junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Thank you all for your advice on purchasing a tripod. I selected one on advice given an could not be happier.

I currently have an 18-135 mm on my Canon 80D and am thinking of adding another lens. I am thinking of 24 mm or 50 mm. The price is around $125, which seems to be a good value.

I eventually would like a 70-200 but not within my budget now.

I always appreciate advice and feedback.

Thanks,
Jim

mcmama

I highly recommend you have a 50mm in your bag. I use mine 75% of the time.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Thanks for your quick reply

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

The 50 on an APSC would be like an 80 on a full frame, the 24 like a 38.
I have the 50 f/1.4. I got it for the greater light gathering ability than my zoom. I might consider adding a fixed in the area of 18 to 24 for myself.
Have you checked third party manufacturers for the ≈70-200?

Photocraig

I have a 77D, which is a lighter camera with the same sensor. My thought is that for travel and walking around, the 24mm Pancake would gave me a 39mm or so effective focal length, be extremely small, light and stealthy and produce a variety of good shots. My early background was with rangefinder film cameras which all had 40mm lenses of full frame film. While there is good use for the f1.8 50mm Canon nifty, I think the f2.8 aperture on the 24mm pancake should be ok in low light. There are virtues to both lenses, and the 50 is a great choice for portraits.

I'm also "budgeting" for the 70-200, while enjoying my excellent 70-300 II. There are plenty of reasons for me to consider the f4 version.

C

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

I have both a 50 and a 24 I use on a FF and I find the 24 to be to one that is used the most.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Thanks for the info. I noticed on Amazon, the 50mm 1.8 STM is an Amazon choice. There also is the 50mm 1.8 STM bundles for the same price? What am I missing?

kenievans Loc: Dallas

I also have both the 50 and 24. I use the 50mm 1.8 most of the time as it does great in low light. I use the 24mm mostly for landscapes and it does ok in low light. You might also consider the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.5-6.3 IS II Lens. It is a great zoom lens for the price. I want the 70-200 but just can't afford it right now. I read several reviews on the 55-250 and it was a highly recommended budget lens. I have this one too and use it for outdoor action shots. You can get one used $150 or less. I have been happy with all three and didn't break the bank.

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Thanks for sharing the info. I always learn so much from this site.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

What are you hoping to accomplish with another lens? What are you not able to do with your 18-135mm? After all, you already have 50mm and 24mm focal lengths with the zoom.

If you want a large aperture lens to shoot in low light and/or blur down backgrounds in candid portraits, the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is a pretty good value. 50mm is a "short telephoto" on an APS-C camera like the 80D. Personally I prefer the EF 50mm f/1.4, but it's about twice the price.

Not sure about the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM.... it's an extremely compact "pancake" lens, if that's what you have in mind. However, you already have 24mm f/3.5 or f/4 with your 18-135mm. Only 2/3 to one stop difference. Not a very big deal.

If yours is the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM, it's probably faster focusing than either of the STM lenses. Neither of those primes have IS either, while you're zoom does.

If a 70-200mm is too rich for your budget... how about an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 instead? The latest version "II" is currently on sale. The previous version is still available new, and a decent lens too... for under $400. Both 70-300s have fast USM focus and helpful IS. Once you save up a bit more, if you still want a 70-200L (I recommend the IS versions with either f/4 or f/2.8), you can sell off the 70-300mm.

Another response suggested the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM... which also might fulfill your telephoto needs quite well. It's a very capable lens, too. About $300 for one of those.

Of course, there quite a bit of overlap with your 18-135mm and either 55-250 or 70-300mm.

An alternative would be the EF-S 10-18mm IS STM.... an ultrawide that will give you a range you haven't currently got covered. That would be nice for scenic shots, among other things.

Another option would be a macro lens, if you like to do close-ups. The Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM is quite compact and might serve some of the same non-macro purposes as a 50mm lens. It's on sale for under $400 right now. (I opted for the Tamron SP 60mm Macro instead, because it has a larger f/2 aperture that makes it even better for dual purposes such as portraiture... but it's more expensive than the Canon lens. It's slower focusing than the Canon, but that's no problem for most macro or portraiture.)

Or maybe you just have G.A.S. ("gear acquisition syndrome", highly contagious and common here on UHH ). In that case, do you have the matched lens hood for your 18-135mm? If you don't, I'd highly recommend getting and using it regularly (same with all the above lenses... except possibly the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, which has a fairly well recessed front element, so may not need a lens hood). Or, do you have a high quality circular polarizer for use on it? With digital photography, a good CPL (such as B+W F-Pro or XS-Pro) is the most useful of all filters.

Just tryin' to help you spend your money!

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

I appreciate your input and suggestions. I was hoping to use the 50 for street photography ehen traveling... smaller lens to carry around and want to experiment with low light a blur

CO

If you're going to be hand holding the camera a lot also consider Tamron's new SP series prime lenses. They all have stabilization. They also have a metal lens barrel and are fully weather sealed. I have their 45mm f/1.8 SP VC. I use it sometimes for model photo shoots. It's not practical to use a tripod so its vibration compensation helps to stabilize the image a little more. There's an instant rebate going on with that lens right now. It's $399. The 35mm f/1.8 SP VC lens is $599 right now. I took this photo with it hand held and 1/30 second shutter speed.

1/30 second shutter speed, hand held camera

(Download)

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Very nice

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

In your position, I would save my money and use the 18-135 mm. If you are determined to buy one or the other, I would get the 24 mm, since I find wide angle very useful.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

As I am sure you know 24 and 50 are two totally different focal lengths. They have different applications. 24mm will be an excellent choice for many wide angle vistas while the 50mm will act in your camera like a short tele making it very useful for portrait photography.
You can shoot landscapes with the 70mm if just a part of the landscape needs emphasis.