The Zoom vs Prime debate, some thoughts...

[Roger]

This subject has been beaten to death more than once. I have more than once stated that I would rather go the prime route However, my wife and I are expecting, and I can not help to think that I am going to miss some shots when I am switching lenses. Anyone that has kids knows how fast they move, I am scared that I wont be able to get candids with a prime lens.

Another thing that made me think is the recent discovery of dust on my sensor, I am assuming the less you switch lenses, the less opportunity you have for dust to get on to your sensor.

So now I am wondering what are my best options for a zoom set vs a prime set.

10-22 , 24 - 70, 70-200 ?

The other hard part for me is being that this is a hobby, I have a hard time to get together $500 + for a lens. Most of the time $500 is about max.

What are some affordable alternatives to the middle zoom range? or since I have a 50mm and a 100mm should I not worry about that range at all? Or should I do the 17-40mm and not the 10-22? On the 70-200 , I could see my self buying the 70-200, but would I be better off saving for the 100-400? I really would like something that I could use for wildlife, since I have the 50mm and 100mm now and I have heard reports of a extender with it the 100-400 is usable. I guess I would like to know if any of you use the 70-200 indoors for family / funs shots or mostly outdoors.

I am looking for feedback on my thoughts on the zoom vs primes, thoughts on lens options, or thoughts on anything! Comments are very welcome and I am looking forward to everyones comments.

[Rudi]

Keep what you have. The 50mm will be great for baby portraits (they don't move that quick for a while :D), and the kit lens is good enough for the rest of the normal range. Get yourself the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS). Plenty long on your Rebel, one of the best-kept secrets in the Canon arsenal. :)

[Harv]

Yeah what Rudi says. I have a 70-200 f/4L and it's a killer lens. Super sharp with great contrast and colour. I also bought the 70-200 f/2.8L IS but still won't part with my f/4 version. It's too good a lens and very portable.

[Jonathan]

Just a couple of thoughts. I have not owned to many canon lenses so I will not make any recommendations.

1) dust is really a non issue. I have owned primes all my life(have yet to own a zoom). Sensors are easy to clean and if you miss any spots its easily photoshopped.

2) Primes IMO are going to be a lot more expensive then zooms depending on your taste.

3) I wouldnt worry about "missing the shot" by changing the lens,just break the composition rules and work with what you have if you are caught up in the moment.

[Paul S]

You already know I'm a zoom fan... (BTW, L class zooms are probably better in quality than non-L primes.)

The 28-135 IS lens is a nice versatile lens. I've rarely used mine since getting my 17-40L, but I never had any complaints about it (except when I wanted WIDE). The IS is really nice to have for family snapshots, too! Put that lens on, and the only time you'd ever have to change is to go to a really wide lens, or to shoot wildlife with a long lens.

-Paul

[Roger]

You already know I'm a zoom fan... (BTW, L class zooms are probably better in quality than non-L primes.)

The 28-135 IS lens is a nice versatile lens. I've rarely used mine since getting my 17-40L, but I never had any complaints about it (except when I wanted WIDE). The IS is really nice to have for family snapshots, too! Put that lens on, and the only time you'd ever have to change is to go to a really wide lens, or to shoot wildlife with a long lens.

-Paul

Do you have examples of the 28-135 IS?

and I believe that the 24-105mm is rated better.

[MichiganMan]

I think everybody with Canon gear should have (at least) the Canon 70-200 f/4L lens. Super sharp, fast, and light in weight. And mine will be on here for sale, maybe tomorrow.

[gluwater]

Do you have examples of the 28-135 IS?

and I believe that the 24-105mm is rated better.
That thinking will cost you a lot of money. There is always something bigger and better. Paul gave you great advice on the 28-135. It is a great range for your needs and is also within your budget of $500 you stated in your first post. Just about all the other lenses you listed are double your budget of $500.

My .02 is that your 50mm is great for indoor low light shots and anything longer than 85mm is way too long for indoors. 85mm indoors will get you headshots or closer. If you want to stick with Primes I would suggest keep what you have and get a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=15454ff5e500163/shopdata/0040_Lenses/0020_Fixed+Focal+Length/0020_Wide/product_details.shopscript?article=0570_Sigma%2BWi de%2BAngle%2B30mm%2Bf%3D26slash%3D3B1%3D252E4%2BEX %2BDC%2BHSM%2BAutofocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2BCanon%2BDig ital%2BEOS%2B%3D28SG30F14CA%3D29). If you go with zooms I would suggest the 28-135 IS.

[gluwater]

Oh, I forgot. If you want to see some awsome children's shots along with plenty of dog pics check out Erics site (http://4labs.smugmug.com/). If you click on the exif button below the images you can see what focal lengths he uses to get an idea of what you may want to get. Browse through his site and you're bound to go Awwwww for the next hour or so.

[Rudi]

My point was this - you're already covered from 18mm to 55mm, with a 50mm for low light and portrait work.

One thing to note here - None of the "normal" zooms mentioned so far will get you anything better than you already have! Sure, the image quality will be slightly better, but you will be stuck at 28mm minimum, and aperture-wise it won't be too great. IS is a "so what" at these focal lengths, especially with moving subjects - your 50mm is a better lens for that purpose!

If you absolutely want to get a better normal zoom then you're looking at the 24-70L, and $500 is only the first installment! :D The 24-105L is slow, no point spending money on it now (later maybe, not now).

The best way to expand your photo horizons now is the 70-200/4L. Sure, it will be a bit long for indoors, but 70mm is not THAT long. Image quality is VASTLY better than anything you have (certainly better than the 28-135 IS), equal to the primes you already own, maybe even better (it is that good!).

Come spring, you will have the perfect zoom for taking photos of bub, as you venture outside. :)

Now, ultimately this is your decision. You have to decide what you NEED and WANT, and buy whichever you feel is appropriate. One thing to note - I have used ALL of the lenses mentioned above! rolleyes; dunno; I have sold all of them, except the 24-70L. The ONLY lens out of the above that I regret selling is the 70-200/4 L! (I have replaced it with the f/2.8 version, so I don't need to cover that range, but I still feel that I should have kept it rather than selling it - it really is a great lens!).

[Roger]

Understood, but if we are talking about not doubling over what I have currently, I would be the best off getting something wide angel and then something like the 100-400 wouldn't I?

[gluwater]

I couldn't imagine shooting a small child with a 100-400. It is just way too long. Unless you are planning on shooting from the next house over. Something wider would work but you already have the kit lens for 18mm. My suggestion stands.

Rudi, I can't remember what camera you shoot. But 70mm is pretty long on a 1.6 crop camera, especially indoors.

[Rudi]

I agree it's a bit long, but it's the equivalent of 112mm on full frame - a good portrait length! :)

He already HAS the perfect portrait lens - 50mm = 80mm f/1.8! :D The 70-200mm is more to extend what he already has, and expand his shooting possibilities for spring and summer (and the budget is right - everything else he is considering is three or four times the $500 budget! rolleyes; )

[Roger]

I was thinking the 10-22.

[Kevin]

Hmmm...kinda late to the party but here's my 2cents.

Roger, I was in a similar situation quite a few years ago. Back then, I had a Minolta film camera. I had a 50mm and a 70-210 zoom (very slow f5.6). I got a tremendous amount of use out of that 50 for shooting around the house. But I really liked shooting with the 70-210. I liked getting candids from across the room...they were some of the best shots I took. Easier to stay out of the way. Often I didn't have to use flash. Outdoors, it was a fantastic range.

I'd vote along the Rudi party lines and say keep the 50, you've got the kit lens and pick up a 70-200/f4. With the Rebel, you can still bump the ISO. Or use the flash. It's a light enough lens you don't really need IS. And it's in your budget.

Later, worry about upgrading them. For now, get what you can afford and enjoy making the memories. You'll have great shots, you'll have a wide range covered and you'll have a blast doing it.

[Bobby]

I agree with Kevin, the 70--200 is a great range, coupled with what you already have its more than enough for now.

[Roger]

After some thought, I don't know if I agree with you guys, if I was going to get a zoom wouldn't I want to cover a range I don't have?

the 70 - 200 is a great lens, but I could well sell my 100mm then, because I have that covered. wouldn't I be better with a 200 2.8 or the 100-400 for out door use? Even though the 100- 400 is out of my prince range right now.

Only reason I was thinking wide angle is because it would be nice to have 10-20 indoors or even doing scenic shots.

I would have to say that the 28-135 IS would be nice for never having to switch your lens 90% of the time. I have just read that it has some small issues. Kinda why I was wondering if anyone that owns one likes it and or has some sample images.

[Kevin]

Roger, I think the 70-200 & 100-400 are for two different purposes. Sure the 10-22 can be used for scenics but I doubt you'd really use it much for indoors, shooting family. I'd be concerned about distortion.

My recommendation was based on your statement of wanting to capture your children as they grow up. I have no experience with the 28-135 so I can't comment on that at all but I would suggest doing a search for photos on pbase with that lens. I'm sure there are plenty.

[Roger]

I was thinking that 70-200 is to long for indoor use.

For indoor family coverage, what do you think would be the best for low light non-flash use?

I will say that I am not very good at showing low light currently, but I think I would like to do some shooting indoors without flash, because subjects shy from flash so much.

My 50mm works good, so I would like something on the wider side of that.

[Kevin]

Again, I don't think the 70-200 is too long for indoors. Of course if your house is small and the rooms small it may not work so well.

The best choice for low light is your 50/f1.8. If you want wider, you'd need to find a wider lens thats f1.8 or f2. Personally I find that f2.8 isn't always "fast" enough indoors. And I really don't like on-board flash...unless it's a flash gun that I can bounce or swivel or diffuse the light.

[Roger]

Again, I don't think the 70-200 is too long for indoors. Of course if your house is small and the rooms small it may not work so well.

The best choice for low light is your 50/f1.8. If you want wider, you'd need to find a wider lens thats f1.8 or f2. Personally I find that f2.8 isn't always "fast" enough indoors. And I really don't like on-board flash...unless it's a flash gun that I can bounce or swivel or diffuse the light.

So your saying for indoor WA I would need a L series lens?

Most of my rooms are not that large, I can't use my 100mm in my house.

[Kevin]

So your saying for indoor WA I would need a L series lens?

Most of my rooms are not that large, I can't use my 100mm in my house.

No, not saying that at all. I'm thinking a wide prime. THe fastest zoom is going to be f2.8 and I was saying that in my experience that isn't always fast enough.

I'm not that familiar with all the wide angle primes but am familiar with the Sigma 30/1.4 that Nick recommended. That might be your best bet. It's fast, it's wide, it's a good sharp lens and it's affordable (within your budget). If 100mm is too long, disregard my comments for the 70-200 but if you ever were to plan to shoot some outdoor stuff with your kids playing, then the 70-200 comes back into the picture. :)

[Rudi]

Roger the 70-200 is a lens everyone should have. Period! :)

But given that you want a wider solution, I have to agree with Kevin - f/2.8 is NOT enough for low light work without flash!

We're back to the primes - EF 28mm f/1.8, EF 35mm f/2 are the only two "affordable" primes in the Canon line-up. Given that you already have the 50mm and want wider, I'd be inclined to go with the 28mm f/1.8! :)

[Jeff M]

Personally I find that f2.8 isn't always "fast" enough indoors.


Sure it is. All you have to do is shoot at ISO 6400...bounce;

[Paul S]

Do you have examples of the 28-135 IS?

and I believe that the 24-105mm is rated better.

There are plenty of examples on my website, but those are too small (and have JPEG compression issues), so they're not the best for showing the lens quality. (So I'm not going to waste time saying which shots there are from that lens.) If I have time at home tonight, I'll try to dig up an example or two which I can post in such a way as to show quality.

The 24-105 is certainly better. It's an L-series lens. It also costs over twice as much. With lenses, you DO get what you pay for, in general!

I found the 28-135 to be very capable. I never had any quality issues with it. It gets you a very versatile zoom range and IS. (Note that it's an older IS--you have to turn it off when shooting from a tripod.)

-Paul

[Paul S]

At 135mm:

http://www3.telus.net/plsmjs/share/D20041016_0077.jpg
A 100% crop:
http://www3.telus.net/plsmjs/share/D20041016_0077_100%25crop%5d.jpg

At 35mm:
http://www3.telus.net/plsmjs/share/D20041016_0079.jpg
A 100% crop:
http://www3.telus.net/plsmjs/share/D20041016_0079_100%25crop%5d.jpg
(The colours in the last one don't match because I lost my worked PSD file, and had to get the crop from the original CR2 file.)

[Roger]

Thanks for the images.

I will have to think about that lens.

[lvneonguy]

Very late to the party, but I wanted to toss this lens into the mix.

I see no one mentioned the most excellent EF-S 17-85 IS. Of all the lenses I have for the 20D, this one stays on the camera most of the time. The IS will give you the extra range you need for pictures of mother and child in natural light. I know the focal length has a foot print over the kit 18-55, but it it is so much better, I don't think you will sorry for the purchase. For outdoor work get the lens hood, even though it is a bit pricey. The downside with this lens and the XT is that the setup will seem a bit barrel heavy in the beginning, but that is soon overcome.

You have started very well with your selection of additional lenses. Good choice with the 100 Macro, as it will bring a whole different dimension into your seeing.

My best to you and your growing family and good shooting.

Steve

[Roger]

Steve,

Thanks for the post. I see a lot of good reviews for that lens. It would replace the kit lens I have now. I am sure it would take better pictures, and if I go zoom it would most likely be one of the choices. I am still unsure if I should go prime or zoom. Only time will tell!

Did you have any example pictures with your lens?

Thanks

[Joe]

I was thinking that 70-200 is to long for indoor use.

For indoor family coverage, what do you think would be the best for low light non-flash use?


50 1.8 - without question. I shot hundreds of family pics with my D2H/50 1.8 combo. I now have a 1DIIN/50 1.4 for indoor candids. It's a GREAT portrait range for a 1.5/1.6 crop camera. If it's too tight - back up a tad. Here's a sample with my old 50 1.8 @ f2. You wouldn't believe how little light in the room based on the pop of this shot:

http://www.joemarques.com/upload_images/Portraits/D2H_1622w.jpg

Remember, that's a sub-$100 lens. My 135L couldn't do better. :) If you want wider look at the 35 f2. Nice range at 1.6.

Good luck.

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Roger. There are 3 lines of consumer grade lenses. The digital EF-S line, the standard consumer grade i.e. 75-300, and an upper consumer grade. The 28-135 is in that upper consumer range and is said to be just below the L lenses in IQ and build. I have and use the 28-135 IS regularily. It is a wonderful range with which you will seldom need any other lens indoors. I have had NO issues with my copy after 3 years and it is very sharp throughout. This lens is not to be confused with the old 28-135 non-IS version which is not near as good. Of course it is still no match for the 24-70L, 28-70L, or the 24-105L, but it is less $ too. Unless you are going to be printing posters you'll not see any substantial difference.

As for the 100-400L, I love this lens, but be aware that the min focus distance is 1.8m so unless you have a big house its gonna be tight. Kids outside at play is a different animal and I like this range for that. 100mm in the backyard is a nice unintrusive focal length..

My choices were 50 f1.8 , 28-135 IS, 100-400L IS . With this I have the whole range from 28 to 400 covered......

[Roger]

Roger. There are 3 lines of consumer grade lenses. The digital EF-S line, the standard consumer grade i.e. 75-300, and an upper consumer grade. The 28-135 is in that upper consumer range and is said to be just below the L lenses in IQ and build. I have and use the 28-135 IS regularily. It is a wonderful range with which you will seldom need any other lens indoors. I have had NO issues with my copy after 3 years and it is very sharp throughout. This lens is not to be confused with the old 28-135 non-IS version which is not near as good. Of course it is still no match for the 24-70L, 28-70L, or the 24-105L, but it is less $ too. Unless you are going to be printing posters you'll not see any substantial difference.

As for the 100-400L, I love this lens, but be aware that the min focus distance is 1.8m so unless you have a big house its gonna be tight. Kids outside at play is a different animal and I like this range for that. 100mm in the backyard is a nice unintrusive focal length..

My choices were 50 f1.8 , 28-135 IS, 100-400L IS . With this I have the whole range from 28 to 400 covered......

Thanks for the post. I will consider my options.

[Pete]

Very late to the party, but I wanted to toss this lens into the mix.

I see no one mentioned the most excellent EF-S 17-85 IS. Of all the lenses I have for the 20D, this one stays on the camera most of the time. The IS will give you the extra range you need for pictures of mother and child in natural light. I know the focal length has a foot print over the kit 18-55, but it it is so much better, I don't think you will sorry for the purchase. For outdoor work get the lens hood, even though it is a bit pricey. The downside with this lens and the XT is that the setup will seem a bit barrel heavy in the beginning, but that is soon overcome.

You have started very well with your selection of additional lenses. Good choice with the 100 Macro, as it will bring a whole different dimension into your seeing.

My best to you and your growing family and good shooting.

Steve
Glad you made over here Steve! Ok,now lets see some pics buddy.;)