out and mirrorless is in.

Yeah, I think I'll probably cut the 24-105 and 50 out and stick with the other options, adding the Sigma 17-50/70.

Haha, you nailed it, I was definitely a little enamoured by the red ring.

 

I've been pretty good with planning so far and have gotten the body, basically new, for a little better than free.

31 minutes ago, porina said:

15-85 is similar age to original 18-135, but it is higher tier. 15-85 has ring USB. 18-135 IS has no-suffix, STM, nano-USM depending on the specific model. I think some even called the 15-85 like an L lens in optical quality, but Canon don't give that designation to EF-S.

 

Looking it up, the 15-85 was the higher end kit lens for 7D, with the first 18-135 serving as the lower end offering. How much that difference is in the real world would take further research.

Have you used IS, STM and USM lenses?

I've been trying to figure out which one I should aim for, and so far my understanding is:
IS is basic, best used for long range. STM is best for video as it's quietst, and USM is the best autofocus but it's loud.

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

IS is basic, best used for long range.

IS is image stabilization. Basically lets you get away with longer hand held shots. You probably want it here unless your using a tripod or a high speed speed all the time. Can normally give you a stop or two more shutter speed(so something like 1/20 instead of 1/50 min shutter speed before blut caused by hands holding the camera.

 

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

STM is best for video as it's quietst, and USM is the best autofocus but it's loud.

This also really depends on the lens, and there normally aren't STM and USM versions of the exact same lens, they will have other differences in addition to the autofocus motor.

 

And I have a good amount of canon lenses, so Ive used STM, USM, and IS lenses.

[porina]

41 minutes ago, dizmo said:

IS is basic, best used for long range. STM is best for video as it's quietst, and USM is the best autofocus but it's loud.

Consider IS separately from the focusing motor. Image stabilisation is useful for many use cases but not all the time e.g. if the subject doesn't stay still, it wont help.

 

STM I think they introduced when video started taking off, and they needed a better (quieter) method than what was called micro motor which can be loud. Ring USM was the high end for stills photography. It is generally quiet too. Micro-USM was a later cheaper version of it, but I don't recall what the difference is. If you're not doing video then the noise probably doesn't matter much, and it is more about the overall experience of using the lens.

[dizmo]

4 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

IS is image stabilization. Basically lets you get away with longer hand held shots. You probably want it here unless your using a tripod or a high speed speed all the time. Can normally give you a stop or two more shutter speed(so something like 1/20 instead of 1/50 min shutter speed before blut caused by hands holding the camera.

 

This also really depends on the lens, and there normally aren't STM and USM versions of the exact same lens, they will have other differences in addition to the autofocus motor.

 

And I have a good amount of canon lenses, so Ive used STM, USM, and IS lenses.

Did you have a favourite system? Or notice any odd quirks with any of them?

The 18-135 comes in all three flavours, and there's an 18-200 IS lens as well.

22 minutes ago, porina said:

Consider IS separately from the focusing motor. Image stabilisation is useful for many use cases but not all the time e.g. if the subject doesn't stay still, it wont help.

 

STM I think they introduced when video started taking off, and they needed a better (quieter) method than what was called micro motor which can be loud. Ring USM was the high end for stills photography. It is generally quiet too. Micro-USM was a later cheaper version of it, but I don't recall what the difference is. If you're not doing video then the noise probably doesn't matter much, and it is more about the overall experience of using the lens.

Ahhh. I'd have thought all lenses would come with some form of IS. Good to know.

The more I dive into this the more options there are

 

Anyone have any opinions on the 24-70 Sigma EX?

[Thomas4]

I could have gotten into a lot more detail, but I figured that it would be enough to get started

But here goes: f-stops, that's the number behind the f/ informs you how much light is needed to get good detail. The lower the number, the more light is captured by the lens.

If you're planning to purchase a lens over 80mm or a variable focus lens, either a monopod or a tripod is a must to obtain an excellent quality photograph. Quite honestly, ANY photograph taken will be come out better with either than simple hand holding.

As to hand holding, when ever possible, lean against something to form a tripod, elbow against wall, arms on fence, sitting with arms on legs, crouching with one leg under and the other bent at the knee - these are the most common poses.

 

Like I warned, there is a LOT more I can add,but let's just leave it here, other than there are a large number of books and websites dedicated to the world of photography, even if its old. Because the basic information regarding photo taking hasn't really changed that much since the daguerreotype in 1840.

[porina]

8 hours ago, dizmo said:

Anyone have any opinions on the 24-70 Sigma EX?

I haven't used that particular lens, but again if you're on APS-C sensor you'll lose out on the wide angle end compared to some of the others mentioned, but you gain a bit in aperture. Depends on your expected use cases.

 

I have a few Sigma lenses still: 150mm macro, 120-300 OS HSM, 50mm f/1.4 A. They work fine. One minor thing to check if buying Sigma is which way the zoom ring rotates. I don't know if there's a pattern but they can go one way or other, and it really messes with muscle memory if you get one that's different to other lenses. I think Tamron was a bigger problem in that area.

 

You may have noticed Sigma use similar but different terms to Canon e.g. IS = OS, USM = HSM. EX is like their L lenses.

 

6 hours ago, Thomas4 said:

If you're planning to purchase a lens over 80mm or a variable focus lens, either a monopod or a tripod is a must to obtain an excellent quality photograph.

Gonna disagree on the above. I used to regularly hand hold with a 400mm lens on APS-C for wildlife, although I would say trying the same at 600mm was beyond my comfort zone. You just need to use appropriate settings for the conditions. Don't get caught up in trying to achieve ultimate technical quality, unless that is really needed (maybe for stock?).

[GDRRiley]

While I've use an 18-135 for a long time, I sold them on when I got a 24-105F4 cheap, I rarely needed the wide end and if I did grabbing a proper wide angle lens was always better
 

On 10/21/2022 at 5:29 PM, Thomas4 said:

If you're planning to purchase a lens over 80mm or a variable focus lens, either a monopod or a tripod is a must to obtain an excellent quality photograph. Quite honestly, ANY photograph taken will be come out better with either than simple hand holding.

As to hand holding, when ever possible, lean against something to form a tripod, elbow against wall, arms on fence, sitting with arms on legs, crouching with one leg under and the other bent at the knee - these are the most common poses.

it isn't needed, lens stabilization works pretty well as long as you aren't trying to shoot slow and if you've got a sensor stabilized body+lens you really don't
i've held 300mm shots down to 1/30 or so with an old manual lens on my X-S10, I could likely

[dizmo]

@Electronics Wizardy @GDRRiley @porina

 

 

So, I got a camera with the 18-135, and managed to get another camera with a Sigma 17-70; I'll just include both, and she can pick between them. The 24mm is kind of an interesting lens too, and since I have two (three once the 80d kit I bought gets here), I might include one of those as well. I think the Sigma is going to win over though. It's a beautiful lens, and the autofocus is quite quick.

 

Thanks for the advice!