Marg Loc: Canadian transplanted to NW Alabama

Thanks for the reply, MTG44!

Marg Loc: Canadian transplanted to NW Alabama

Thank you, camerapapi! Very sage advice. I think I expected to hit the ground running. I must practise both shots and patience!

Marg Loc: Canadian transplanted to NW Alabama

Thanks for the reply, gvarner! I’ll keep this in mind.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Marg

No one has yet mentioned that the 75-300mm lens is considered a poor example of Canon lenses. Their 70-300 II is much better, though not an L. I have version I and find it so-so. I have it on my T2i.

lewesner

After many years shooting ff film I changed over to a Canon T6i 2 years ago. Used the 18-55 kit lens with the camera until earlier this year. I did mostly wildlife photography and some sports until I got the Canon.

Like you, started looking at other lens late last year. Checked out Canon L, Sigma and Tamron lens. Decided on a Caono EFS 15-85 is usm and Tamron's new 100-400 f 4.5-5.6 is usm.

The 15-85 is tack sharp, great build and feels like a L lens. The Tamron 100-400, imo, is sharper though out it's focal range than the Canon 100-400, weight less and is half the price. I got both lens for just under

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Marg, you've received some excellent advice in this thread, but this is the best of all. Pay particular attention to things that are just a little "off" - some motion blur on a picture of a bird, a wide angle not quite wide enough to capture the vision you "saw", a close up of a grandchild where the background isn't quite out of focus enough to make the child stand out (Bokeh). Like many things in life, sometimes it's best to do some analysis to find out what's keeping you from achieving your vision.

Welcome to the UHH. You will find some highly opinionated and occasionally cranky posters, but you will also find a wealth of information and people generous enough to share it. I've not posted much until recently, concentrating on building up our equipment collection, but reading a lot of articles and advice. Just remember, it's your vision that matters, not anyone else's.

Andy

jtram

ef-s 24mm f2.8. Cheap, light, sharp, fast (ish) 35mm equiv.......

Designdweeb Loc: Metro NYC & East Stroudsburg, PA

I'd save my money until I found my passion, and could identify my goals and obstacles to improvement. I know great photographers that shoot with pinholes in shoeboxes and turn-of the century 5x7 Deardorffs

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

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.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

With all due respect, this might be a bit premature. Best see what the OP is interested in, and what the budget might be? This list alone blows my expenses for the next decade.

alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

I think that you may be having what others refer to as a G.A.S. attack ...

Nothing wrong with that.

As you know, different focal length lenses will result in a different field of view ...

... So, is your current 75mm-300mm inadequate for the nature shots you want to make?

... Does the 18mm-55mm work for your pictures of your grandkids and/or architectural images?

... Do any-or-all-or-none of the lenses you allow you to easily capture the flower pictures which you want?

One thing you can do is to assess the convenience-and/or-handicap of using a fixed focal length lens vs. the 18mm-55mm Zoom lens you have ...

... I personally think that it is more-than-okay to use multiple PRIME lenses rather than to use a single Zoom lenses ...

... In part because when I tend to use a Zoom lens it is typically at one extreme of its range or the other so for me the zoom function is wasted!

BTW. Having-and-using a REASONABLY GOOD tripod may go a long way toward sharpening your images ...

... Also, you need to be aware that some cameras have a slightly longer lag between when the shutter button is pressed and the image is actually captured and you may not be allowing for the slight lag in time between when you press the shutter release and the camera goes through its auto-this-and-that process ...

BTW2. Presuming that your 50mm lens is not a "macro" lens, you may want to consider a set of coupled extension tubes to use with any-or-all of your lenses to see if being able to focus a little closer on some objects (e.g., flowers) satisfies some of your image capturing needs ...

... Because being able to make moderate close-ups of the flowers you will be photographing in the future OR being able to get a little closer to other objects with your longer Zoom lens may help capture the images you want and/or to help you to realize-or-decide what capabilities you want for your next lens(es).

Extension tubes do not have to cost a lot of money if you get them via eBay.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Marg,
I have had Canon for quite a while. I enjoy the hobby greatly. If I were setting up some new lenses for my t4i I would get the following non-L lenses.
1. EFs 10-18mm for Architecture in rooms and tight spots. Also landscapes with this lens and views of cities from heights etc. For a mid range lens the new 24-105mm STM is excellent and sharp. Great for general shooting and grand kids, stays on the camera all the time for quick reaction grab the camera and shoot. The 70-300 IS II nano is your choice for telephoto. Again incredibly sharp and fast operationally. For close-ups of very small flowers etc as well as excellent portraits the 100mm f2.8 macro (L) if you can afford it for the incredible IS and will double as a beautiful portrait lens.
If you have money L lenses are excellent. Mostly you pay for weather sealing and incredibly rugged build for hard professional use. The only L I would get to replace the 70-300mm would be the 100-400mm MII L. It will absolutely blow you away. It is sharp, blindingly fast focus and something no other tele lens like it can even think of doing is focus to about 3' at 400mm which is near macro. But the 3 non-L lenses recommended will do a great service to you and up your game. The macro lens is a bonus.
Finally stay away from the 50mm prime and most other primes for now. I doubt you will like them, they have little versatility and are more specialized. You can buy a dozen of them and carry them around, keep changing lenses and losing shots over and over. Pretty miserable. If you at some time feel you might want a prime in the future go for it but those 3 recommended lenses are hundreds of times more versatile than primes and give you less to carry of fuss with during action of grand kids running around etc.
Happy researching.

kdogg Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/ Check out this site for Canon lenses and third party lenses. Very good reviews and if you are like me a goldmine for info on non L glass thaqt can be had very reasonably.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I never understand the derogatory comments regarding kit lenses. I have owned a few. All were very sharp and gave great photos when I did my part. From my understanding the difference between kit lenses and more expensive lenses or pro lenses is the kit lenses are not weather sealed and generally use plastic rather than metal. I am guess that 95% of photographers would be perfectly happy with the kit lenses IF other people didn’t feel the need to speak badly about them.

Dennis

jcboy3

The t4i is a crop sensor, so a 35mm prime would be a normal lens for that camera. Do you use the 50mm for much? It's an 80mm equivalent, sort of a short portrait lens. You should look at a 35mm prime lens for speed and shallow DOF. And you might also look at an even wider prime lens as well.

Better still, find your photography passion, and then gear up for it.