Canon t2i 550d Lens Recommendations?

I'm considering moving up from p/s to slr. I've been searching around the forums for a while now, getting bits of info for different questions I've had, and had very good luck so far. I've been looking at the new Canon t2i, and now seeing that Nauticam is making a housing for it has sped up my decision a bit. I would like to get just a body and choose one good lens to buy separately and start with. I have come across posts in the past that had lots of good examples for lenses for different purposes, but can't seem to find them now. So far from what I know I've been looking at these:

Sigma 17-70mm

Tokina 10-17mm

T2i kit lens.. 18-55mm?

Canon 15mm

Canon 60mm Macro

I know some are more dedicated macro or wide angle lenses. Basically what I'm looking for is a good all-around lens that will be useful topside as well as underwater, but not become useless as I acquire more. Any suggestions or recommendations welcome. Thanks.

-Ryan

Hi Ryan,

You laid out a pretty tough request. One of the primary advantages of an SLR is the ability to put on the right lens for the image you want to make. For wide angle nothing can touch the Tokina 10-17 underwater. Not so useful up in the air, fun, but not a go-to lens on land. The Canon 60mm macro is a great lens to shoot both fish and macro. Of the ones on your list I think those would give you the most versatility for the money.

Cheers,

Steve

i went thru this procedure starting with a 17-85 and dome on my 20D which i found to be better than a point and shoot but not really good for anything and ended up buying a macro port to use a 60M which didn't have enough working distance for me so got an extension ring so i could use the 100M. then got a 10-22 for wide angle with the macro port.

if you have a particular interest - macro vs. WA i'd suggest you start with one or the other

for wide angle, everybody seems to like the Tokina 10-17 fisheye which can be used with a small dome (i don't know what happens if you put a 60 macro in a small dome) but in my opinion, the fisheye is useless topside

sorry this isn't too helpful. i went over budget (significantly) but am extremely satisfied with the results. by the way, be sure you/ve got ttl.

I started with a 60mm macro and a 10-22 EFS rectilinear wide angle although the TOkina 10-17 is quite a bit cheaper and very popular. I still prefer my 10-22 though. MOst of my WA shots in the Egypt 2009 section on my Flickr page are taken with the 10-22.

I'm considering moving up from p/s to slr. I've been searching around the forums for a while now, getting bits of info for different questions I've had, and had very good luck so far. I've been looking at the new Canon t2i, and now seeing that Nauticam is making a housing for it has sped up my decision a bit. I would like to get just a body and choose one good lens to buy separately and start with. I have come across posts in the past that had lots of good examples for lenses for different purposes, but can't seem to find them now. So far from what I know I've been looking at these:

 

Sigma 17-70mm

Tokina 10-17mm

T2i kit lens.. 18-55mm?

Canon 15mm

Canon 60mm Macro

 

I know some are more dedicated macro or wide angle lenses. Basically what I'm looking for is a good all-around lens that will be useful topside as well as underwater, but not become useless as I acquire more. Any suggestions or recommendations welcome. Thanks.

-Ryan

The Kit Lens has improved in the last generation, and although not perfect, something to consider when buying the camera since the incremental cost is low compared to the camera by itself and it lets you go out and shoot. Though not perfect, when I got my dSLR I swore to myself I was not going to go lens crazy (have many old lenses from the film days) and actually used the kit lens UW to start for a trip or two. Not perfect, but adequate and still a nice step up from P&S with an okay range to work with.

Also got a general walkaround lens - Tokina 18-250. Not a star as some lenses, but for general shooting and not having to swap out lenses constantly (depending on my mood) does fine, especially with cropping a bit. With the software nowadays, corrections can be done fairly easily to the extent you want them.

Of course my vowing to not go lens buying was short lived. Decided to add a WA, and went with the 10-22 since it would work above and below water (though of course I am now thinking of adding a Tokina 10-17 for UW) but with the 10-22 you can shoot Topside and I used it often, when I was at the Taj Mahal I was very happy I had that one. Also added a 60mm which is pretty good. Another lens I added was a 17-55mm f/2.8 (Canon). Great lens.

One of the things you need to think about is what will you be doing more of in context of your budget. If you do alot of diving, do you do alot of only a certain amount of diving, what do you do topside, how many lenses do you want to carry, how often you want to swap them out, etc. Do you have plans to shoot professionally for magazines or are you looking for shots for yourself, friends and family and the occasional shot for publication? Lately (for the local above water shooting I have been doing), I carry my 5D Mark II with a 24-105mm (no multiplier since full frame) and a 40D with the Tokina. Grab whichever one to get the shot.

This does not mean you should not get certain lenses or try to say that the lenses are perfect compared to others out there, but there is a balance to go with. I would love to get a big white Canon Prime Telephoto, but it does not fit right now in terms of budget, weight or my personal needs. If I was going to go on a safari or get into serious shooting of wildlife (above water), my tune would change.

Like I said, you may want to get the kit lens since it is so inexpensive as part of the kit and shoot with it a bit to find out what you like and do not like. Though that lens (or any lens) has limitations, some of them may become a bit more theory than practice for you. Example, issues of corner sharpness which are often discussed and shown. Yet on a 18 Megapixel camera, with the viewfinder and what you saw through the viewfinder, some cropping may not change things.

From my film days and having slides that were a bit too tight for magazines, I tend to leave more on the edges anyway for cropping later.

Instead of trying to get one lens (kit lens or otherwise) that does everything pretty well, I recommend giving yourself a budget and using that money to buy two lenses that will cover the most bases both on land and underwater. For ~$900 you can get the Tokina 10-17 or Tokina 11-16 along with the Canon EF-S 60 macro or the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4. The latter isn't widely used underwater, but if you think you'll shoot way more photos on land than at sea, an EF 50mm or Sigma 30mm will probably be more useful overall, especially if you get into the T2i's video feature and you want some low-light capability from a lightweight lens.

I suspect I have made a fairly typical transition over the course of four years of DSLR ownership: I started with a couple of kit lenses (18-55 and 17-85) that came with my used 20D bodies, then bought two lenses specifically for underwater use (Tok 10-17 FE and Canon 60 macro) when I had a few imminent dive trips. Now I've settled on a Tokina 11-16 and Canon EF 50mm and Canon EF 200 f/2.8L, and all those other lenses have been sold. It took a while, but I now feel like I've got a trio of lenses that covers most of my needs on land (fast wide, fast normal prime, and fast telephoto prime) while allowing me to do some occasional water work, too. And if I move to a full-frame camera next year, my EF lenses will work on that and I'll keep my 20D and Tokina lens for water work.

That's the plan, at least. You never know what gear lust will force you to do. But the nice thing about lens addiction is you can sell or trade in lenses to support the habit, at least to some extent. Used gear also makes for great gifts. Or at least that's what I tell myself...

If you really do want only one lens to start with and you want it to be pretty good at a few things, the Sigma 17-70 is not a terrible choice. It does decent close-up and it does decent wide angle. On land it is a good performer, though perhaps not as wide or as tele-photo as some would like. Not sure how the new kit lens compares in terms of close-up ability but the price on the kit lenses is appealing. Like the others, I'd say that if you do any volume of underwater shooting, you'll likely end up with separate macro and wide angle lenses at some point; it is just a matter of whether that point is now. I currently use three lenses underwater, the 100mm macro, the 10-17, and the 17-70 so one could conceivable follow my example and get the 17-70 now and upgrade to the other two over time.

Having said that, I will also say that I still have a Tokina 12-24 because I still want a rectilinear wide angle lens topside; I have a Sigma 18-200 because it is a more versatile all-around lens topside than the 17-70; AND, I have a 100-400 for the times the 18-200 is not long enough. I'd like to pare the list down, but I'm not exactly sure how, except to cut the 17-70. the problem is that in all likelihood, I'd end up with a 60mm shortly there-after as the 100mm is really too long for fish portraits . . .

Mike

Ryan,

All good choices of lens, and i basically agree with what everyone else is saying:

Where do you dive most, and what style of shot gives you the most satisfaction? Wide angle say for reefs or wrecks? or Macro?

No single lens is going to give you brilliant results at both ends of the scale, but the sigma 17-70 will do both half decently.

The Kit lens 18-55, i use a lot topside, wide enough for landscapes and group photos etc and will do nice portraits too. underwater it could be used for medium sized fish shots, (snapper, grunt etc). Some shops will allow you to swap that lens for the kit 18-135 which will give you a half decent zoom lens for topside, but no use really underwater.

If you love WA the Tokina 10-17 fisheye sounds like everyones favourite, but wont give you anything topside.

If you want macro, the choices are 60 vs 100... i went with the 100 but i love macro work ... nudis, pygmy seahorse etc.

The other option, is to save a bit on the housing and go with an ikelite rather than the nauticam? This saving would allow you to get another lens option. However the nauticam t2i looks sleek as... (Im going for the Nauticam on the 7d)

Olly

I was in the same boat as you a few years ago, and went with the 17-70. While I've now built up a bit more of a collection, I found (and still find) that the Sigma does a decent job both on land and in the water. I like the flexibility of being able to shoot both macro and wa, altho as said already, a dedicated lens would do better at each end. I was actually shooting with it today, and was able to get pics of turtles swimming and flat worms and nudi on the same dive.

It's a good starting point anyway, an easy lens to learn with, until your ready to start purchasing other lenses.

Ryan.

There are 2 different Sigma 18-200mm lenses available for Canon, with one about half the price of the other. Am I right to think that you would only want the more expensive one if you wanted it to be compatible with full frame sensor camera like the 5DII as well as a 550d or 7d? Any other reason or quality difference?

Thanks for all of the quick replies. I'm starting to lean toward the mentioned Canon 10-22, as I'm more interested in getting into some W/A shots. As well as seeing it to be more useful/fun in the air. My new question would be, what about some other seemingly similar lenses?

Like:

Tokina 12-24mm

vs.

Tamron 10-24mm

vs.

Canon 10-22mm

For those that would like to know a little about my diving/camera situation to help with ideas or a recommendation, I recently moved from Florida where I was diving at least a couple times a month (most dives specifically to take pictures) to Georgia where I haven't been out but once in about 3 months. With my current setup I was limited to mostly macro shots, with some W/A attempts mostly not turning out in one way or another, probably due to lack of a proper wet mount. While most of my shooting lately since being in GA has been of people, places, and just being out doing things and the random stuff that happens. I like the creative door that opens with a super wide lens, topside as well as underwater. Which would be why I'm leaning more in that direction. Although I'm still open for any new suggestions. I don't plan on only having one lens for long, just a good place to start/have fun with. Thanks again.

-Ryan

There are 2 different Sigma 18-200mm lenses available for Canon, with one about half the price of the other. Am I right to think that you would only want the more expensive one if you wanted it to be compatible with full frame sensor camera like the 5DII as well as a 550d or 7d? Any other reason or quality difference?

Neither is compatible with a full-frame camera. Difference is that one is stablized (the "OS" version), one is not.

Mike

Thanks Mike (and apologies for dumb dSLR-newbie question).

Did a lot of reading on starter lenses for this camera yesterday (principally for topside for now) and that Sigma 17-70 does seem like a good value all-round choice, although Philip Bloom turned my head on the Vimeo forum with his recommendation for the Sigma 30mm f1.4.

Further newbieism... Have I got this right?: An EF-S lens is for a cropped sensor camera such as the 7d or 550d, while an EF lens is for a full frame sensor camera such as the 5dmk2? And that all three of those cameras take EF-S, but the 5dmk2 only takes EF? That begs the question, would it be wise to only go for EF lenses for a 550d so that they could also be used on a full frame camera as well in the future?

Further newbieism... Have I got this right?: An EF-S lens is for a cropped sensor camera such as the 7d or 550d, while an EF lens is for a full frame sensor camera such as the 5dmk2? And that all three of those cameras take EF-S, but the 5dmk2 only takes EF?

 

That begs the question, would it be wise to only go for EF lenses for a 550d so that they could also be used on a full frame camera as well in the future?

You are correct Nick about the EF vrs EF-S. Your assumption about only buying EF lenses is a good thing to keep in mind but the EF-S 60mm is an exception. Besides you can always sell your EF-S lenses should you ever decide to move to FF. I wouldn't let it stop you from buying what you need now. I have learned to buy the best glass I can afford instead of working my way up through the less expensive stuff. In the end you can spend more money trying to go cheap. The new cameras like the 7D and now the 550 almost demand great glass. Those 18 megapixels can be pretty tough on the lens.

The 17-40L is a great walking around lens on land and the 70-200 f/4L may be the best lens for the money Canon ever made. Both good boat lenses. You see how this starts right? "I'll just get a 10-22 and I'll be fine" (I have one around here somewhere) quickly turns into more lenses than you can carry and you end up writing posts asking how you can get all your stuff on airplanes. It's a slippery slope.

Steve

would it be wise to only go for EF lenses for a 550d so that they could also be used on a full frame camera as well in the future?

I recommend getting EF telephoto and EF mid-range (“normal”) lenses so that you’ll be able to use those on your cropped-sensor body as well as on a full-frame camera if you upgrade at some point. But for wide-angle work I think you’ll really appreciate an EF-S (or third-party equivalent) lens in order to get that wide effect.

For example, the Canon 17-40 f/4L lens that Steve mentions above is indeed a nice walkaround lens on a Rebel or a XXD but the wide end isn’t wide at all unless it’s used on a bigger sensor. On a cropped sensor, that lens is more like a 26-64. Maybe the extra “reach” is useful in some cases, but in my experience the lack of a truly wide angle was limiting and annoying. So, I sold my 17-40 (this week, in fact) and got a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 that is made for cropped-sensor cameras. Being able to go super-wide again is great.

Meanwhile, I would never sell my 50mm or 200mm EF primes because in their cases the extra reach is often beneficial rather than problematic.