View Canon EF Lenses List
- A great combo of lenses for Canon Digital SLRs
- FredMiranda Reviews for many lenses
- Bob Atkins Best Canon EOS Lenses
- RentGlass and BorrowLenses will rent you those expenses lenses to try out.
- A nice page of reviews of favorite Canon Lenses on Luminous Landscape.
Lenses I Already Have
- Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (kit lens, separate it's approx $420) LP 7-8
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (paid $929) LP 9
Lenses I Think I Need
I've been monitoring the kinds of photos I take, and I tend to do the following:
- Indoor walkaround pictures, available light, far away subjects that I can't reach
- Table-top pictures of stuff I like
- Food photography
I don't seem to do much wide-angle photography, so I'm thinking a good walkaround zoom lens would be great. The kit lens that comes with the EOS 40D is actually not bad, though its 1:3.5-5.6 aperture is a little dim for indoor shooting with available light.
I don't seem to do much outside photography, where the aperture is less likely to be a problem.
I do like to shoot for depth of field effects on the closeup and portrait photography, of course.
Regarding "Crop Factor": The EOS 40D I have is a "crop sensor", which means that the CMOS image sensor is not as large as a "full frame" 35mm negative (36mm x 24mm). The sensor on an EOS 40D is 22.5mm x 15mm, considerably smaller. Since the Canon lenses are designed for the 35mm system, use of these lenses on a smaller sensor means that less image is captured. The result: "cropping" or a smaller image. This is expressed as a "crop factor"; in the case of the EOS 40D, the factor is 1.6 (which comes from 22.5 x 1.6 = 35). Another way of thinking of this is that the sensor area is only about 62% of the size of a full frame.
What I have been confused about is the perspective control. This thread sheds some light on it; apparently, the "perspective" of a given shot depends on how far you are from the subject. If you are framing on a crop sensor camera, you will have to move farther away to get the same framing, and this increase in distance does effectively alter the perspective lines in the shot so it acts like a lens of a 1.6x focal length. However, if you can't move your feet, you're kind of screwed and need to opt for wider-angle lenses.
The upshot: If controlling perspective distortion is part of your creative toolkit, keep that in mind when applying the 1.6 crop factor. I'm not entirely clear if I have the understanding down, though, as my experience was based on a test made to see which looked more "normal": shooting at 35mm or 50mm focal lengths of a plate. I was surprised that the 50mm looked more correct perspectively, since I was told that at 50mm the camera would shoot as if 50 x 1.6. The upshot: if you want to shoot something that looks "normal", you would use your 50mm lens and stand farther away.
I imagine it's technically possible to build a lens that truly acted "35mm equivalent" in all aspects--after all, smaller compact digital cameras have no problem replicating this--so the reason this stupid crop factor exists at all is to maintain market control of the full-size lenses, and not cannibalize higher-end DSLR sales.
Macro Lenses Under Consideration
I tend to prefer some working distance from the subject, and would like 1:1 magnification. A longer lens like the 90mm or 100mm would probably be quite usable. The 50mm might also be nice, particularly for shooting pictures of food.
- Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro (1:1 macro, $489) LP 9.4
- Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro (1:1 macro, $370) LP 9.3
- Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro ($269) LP 9
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (1:1 macro, $450) LP 9.5
- Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro (1:2 macro, $240) LP 9
- A head-to-head of the Tamron 90 versus Canon 100 macro says that the lenses are pretty much right on for sharpness, though the Canon has a usable and fast autofocus.
I borrowed Barry's Sigma 50mm f/2.8, and it's nice for working close with food. It focuses somewhat noisily. In practice, this is not a problem though. Hunting is an issue if the lens isn't already somewhat in focus at close range...sometimes it guesses the wrong way and will go back and forth. The lack of full-time manual focus kind of sucks, though when working close. Definitely need to get the remote shutter (looking at the one sold by Satechi).
Prime Lenses Under Consideration
For my prime lens selection, I'm likely to shoot portraits with nice blurry backgrounds. For a normal lens, the EF 35 f/2 would be a good all-around normal lens, though it's noisy.
- Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 ($230) LP 8
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM ($320) LP 8
- Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM ($350) LP 9.3
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM ($390) LP 8-9
I played with one of my cousin's Sigma 50mm f/1.8 lenses, and I found it to be a bit boring. Will have to try it again.
Wide Zoom Lenses Under Consideration
This would be my indoor walkaround lens. If I had the thousand bucks it would be the EF-S 17-55. Without image stabilization, the Tamron looks good, but I'll need to be about 3 stops steader by hand.
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ($990) LP 9
- Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD Asph. IF (no IS, APS-C, $450) LP 8-9.5
- Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF ProDX ($500) FM 9.2
I am leaning more and more to the Canon. It's an "L" quality lens, and the wide constant aperture would be fantastic. Toss in the USM and IS, and it would be a nice general-use walkaround lens.
Medium Zoom Lenses Under Consideration
For scenic walking around outside, the 28-75mm range is about right, and useful for portraits. However, I'm again leaning toward the EF-S 17-55. It would serve the role of several lenses.
Longer Zoom Lenses
When working primarily in the city or at panel events, having that longer zoom with IS will be what I want.