Tell me not to buy these lenses

[Keith Moreau]

I just got a Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC. I now need something wider, and something more tele.

I also don't ever want to go to a 35mm sensor. I wouldn't get a 5DMKII for example, so I don't need all the extra weight, size, expense of a EF lens. EF-S lens is fine.

I believe I need Image Stabilization. If Tamron made a EF-S with IS in the 50-300 range I'd get it but they don't.

I don't know if I need a particularly 'fast' lens in the high tele. I'm looking for shallow DOF, which I needed with the 17mm-50mm but with longer lens I'll get that shallow DOF even at smaller apertures.

So I've been looking at this lens:

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras

It's an EF, it's not a EF-S, and it seems like a well-reviewed lens. More bulk and weight than a EF-S, but probably better as the APS-C sensor is aiming at the best part of this lens

It's around $550.

Or (heaven forbid) this lens:

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

It's like $250, similar aperture specs, good reviews (cheap and plasticky, but image wise good) It's small, light, and cheap.

I don't want to be hauling around a telescope. Tell me what to do.

[Shawn Wright]

I am a portrait photographer and I LOVE my 10-22 from Canon. It is E-fs and delivers great stuff.

I actually do not care for zooms much compared to stadard tele-photo. I have a 70-200 IS but compared to a 135 L it is so dull. But I am gonna keep it as I plan to get the 7D next week and will want it for that.

[Daniel Weber]

How about the Canon 70-200 F4 L lens which is about $620 at B&H. The IS version is more expensive, but for $600 you can't go wrong with an L lens.

Daniel Weber

[Jon Fairhurst]

My first lens, with the 5D2, was the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS. I sold mine with the box and all the trimmings for about $450.

I got some nice shots with the lens, but found it to be too slow for video use. I bought it in December in the Pacific Northwest, so I was often shooting indoors in natural light on rainy days. Had I bought it in June in Tuscon, I might still own it.

For wildlife photos, I found the lens a bit disappointing. On furry critters like deer and rabbits, the crops were a bit coarse. I now own the 200L, and it's sharp and silky by comparison.

I sold the 70-300 about a week before the manual firmware for the 5D2 was announced, so I never even tried IS with video. I would always unscrew the lens, trying to get the exposure to behave.

Personally, I've found that for narrative films, the 28-85 range is the sweet spot. We use long lenses for specific needs, but mostly rely on the 28, 50, and 85mm primes. On the other hand, if you travel in daylight and shoot random documentary stuff to put to music, a long zoom would be excellent - especially with IS.

The 70-300 has a fair amount of falloff when wide open. On the 7D, that wouldn't be an issue.

So... if you shoot outdoor video in daylight on the 7D, it's a good choice. Put it away after sunset. If you want exquisite wildlife photos, you would need to get a higher end lens, like the 70-200/4.0 that Daniel mentioned.

In the end, don't sweat it too much. Lenses hold their value, especially if you buy a good copy used. You can always buy/sell/trade if the lens doesn't meet your needs.