The Age Old Question - Lenses

[Rikster71]

Hi Guys and Gals,

My wife and I are about to embark on an around the world trip, Las Vegas, L.A, New York, South France, Paris & Tokyo.

I know I will be buying the canon 10-22 but what other lens do you recommend and why.

Up until now we have been using old lenses that we had from our old analogue EOS range.

Predominantly whenever we take photos it is travel photography or family photos, not massively into nature or sport photography, as an example maybe 1 in 20 photos would be fast action or close up nature.

Interested in your thoughts, thanks in advance.

Rick

[Bob Atkins]

I might consider an EF 24-105/4L IS USM.  It complements your existing lens, has very effective image stabilization, high image quality and a useful zoom range suitable for anything from landscapes to portraits and short telephoto closeups.

The EF 70-300/4-5.6IS USM is also a good choice for a small, lightweight telephoto zoom for those times when you need telephoto reach.

[Rikster71]

Bob, thanks for that, I suppose before I go out and spend money on stuff O may not need, can I ask one more question (I just did, didn't I)

anyway the old lenses I that were bought at least 10 years ago for our 35mm SLRs are;

Canon EF 28-80 1:3.5-5.6, and
Canon EF 80-200 1:4.5-5.6 Ultrasonic

how well could you expect these lenses to work with a 400D/Rebel Xti, is there anything I should be aware of, I always have a feeling the pictures turn out a little grainy, definately not as sharp as my pocket digital camera, but that could just be me.

Thanks again.

[Bob Atkins]

Those lenses will work on a digital SLR, but neither of them is reknown for their optical quality. They're OK, just nothing very special. Neither has optical stabilization, which is very effective at increasing image sharpness when using slower shutter speeds.

P&S digicams often use quite a lot of sharpening and tend to default to somewhat higher contrast and saturation. These factors give the images more "punch". On the other hand DSLRs tend not to sharpen as much, nor "punch up" the images in their default settings. Most can be set to add extra shapening, contrast and saturation if that's the type of image you like. The lower settings give you more room to selectievly add those effects post exposure using an image editor like Photoshop or Elements, and so end up with better image quality than the P&S can give.

Due to the small sensor, P&S cameras have a loy more depth of field than DSLRs, so small focus errors aren't as critical and everything tends be be in focus most of the time. With a DSLR you can use selective focus and fast lenses to blur backgrounds more, which can make your main subject "pop" out of the image. See this article for more details on this - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/fast_primes_background_blur.html

[Rikster71]

Thanks Bob, greatly appreciated again.

[Tallyther]

I love getting notices on other people's questions of interest.  This feature and learning something new is what makes this the best photo site on the net.  GREAT JOB BOB!

[Rikster71]

OK have done my research and prices may force me to look for another option other than the 24-105, so considering my photography habits, what other ones may best compliment the 10-22.

Will still be trying for the 24-105 but in Aus they can be as much as $1650ea add that to the $1250 for the 10-22 and it is starting to get out there. In case you are wondering take off about 10% to get USD.

Or, despite my wishes for the 10-22, considering my upcoming trip and my desire for great photos, is there a better choice in a single Lens?, if so what might that be?

[KeithB]

Unless you take a lot of wide shots, the 10-22 does seem to be less useful.  I have the 17-85 and I rarely feel that it is not wide enough - though the 10-22 would have been nice at the Grand Canyon!

If the 10-22 is to be used for things that are standing still, like landscapes, you can always take a series of photos and stitch them together.  It is much more of a compromise to crop to the center 10% of an image to simulate a telephoto.

I have the 17-85 and the 70 - 300 and the 60 mm macro, and rarely wish I had more on either end.

I might get the 50 mm 1.8, just because, and for dim situations.

[Bob Atkins]

Other lenses that might complement the 10-22 to give you a wider range - but at a lower cost than the 24-105/4L - might be the EF 28-135 IS, the EF-S 18-135 IS.

The EF-S 18-135 isn't quite as well built as the 28-135 (for example it doesn't have a ring type USM motor) and the 28-135 covers full frame while the 18-135 is crop sensor only. It's doubtful you'd have a problem with the 23-27mm "gap" in focal length coverage with the 28-135. On the other hand the 18-135 would mean less lens swapping, plus I think the IS system is slightly better than that on the 28-135.

[Rikster71]

Thanks again guys,

Bob, have you reviewed the 18-135, I can't seem to find anything on it on the site.

[Bob Atkins]

Yes. The EF-S 18-135 review is here - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef-s_18-135is_review.html

The search box (top left on most pages on the site, top right on the forum pages) works well and is usually more up to date than my index system! if you type in "18-135" the review comes up on top of the list!

It's a decent lens, not great, but then it's not priced like an "L" series lens would be. Things like distortion and chromatic aberration can be minimized by shooting RAW and allowing Canon's DPP software to correct them.

[Rikster71]

Ok after much consideration I went with the 10-22 and 24-105, so thank you for all your assistance, now one final request fro advice,

which type of filters would you recommend and why, also any particular brands???

Thanks will post some pics when I get back

[Bob Atkins]

With digital, the only filter you really need is probably a polarizer. You can't digitally simulate the effects of a polarizer. The Hoya filters are good. The Pro series polarizers are the best, but the regular HMC multicoated polarizers are still very good but less expensive.

If you want to "protect" the lens then there's nothing wrong with using a high quality multicoated UV fillter, such as the Hoya Pro series

These filters are not among the cheapest available, but it makes no sense to spend $1000 on a lens and then put a piece of cheap glass with a lower quality coating in front of it.

You might want to look over this article - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/digital_filters.html which describes the most useful filters for digital work.

[KeithB]

Even though it is for landscapes,you might *not* want a polarizer for the 10-22.  It is *so* wide that the sky polarization effect might change across the image.  (i.e., dark blue at maximum polarization and lighter at the edges as the polarization effect lessens.)

You can see the effect here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filters.htm

[Bob Atkins]

The convenient thing about those two lenses (10-22 and 24-105) is that they both take the same size filter - 77mm. I would agree that use of a polarizer on a really wide lens can be problematic if you have large areas of blue sky in the image because you will get uneven darkening of the sky.