I'm about to make the leap for P&S to SLR, and I'm looking for lens recommendations. I'm leaning toward a Canon EOS Elan IIe and would like to start with one good general purpose lens. I'd appreciate any input as I'm a novice!

Thanks ~ Lisa

-- Lisa (tippins@wizard.net), November 05, 2001

Answers

I've been pretty busy lately, so I haven't answered many questions for a while. While I agree with all of the people who say you should get a prime lens like the 50 f1.8 for quality, I don't recommend it as your only lens. If I had to choose one lens it would be the 24-85 that was mentioned by someone else. I have both lenses, and rarely use the 50 since I bought the 24-85. The difference in image quality between the 50 f1.8 and the 24-85 is small enough that I prefer the zoom's versatility if I don't need the low light capability you get with an aperture of f1.8. I'd actually say that with my particular lenses (like everything else there can be quality variations from one sample of a lens to another) the 24-85's image quality is at least equal to the 50 f1.8. Neither lens seems as sharp as my old manual focus 50 f1.8 though.

As general pupose lenses go the 24-85 is hard to beat. Good image quality and the speed of a true Ring USM focusing motor. About the only downsides are that you need to buy the EW-73II hood and use it all the time to avoid flare, and the 67mm filter size is a bit of an odd size.

-- Brad Hutcheson (bhutcheson@iname.com), November 09, 2001.

If you can live without a zoom, get a Canon 50mm f/1.8 or a 35mm f/2. The 50 is cheaper but I find the 35 more usefull. Both are faster and sharper than any zoom you are likely to purchase.

If you need/want a zoom lens, then the best choices for the money are Canon's 24-85, 28-105 or 28-135. The 28-135 has image stabilization and is about twice the money as the others, but the feature is worth it for some of us. The 24-85 is often considered more useful of the two others, as the wide end of most mid-range zooms get used more often than the long end. At least for most of us. But the choice is yours.

I wouldn't buy one of Canon's low end consumer zooms (28-80 or 28-90) as the image quality is not quite as good, the build quality is definitly not as good, they focus slower and you give up Full Time Manual focus (FTM in Canon speak). That feature alone is worth the extra cost of the better lenses. I also wouldn't get a non-Canon mid- range zoom lens for that and other reasons.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), November 05, 2001.

Thanks for your response, Jim. The camera and lens will be birthday/Christmas presents from my husband, who is being a miser and insisting that I choose one lens. Based on your input and the limited research I've done, I'm leaning toward the Canon 50mm f/1.8. I was interested in your comment that you've found the 35mm f/2 to be more useful, though, and was wondering if you could elaborate.

~Lisa

-- Lisa (tippins@wizard.net), November 05, 2001.

It's personal choice really, but in my opinion, a wider than normal lens is more usable in more situations.

Most indoor pictures are in somewhat confined locations & a wider lens makes picture taking a bit easier and pleasant looking, since you are less likely to be chopping something out of the picture that you really want to show.

If you are taking pictures of people, they are usually your friends or family and getting close is not really a problem. This way you can make the subjects as large as you want in the picture, even with a wider lens. So, the wide lens doesn't become much of a problem with most people shots, and sometimes it saves your picture.

Getting close with a wide angle lens has the effect of both including more background and making it look smaller. I like the effect. And it's great for those travel pictures where you want to see yourself standing in front of some familiar sight.

You see a lot more wide angle shots in modern advertising than you ever did before. Getting close with a wide lens is becoming the way of fashion. It seems that wider is better, at least in the ads.

Small point & shoot cameras that don't have a zoom, almost always come with a wider than normal lens. Usually a 35mm lens. Partly this is because it's easier to focus them accurately and they are less expensive to make well, but also because they are the length of choice for more situations.

There are lots of reasons for getting the 50mm f/1.8 as well. Saving $150 is just one of them. Wide is good. Long lenses are good. The ubiquitous 50mm lens seems to be right in the middle, and can do a bit of each.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), November 05, 2001.

Also the Canon 35mm f/2 is sharper, ocuses faster and is built better.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), November 05, 2001.

Thanks again, Jim. You've given me a lot to think about!

-- Lisa (tippins@wizard.net), November 06, 2001.

A dissenting opinion: I would lean more towards the EOS 28-105 zoom, simply because it covers more focal lengths, it's reasonably sharp enough even for some professionals, and it's a zoom that a miser could really come to love and enjoy. While certain limitations apply, the 28-105 offers a lot of bang-for-the-buck, and this is something that misers are likely to appreciate.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), November 06, 2001.

I wouldn't choose a 35/2 as a first lens for an EOS system. It is a good, sharp lens with excellent bokeh in a compact package, but it is kind of special-purpose and being an old design lacks the FTM/USM feature. The 50/1.8 is a good lens too, and pretty cheap, but also lacks FTM/USM. Having come from a P&S (I imagine you had a zoom P&S), you will find the 28-105, 24-85 or 28-135 a great improvement and _fun_ to use. The 28-135 is more expensive, bulky and heavier than the other two options. Note I've personally owned every lens mentioned here except the 28-135 (which I have handled in a store and found "bulky"). Prime lenses are for people who want a particular "look" in their images, such as the ultimate in sharpness, out-of-focus control (good bokeh), low-distortion for architecture shots, or need the speed of wide apertures for low-light shots without flash. Perhaps get your husband to buy you a 28-105 zoom, and go out and buy the [cheaper] 50/1.8 yourself!?

-- Richard Christie (gr.christie@auckland.ac.nz), November 07, 2001.

If I had it to do over again, I would have bought the ElanIIe and 24-85 zoom. I eventually bought the 70-200 f4 zoom. It and the 24-85 share the same 67mm filter size and make a great combo for the money. I believe B&H sell the Elan II and 24-85 zoom used in a kit for around $500 dollars. For a prime, I would select the 85 1.8. I have the 50 1.8, and for the money it is a great lens. I have the 28-105, and its a fine lens, I just wish I had the extra 4mm at the wide end and the convenienc of same filter sizes.

-- John Perry (jperry@list-clark.com), November 08, 2001.

100mm macro and discover "small is beautiful"

-- VINEETJOSHI (vineet_joshi@satyam.com), February 05, 2002.