Marg wrote:
I received my very first camera at age 67. It’s a pre owned Canon t4i. I have 2 kit lenses (18-55 mm and 75-300 mm.) Following unsolicited advice from a number of people I have added a 50 mm f1.8 prime lens. I feel that I have already outgrown the kit lenses and it has been suggested that I save up for an L lens. Do you all concur or disagree. I shoot birds, architectural landscapes, flowers and grandkids. I have not yet found my photography passion. Thanks in advance for any thoughts.
Marg
Hi Marg,
IMO, the first lens you should upgrade is the EF 75-300mm. I assume it's the inexpensive "III" model that's often sold in kit with various cameras. That lens has slower, noisier micro motor focus drive, lacks image stabilization and simply doesn't have all that great image quality... especially at the 300mm end of the zoom range. Plus, for birds you often will find that 300mm just isn't enough. There are a number of much better lenses you can upgrade to, depending upon how much you want to spend and how big, heavy a lens you are willing to carry around Some options are:
- Canon EF 100-400mm L "II" IS USM.... wonderful image quality, excellent stabilization, fast focus, close focusing (almost 1/3 life size), tripod collar included and strongly built... but about 3.5 lb. and around $200o.
- Canon EF 100-400mm L IS USM "original push-pull zoom" version... now discontinued, but still widely available new for around $1250, very good image quality and popular for "birds in flight" and other fast action shooting. Weights about 3 lb.
- Sigma 100-400mm OS HSM is a new lens that has quite good image quality (not quite as good as either Canon, but close) and is a bit more compact than either Canon 100-400, plus it sells for approx. $800. DOES NOT have a tripod collar or even the option to fit one, so will be strictly hand held. It's about 2/3 stop slower than the Canon lenses throughout most of it's range, too. It's got image stabilization and fast HSM autofocus drive. Weighs around 2.5 lb.
- Tamron SP 100-400mm VC USD is another new lens, about the same price and weight, but not quite as good image quality as the Sigma. HOWEVER the Tamron CAN optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring (sold separately for $129). That alone would make me choose the Tamron over the Sigma. IMO, any telephoto that reaches 400mm at least needs the option of a tripod ring. Weight is right around 3 lb.
(Note: With all due respect to a previous response... Sorry, but no way are either the Sigma or Tamron 100-400s sharper than either of the Canon 100-400s. The Sigma is a little sharper than the Tamron. The old push/pull Canon is just as sharp as the Sigma and sharper than the Tamron. The Canon "II" is sharper than any of the others. The Canon are also 1/3 to 2/3 stop faster at most focal lengths. The Canon also use fluorite, which the Siggy and Tammy lenses don't. That's very helpful correcting chromatic aberrations in telephotos. For four decades, Canon has used fluorite in many of their telephotos. Nikon recently revamped most of theirs to use it, too. You won't find fluorite in any of the third party lenses, though Sigma uses some elements they call "fluorite like". Finally, the guys over at Lensrentals.com enjoy taking things apart to check out what's inside.... and when they did that with the Canon 100-400 II they called it "the best built zoom they'd ever seen".)
- Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM is a very sharp, fast focusing lens that's quite popular with birders, weighs around 2.5 lb., has a tripod mounting collar, and costs around $1200,
but does not have image stabilization.
- Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM ($1350 new, widely avail. used for under $1000)
and Canon 1.4X converter (III costs $450 new, II works well and can be found for around $250). Combo gives you up to 420mm f/5.6 effective focal length
with image stabilization, fast autofocus, tripod ring included. The lens + teleconverter has quite good image quality, though not as good as the 400mm f/5.6 lens alone (note: your camera can autofocus with up to f/5.6, center AF point only... cannot autofocus an f/8 combo at all, such as an f/5.6 lens with a 1.4X teleconverter).
Those are some of the lighter weight options. Bigger, heavier lenses that birders like are:
- Tamron SP 150-600mm VC USD "G2", $1400, very good image quality, fast focus, helpful stabilization, includes a tripod ring, weighs about 4.5 lb.
- Sigma 150-600mm OS HSM "Contemporary", $1000, good image quality, fast focus, helpful stabilizaion, tripod ring, weights about 4.3 lb.
- Tamron SP 150-600mm VC USD (original version), discontinued but still available new for about $800, good image quality, though not as good as the newer version. Fast focus, stabilized, tripod ring, weighs 4.3 lb.
- Sigma 150-600mm OS HSM "Sport", very good image quality and overall performance, more durable and sturdily built, but $1800 and over 6 lb.
- Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS HSM with matched Sigma 2X teleconverter for an effective 240-600mm f/5.6.... Top image quality and a large aperture in a high performance, image stabilized versatile zoom... BUT big, heavy and expensive! Lens alone weighs over 5.25 lb. and costs $3400. Sigma APO 2X teleconverter adds another half lb. and $300 cost.
There are others... bigger and more expensive, but I'll stop there.
The EF-S 18-55mm is not bad, particularly if it's the STM version with a bit faster, quieter autofocus. No need to upgrade it unless you really want to. If you would like something better, there are a lot of options, including...
- Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS USM... $600... nice range of focal lengths and good image quality, fast focus, stabilized.
- Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS STM... $400... same focal lengths and image quality as above, but STM is not as fast focusing as USM, though it's better than micro motor lenses.
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM... larger aperture, excellent image quality, fast focus, stabilization higher price! $800
- Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM... wider than most and a nice overall range in a single lens, very good image quality, high performance autofocus and stabilization... at a higher price! $800
For architectural and landscapes, wider like the latter lens above offers might be nice. Even wider is possible with other lenses...
- Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM... one of the best ultrawides made by anyone, well corrected and highly flare resistant, but one of the more expensive at about $600 (still, that's $300 to $500 less than some comparable Nikkors!).
- Canon EF-S 10-18mm STM... one of the smallest, lightest and at less then $300 one least expensive ultrawides made by anyone... also one of the few with image stabilization. Surprisingly good image quality, but a bit plasticky.
For those flower shots, some of the above are close focusing enough unless you are trying to shoot extremely small flowers or tiny details of them. If that's the case, a macro lens can be helpful....
- Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM... compact and one of the more affordable macros at around $400, can shoot full 1:1 but the shorter focal length will allow very little distance between the front of the lens and the subject.
- Tamron SP 60mm f/2 (Di II, "crop only").... compact and a larger aperture that makes it very useful for portraiture, too. Not as fast focusing as some, though.... can't track moving subjects very well. Fine for macro and much portrait use, though. Similar to the Canon, in that 60mm doesn't leave a lot of working space. About $500.
- Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 FX (full frame capable).... one of the most affordable macros at under $400. Not as full featured as some others (cannot override autofocus, must turn off AF first), but fine image quality.
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM.... excellent image quality and overall performance, top build quality too. About $600. One of only two macro lenses around this focal length that can optionally be fitted with a helpful tripod mounting ring (at extra cost, of course).
- Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM... also excellent image quality, performance, etc... but also with image stabilization. About $750. This is the only other ~100mm macro that can optionally be fitted with a tripod ring.
- Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM... also excellent IQ, performance, and stabilization. No option for a tripod ring, though. Costs about $600 right now.
When it comes to image quality, there really aren't any "bad" or even mediocre macro lenses... they are all very good. It's more the other features they offer, that set them apart from each other.
Depending upon your interests, and your priorities among them, any of the above might be useful.
Happy to help you spend your money! It's good for the economy.