I am going on an Alaskan cruise in May and am trying to decide which lenses to buy. I'm looking for suggesstions/feedback on what to consider.


Background:

-I will be using a Crop Camera Lens (Rebel T1i)

-I'd like to keep it to 2-3 lenses max

-Budget $2,000.00. Max

-I would like the ability to take wide angle and telephoto shots.


So far I have considered:

EF-S18-200mmf/3.5-5.6 IS, $600.00

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, $800.00

EF70-200mmf/4L IS USM, $1,300.00


I like the idea of the 18-200 because I wouldn't have to swap out lenses and it's a good value. Would it be worth shelling out another $800.00 to get some ultra wide shots of Alaskan landscapes/downtown Seattle?


Would I see much difference in the 70-200 f/4 IS? I've heard that the f/2.8 is the best lens, but it's out of my budget so I can't decide if it would be worth spending that much money on the f/4 if it's only going to be marginally better than the 18-200mm. If I went this route I could still consider the 10-22 and could always use the 18-55 kit lens for indoor room shots where the 70mm was too close.


Any feedback greatly appreciated!

 

-----signature-----

A lot of people think the 70-200 f4 is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes. Personally, I would try and find a used 70-200 2.8 without IS. The combination of wide aperture and decent high ISO of modern cameras should give you a fast enough shutter in most situations that the IS isn't needed.

Personally I would go with used lenses. If you dig around you could probably get the 70-200 2.8 and something like the 24-70L or 17-55IS for 2k or less used. Or if you don't mind third party lenses you can get even more bang for your buck.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10 is where you want to look for used lenses at good prices.

 

-----signature-----

I have the 70-200 2.8 sans IS and it is a very very sharp lens. Highly recommended.

 

-----signature-----

What about thoughts on wide angles for landscape? Is 18mm enough? Is the 70-200 range going to be long enough for Alaska? I was also looking at renting a 100-400mm or buying a 75-300mm IS 4.5-5.6

 

-----signature-----

I was going to also suggest the 70-200mm 2.8 IS USED. My local photo shop has them regularly for 1300-1500. The MK I, not the II.

 

-----signature-----

If you think the 70-200 is too short you could put a 1.4 or 2x extender on it for some extra reach and versatility. As for wide angles, I have never owned a super wide myself but After having a kit lens and now a tamron 17-50 2.8 I think 17 is plenty wide for me. It's also really easy to get distortion with super wides and fisheyes. I would only drop the money on one if I were planning on doing a lot of tight interior shots or architecture shots where you don't have the room to back up.

 

-----signature-----

Thanks guys, I think I am leaning save $$ and rent a 100-400mm for $140.00 and then either get a 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 for everything else, or consider buying the 17-55mm 2.8. I just don't think getting a 10-22mm that would be slightly wider is worth the money for the few shots it might get me.


Other than at night/low light inside the cruise ship will I see much of a difference in the 17-55 vs the 18-200?

 

-----signature-----

The super zooms are generally regarded as convenient travel lenses but many are notoriously soft until stopped down to f8 or so. The Canon version of the 17-55 is considered to basically be L quality equivalent and would probably produce sharper pictures at f3.5 to f4 plus the option of going to f2.8. I got my Tamron 17-50 2.8 for about 300 used and find it plenty sharp to suit my needs. My Sigma 70-300 is pretty hit or miss wide open.

I'd probably rent the 100-400 and a standard zoom before buying a wide-tele super zoom.

 

-----signature-----

As I am looking, I am stuck again... Should I go 17-55mm 2.8 or 24-70mm 2.8?


The 24-100mm 4.0 seems interesting, but like it might be too much of a compromise since it is not 2.8

 

-----signature-----

24-70 f2.8 is one of the greatest lenses of all time. Period.

 

-----signature-----