Which of these two lens would better suit my needs?

Question:I mainly do concert photography, portraits, street photography, and candid moments. I am pursuing a career in this and would love to add a new lens to my set. (I only have the kit lens currently, and I must say, it's not all that!)

I own a Canon Rebel XTi...

Canon 28-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 USM EF Lens

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens

So which of these do you beleive would be the better investment, and also could you explain why you think this.

Thanks!

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I mainly do concert photography, portraits, street photography, and candid moments. I am pursuing a career in this and would love to add a new lens to my set. (I only have the kit lens currently, and I must say, it's not all that!)

I own a Canon Rebel XTi...

Canon 28-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 USM EF Lens

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens

So which of these do you beleive would be the better investment, and also could you explain why you think this.

Thanks!

The 28-200 for the following reasons:
1. Wider aperture - meaning more flexible in low light situations such as concerts and street photography, which are your speciality areas.

2. Your camera has a multiplication factor of 1.6 compared to a 35mm camera, so your lenses will perform like they are longer lenses than they are: 28-200 being equivalent to 45-320mm - a very modest wide lens (50mm is standard!) to a very, very long telephoto - and the 55-250mm being equivalent to 88-400mm.

3. I've been a pro for 18 years and I shoot a similar range of subjects to you, but I prefer wider lenses through to moderate telephotos, which cover all my wide shots (indoors, crowds, landscapes, situations where I can't step back further) though to portraiture and head shots.

4. IMO you will make a rod for your back with both of these lenses - I'd strongly suggest a wider low end AND a wider aperture: sports zoom lenses. which have even wider apertures (f2.8) too... long lenses look good but rarely get used for much photography work unless you specialise in wildlife, surveillance / pap, sports - even then I'd be looking at much more expensive lenses with very wide apertures!

Hope that helps...

The Canon 28-200mm will work out just fine. but i'm not an expert with lenses

maybe ill go for the 28-200... just my personal choice if ill be doing what your doing..

cheers!!

The 28 to 200. The 28 mode will give you greater depth of field and greater distortion, great for musician and instrument portrait, with and for impact and visual exaggeration; yet, don't overdo it. The 28/200 has a bit better light alternative with the faster 3.5 lens. The difference between the 200 and 250 long focus is minimal. For what used to be 35mm photography, a 90mm lens was a good portrait lens. Most adapted using 125mm as a popular candid portrait lens.

Years ago I had a Nikon 80 to 200mm and found it adequate for most work. The other lens most generally used was a 28mm. I alternated between these two lenses.

8 Mar 2008 ... For my information gathering I have two lenses. ... If you were to draw these circles as a social networking graph, you would get what in ...
http://my-own.net/freejob

well for you the 55-250, since you are portriat and concert you have the up close and the zoom... perfect

the other one is more wider and not that good of a zoom compared to the other one

the 28-200 is a little better for low light condition ,but not that buch

final verdict: 55-250

Neither one is an example of Canon's "better" lenses, but you already know that by the low price.

Given a choice between the two, for your stated purpose I would get the 55-250 IS lens. The other lens is only 1/3 of a stop faster at best and the "IS" should be able to shoot in at least 2 EV lower light, making it just as useful as a f/2.0-2.8 lens. This beats the f/3.5-5.6 by a long shot. You will need that extra capability in concerts. You'd want to have the "IS" there anyhow, ebcause it's not likely that you will have a tripod with you.

If you want more info, go to http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon... and see "Recommendations" on this page. Choose various headings for reviews related to your interests.

If your rich uncle leaves you a bucket full of money, look at the Canon-EF 70-200mm-f-2.8 L IS USM lens: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie... If you are really serious about a career, this lens would be such a tremendous advantage over either of the ones you mentioned that it might be worth the 5-600% difference in price. ($1,800-ish)

if i were in your shoes, i'll not use either! i'd rather go for lenses with f 2.8 aperture. but they are expensive
28-70 mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8

As long as you are keeping the kit lens, go for the 55-250. It will cover concerts and portraits. For street photography and candid momemts you are going to need something a little wider. The kit lens isn't great but you'll need to make use of it for a while longer. Sorry, but no one has made one lens that can do everthing really well (Tamron and Sigma have gotten closer at the consumer level than Canon though).

I agree than Canon makes some great low light L lenses, but they are quite a jump in price.

Neither.

You'll need something faster, in the f/2.8 range for low light.