How about Canon 16-35mm wide f/2.8?
1453764
I doubt this kit would work well with that lens. I don't think that range/size is listed as being compatible. You might be able to make your own bokeh filters to work with your lens. That's all I can think of at the moment.
1453765
i think you would be ok , i would use a telephoto lens but that should work
1453766
I am not really sure if it would work with it. You need to check the filter size by looking at the number mentioned behind the lens cap. If its 52mm then I feel it should work, but again I am not too sure. Maybe you can drop a mail to the company that makes it
572354
Have you got a 52mm lens for it like the 35mm f1.4 or the 18mm f2? In that case, YES ;)
84381
For a travel lens, the 16-35mm f/4 might be a better lens. It is lighter and sharper. For travel photography, rarely are you at 2.8. Most times you are stopping down to f/11 to get more things in focus. If I had to buy this lens again, I may have gone for the 14-24mm f/2.8. The only time I had to go down to 2.8 was when I was doing night time star photography.
678604
The f4 is a super good all around lens and pretty nice for wildlife etc. More of an outdoor lens. If you're more indoor, portrait, etc, go for the 2.8. It is much larger however. I went with the f4 first because it gives more range of use.
1370588
Exactly. It should be noted that it's sharp and CA-free at 1.2 as well. If Canon or Nikon made a 1.8 this good, I'd be stoked.
768837
Depends if you plan on ever switching to full frame. I find 17-18mm the widest I normally go since I shoot people and too wide isn't flattering. If you are shooting landscapes then any of these will do since you want to stop down the aperture anyway. I love the 18-35mm sigma, I get the isolation from the blur that I need to create my artistic images. I never take it off anymore.
1183760
For me, a big selling point was the 16-50mm f/2.8 (weather resistant) lens and weather resistant body. I knew I would be out when photographing nature stuff and it might start raining. Plus the f/2.8 lens is spectacular and you get a $200 discount when buying is as a kit.
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
597333
Agreed with Tech Guy. 24mm on a crop (effectively 40mm) is just not wide enough for a general walk-around lens.That said, I do wish that Canon would have made the 15-85 a constant aperture lens like the 24-105 f/4L.
1752182
Most versatile would be a zoom lens. If you have the money, buy a Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8.
1625587
Most reviews I have seen give the 11-16 a bit of an advantage in image quality, especially at f/4. The range of 12-24 would be an advantage to me.
726629
Yes, but lenses wider than 35mm are a little soft in the corners. That's more of a sensor issue though.
182303
My recommendation would be the 50mm 1.8. Good standard focal length (although closer to 75mm with the smaller sensor). It is under $100.00 new. Short depth of field, great for portraits. Every Canon owner should have this lens. No zoom mind you, so it requires a little more work to get the shot you want. This lens is good, fast, and cheap.
143450
It wouldn't be my first pick for anything other than macro photography. f/3.5 is pretty slow for indoors (it's like looking into a cave), it isn't a zoom, it doesn't have stabilization, and focus is somewhat slow (comparatively speaking). For portraits, I would prefer the 70-200 f/2.8. It's a perfectly keen lens for macro, though; you can take pictures of the tiniest things!
80734
If you need a pretty good wide angle try the Rokkinon 14mm. It has only manual focus. The 20-35 Canon is a good lens. I have both and they are good for a budget. thx
2173993
That's pretty much the point of this lens - sports. Fast focus and f/2.8 should allow a fast enough shutter speed to capture action in most situations.
1668186
Well, if you do not have the Tamron telephoto lens. I would say yes to 16-300MM but upgrade from 18-270mm is not worth it due to different is not day and night.