cthahn

A 50mm prime, f1.4 or f1.8. Small in size, light weight, no playing zoom.

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

I may be wrong but it sounds like you are not yet an expert photographer. I would recommend that you go out and shoot like crazy using that 18-135 lens. You will find that it is perfectly adequate for most situations. Mine hardly ever comes off the camera, although sometimes I use a nifty fifty and occasionally an 70-250mm lens.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I have a 5D & a 7D but for carry around (including European trips) my light load is the 7D II with the Canon 16-40mm and a Tamron 28-300mm. One small bag a camera set-up and a spare lens.

ecurb1105

For your half frame i suggest the 35mm f2 as your prime, the 70-300 is a good addition and won't break your bank or back.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Larry, save your money, master what you have, then ask again. Not trying to be a wiseguy, but trying to save you some $$$. A good prime lens is not a must. You'll know if you need to get new gear when you start finding that your current gear is not serving your needs. Your quest for new gear may be a little premature. Go out and shoot some wildlife, even at a local zoo, and see if what you have falls short. You may find that you need a 100-400 F5.6, and not a 70-300 - or neither.

tjjm Loc: Saint Louis, Mo.

Haven't done Alaska but when I travel to the western mountain states I take the Canon 16-35/2.8 and the 100-400 tele.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

I don't know how much of a must a 50 or 55 mm prime is. Back in the 70's when I started shooting I had a 24, 50, 100 and 200 and used the 50 the least. With what I've seen in modern zooms, unless you are planning on doing an exhibition and blowing up to large sizes, zoom lenses are sharp and you cover the normal range with what you've got (don't have a modern Canon so can't comment on quality of your lens). Look at what you are shooting at with your current zoom. If the quality, for you, is not there, look at what range you are shooting the most and get a good prime in that range. If you are always shooting at 135 and wishing for more, welcome to photography, I'm up to a 300 and want a 500.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi Larry and congratulations on your new camera. Have fun with it!

For scenic places like Alaska and Hawaii, I'd definitely want a wider lens first. In that respect, you're lucky you bought a Canon camera, because the relatively new EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is one of the best values from anyone. Sure, it's a little plasticky, but for under $300 it's the least expensive, as well as the smallest and lightest Ultrawides that anyone makes. It actually has great image quality and is one of only two UWA lenses that has image stabilization (although IS probably isn't a terribly high priority on a UWA that's pretty easy to handhold steady). If you want a bit better built, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM offers that, a little wider range of focal lengths a bit larger aperture... also with top image quality and a faster type of autofocus drive... tho it's a bit larger, heavier and about 2X as expensive.

With either of those, for scenic shots I'd highly recommend a Circular Polarizing filter (67mmm for the 10-18mm or 77mm for the 10-22mm). I think your 18-135mm uses 67mm filters, too, so it could share a C-Pol with the 10-18mm UWA.

The 70-300mm USM "II" also uses a 67mm filter (tho I gotta say, personally I rarely use a C-Pol on telephotos). This latest version "II" of 70-300mm also uses the new "Nano" USM focus drive (if your 18-135mm is the USM version that's often bundled with 80D, it has Nano USM too). This new type of focus drive is ideal for both fast, accurate focus AND for quiet, smooth operation.... making it good for both fast action shooting and for video. Older type of USM lenses were great for action shooting, but not for video. STM lenses were preferred for video, but not as fast focusing so a bit less usable for action shooting. Canon claims the 18-135mm USM is 2X to 4X faster focusing than the 18-135mm STM. Depending upon what you want to shoot, the $600 70-300mm might be a good addition to your kit. Canon offers four different 70-300mm: The latest and greatest "II" with Nano USM... the earlier IS USM version with the older style focus drive (still avail., but being phased out), the 70-300mm "L" IS USM that's got the best image quality of them all, plus is better built, better sealed and can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring... but is a lot larger and heavier, as well as significantly more expensive: $1350. There's also the 70-300mm "DO" IS USM... "diffractive optics" allow it to be considerably smaller, though not necessarily lighter weight than any of the others. It's also rather pricey at $1400.

Avoid the cheap EF 75-300mm non-IS, non-USM. It's one of Canon's worst efforts.... compromises on image quality, lacks stabilization, and has micro motor focus drive which is slow, noisy and can be inconsistent. Often sold in kit with the most entry level models (where it only adds $100 to $200 over the usual cost of the camera alone), I'd recommend any of the other Canon tele-zooms instead. Even the $100 more expensive EF-S 55-250mm IS STM (about $300) is a significant step up in almost all respects.

Will 300mm be "long enough"? Only you can say. If you are wanting to photograph birds and other wildlife at some distance... probably not. There's a saying among "birders" that there's no such thing as a "long enough" lens. There are a lot of options, but anything longer will be considerably more expensive than most of the above. They'll also all be larger and heavier. Canon's own 100-400mm II IS USM is a great lens, but weighs in about 3.5 lb. and costs about $2000. The older version of that lens is still widely available new for around $1300 and is a rather unusual "push/pull" style zoom.... some folks really love that But other folks... not so much. The fast zoom action can be handy for birds-in-flight and such.

I also use a Canon 300mm f/4L IS USM a lot... both with and without a quality 1.4X teleconverter which makes for a 420mm f/5.6 combo with image stabilization. The Canon 400mm f/5.6L USM is slightly sharper and a wee bit faster focusing, but lacks stabilization and that's a high priority when trying to hand hold very long focal lengths like these. This lens isn't too large or heavy, though at 2.5 lb. it's bigger than most of the 70-300mm mentioned above. I often take a 300/4L and Canon 1.4X TC (half a lb.) when I'm backpacking my gear any distance. The 300/4L is about a stop faster than the 100-400mm out at it's longer focal lengths (I also use the 100-400 II, mostly for sports, sometimes with a tripod or monopod since it's bigger and heavier than the 300/4L).

Third party options include Tamron 150-600mm VC USD "G2" ($1400) and the original version of that lens that's still available new (under $900). Sigma also offers two different 150-600mm OS HSM zooms: a lower priced "Contemporary" for under $1000 and a considerably beefier, more pro-oriented "Sports" version that costs $2000. When traveling with them, it might be an important consider that any of these four lenses is fairly large and heavy... between 4.5 lb. and 6 lb., approx.

If you consider used, Sigma also made a 120-400mm OS HSM and a 150-500mm OS HSM in the past. Discontinued a few years ago, these can be found for around $550 to $650on the used market. They were pretty popular in their day, though they don't offer quite as good image quality as either of the Canon 100-400L zooms do.

Finally, you asked about a "fast prime" and the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is a low cost entry into that type of lens... a nice, short telephoto "portrait" lens. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a step up in build, 2/3 stop larger aperture, faster USM focus... at about 2.5X higher price. Even more expensive is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, which is also quite large and heavy.

If you want a "normal" prime instead of a short telephoto... the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM or EF 35mm f/2 IS USM would be better choices. There's also the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 "DC" (crop-only, like Canon EF-S lenses).

Or, if you prefer a little longer telephoto prime, there are the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM, Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC USD, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 "Art" (which is expensive and HUGE!).

Many of the above Canon lenses mentioned above do not include a lens hood. Those are only included with L-series. I'd highly recommend getting the matched lens hood for any Canon lenses without one... including your 18-135mm and the 10-18mm or 10-22mm. A hood can not only improve images by keeping oblique light off the front element of the lens, it also nicely serves to protect the lens from bumps. One exception, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM has a fairly deeply recessed front element that makes a hood less necessary. If the Canon OEM hood seems pricey... there are cheaper third party clones available in many cases, that typically sell for 1/3 or 1/2 the price.

I hope this helps with your decisions. Enjoy your new camera!

G8keypr

You have the 18-135mm covered, so if it were me, and I was going to Alaska I would look at the Tamron or the Sigma sport 150-600mm that way you pretty much have it covered with 2 lenses. Just be aware the Sigma is a heavy beast

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Me too...

HOWEVER, on an 80D that same 50mm serves a very different purpose. A 50mm lens on an APS-C camera is a short portrait telephoto lens. I rarely used a 50mm "normal" lens on my film (i.e. "full frame") cameras...

But I HAVE used one A LOT on my APS-C Canon cameras, where it's a whole different animal.

An alternative... if you think you might want a macro capable lens, consider the Tamron SP 60mm f/2.0. It's only 1/3 stop slower and can serve dual purpose... both as a short tele portrait lens and as a macro. Most other macro lenses are f/2.8, at best. Another "crop only" lens, I've been using the Tamron 60mm for a couple years... it replaces three lenses in my camera bag: 50mm, 85mm and a macro. It can do full 1:1 and is an "IF" or internal focusing design (doesn't change length when focused closer, the way many macro lenses do). The only drawback is that the Tamron uses slower micro motor focus drive... which is fine for portraits and macro, but not great for any sort of action/sports. If Tamron ever upgrades this lens with their USD focus drive, I'll be one of the first people in line for one.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

Keeping a budget in mind;

If you look at buying a Prime lens, the 28mm f 1.8 would be my choice for a good wide view.

Canon has an EFS lens that I use, the 18-200 f3.5, and the additional zoom makes it a good walk around.

And the Tamron 16-300 f3.5 is a great lens for the money.

Changing lenses and or carrying additional lenses can be an issue on a trip, so you'd find yourself living with the one you have on your camera. For the most part, I'd pick a lens based on that thought.

ecar Loc: Oregon, USA

One lens I forgot to add that I use alot is the Canon EFS 15-85 f3.5 This is a neat lens to use if you don't need to zoom past the 85mm mark

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

You might want to keep in mind as you buy lenses that an "S" lens will not work on a full frame camera. When I started I got some "S" lenses band then when I wanted togo full frame I had to replace them. I went slower and bought better and full frame lenses and shoot with a 5D and 7D now. One to go and they will all fit both cameras

lpeck

How would you feel about the Signa 50 f1.4 Art? The quality seems unpresidented

lpeck

I really appreciate everyone's feedback. It's both helpful and confusing because each response seems to contain a unique twist. Some like a combination of prime and zoom while other recommend just the zooms. The information is great, but my head is swimming with all of the information. The last person I spoke to, a professional photographer in Chicago suggested the Sigma 50mm F1.4 ART DG HSM Lens as a "go to" prime. The more I hear the more confused I get. If I've learned anything from all the information it's not to go cheap regardless of the lens. Buy the best you can afford which is something I subscribe to in every day life . My priority now is grandbaby pictures, the still unanswered question is which lens will provide me with the best outcome ???