Best "walkabout" lens (canon)

[fly my pretties]

No it's not - it's about not being so arrogant as to assume that what I need from a camera is what everyone needs. So I shoot wildlife and like the accuity and FOV that a 500mm gives me but sometimes I like to shoot closer stuff. I don't want a 24-70mm because it's not wide enough but I don't fancy carrying an UWA as well, so I'll have that 17-55. I'm serious about my photography so want the best I can get. For Canon and Nikon that's the 17-55mm lenses from each maker. Can you really not see how narrow-minded you're being here?

And that top of the line camera for Canon owners who shoot sports or need speed ain't a FF. Nikon's is, but gives both a 1.5x crop and a 5x4 crop option.

Now, any chance you can stop confusing your opinion with fact? It's getting pretty tedious now. And my apologies to the OP for helping to derail thread. I think my position is clear.

Back to the advice for the OP.

Yeah, I'm being narrow minded and arrogant... Because I don't share your point of view.

Narrow minded because I think £800 for a lens that only works on one kind of camera represents a poor financial decision.

Hur.

 

[Radiohead]

Oh the irony. Narrow minded because you state that is right for must also be so for others. Is that really so hard to see. Honestly?

Making the claims and statements you did just invited a response. If not from me then from someone else.

Nowhere have I said crop is the way for all and that I am right. Nowhere. The same can't be said for you regarding FF.

Now I really am done in this thread. Off to bed.

 

[HoppyUK]

There is a widely held belief on these forums that if you are using a crop sensor camera, you are somehow using inferior equipment and are obviously only doing so until you can afford full frame. And it's utter b*ll*cks.

True.

Moving to full frame isn't always an upgrade and nor is it an inevitability for 'serious' photographers. Many people choose to stay with the benefits of a cropped sensor and consider full frame to be a step in the wrong direction.

Again, also true.

I never said people shooting crop are less serious than those shooting FF, I didn't even insinuate that. What I said was that anyone who is serious about photography, is, at some point, going to want to switch to full frame.

Someone can be just as serious about photography and shoot with a crop camera, but at some point, they will be in the boat to switch to FF. Barring exceptions, I'm afraid that is quite simply the rule.

Not true in my case. Not true for milions of others.

True for ex-film users where the the old adage 'bigger is better' is absolutely true. Digital changes that.

True for equipment snobs.

True for those that haven't thought about it objectively.

Here is how it is:

It is MY firm belief that the majority of people on this forum who own a crop camera, would invariably LIKE to own the top of the line camera in their range. Invariably still, this top of the line camera is likely, nay, definitely, going to be a full frame camera.

That was arguably true before Nikon released the D300 (some time ago now) and now the Canon 7D has absolutely nailed that as history.

You do like to bang on about dust don't you. Show me a shot where it's a problem on the 17-55. I've used plenty of 'dusty lenses' and not one has shown up in the real world.

Dust is actually very easy to clean yourself from inside the front element of the EF-S 17-55mm. It takes about ten minutes - remove front bezel, undo three screws, remove element, clean and replace. I believe Canon made it this way for easy cleaning, which is inevitable with any lens which extends on zooming and which has to suck in air. I would post a link to a shot tutorial on it but pbase is down at the moment.

As for the 'upgrade' to full frame, earlier this year I was fully prepared to change my Canon EF-S based system for full frame, probably based around a Nikon D700, regardless of expense.

But ultimately, I didn't really need the extra quality and certainly wasn't prepared to put up with the other compromises and inconveniences of full frame, for the odd occasion when I needed it. This was a money-no-object decision. I also believed that crop fromat cameras would continue to improve and close the gap on full frame on all fronts - the new Canon 7D has vindicated that decision. The appeal of full frame continues to narrow, and crop format beats it comprehensively in some areas.

 

[mstphoto]

I've always wondered why theres never been an EFs "L" lens produced. Afterall the majority of DSLR owners use crop sensor cameras.

 

[fly my pretties]

But ultimately, I didn't really need the extra quality and certainly wasn't prepared to put up with the other compromises and inconveniences of full frame, for the odd occasion when I needed it. This was a money-no-object decision. I also believed that crop fromat cameras would continue to improve and close the gap on full frame on all fronts - the new Canon 7D has vindicated that decision. The appeal of full frame continues to narrow, and crop format beats it comprehensively in some areas.

Of course it was a money no object decision, which is why you were going for one of the cheapest full frame cameras on the market.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I've always wondered why theres never been an EFs "L" lens produced. Afterall the majority of DSLR owners use crop sensor cameras.

For marketing reasons? FF are more expensive (well it was until 7D with the ridiculous price tag) so it makes sense to makes sense to market the corresponding lenses and make people switch.

17-55 optically is like an L, and 10-22 is the best Canon ultra wideangle, but the build quality is really lower. I really can't stop thinking why Tamron 17-50mm costs half the price and delivers the same great results (note: I tested it thoroughly and I know how well it compares). The most likely answer is to rip off the customers and shift more boxes of the mediocre 17-85 IS and 18-200mm and all the latest additions.

It seems everyone is missing the point about FF. DOF is different with the two cameras, i.e. same scene shot with 50mm f/2.8 on FF would require and equivalent of 35mm f/1.4L lens on crop. Now that really makes me sad. Long lenses are another story, but one could also crop to get the same shot, and shallower DOF really makes the shot sometimes. Medium format is even better if one can afford it. That is the exact reason why people switch from compacts to dSLRs.

 

[Raymond Lin]

narh, the 10-22 is not Canon's best ultra wide, that equates to 16mm. Canon's best ultra wide zoom is the 16-35 MKii 2.8. Which is a stop faster than the 10-22. Canon's BEST ultra wide is the 14mm 2.8.

As for the Tamron 17-50, it is good, i had one. Only because i can't afford the 17-55 2.8 IS. The Tamron is sharp, but i would still get the Canon if i can afford it, it focus faster, and it has better flare control and has IS. As for the 17-85...yuk...

I agree with the DOF on FF is different, and comes with it, a more pleasing image.

 

[HoppyUK]

I've always wondered why theres never been an EFs "L" lens produced. Afterall the majority of DSLR owners use crop sensor cameras.

This is my take on it. L lenses are premium grade, but not just in terms of optics. They are built to a very high standard, and uncompromising design. The 70-200 L lenses for example, are bigger than they perhaps need to be because they do not extend on zooming, unlike the EF 70-300 4-5.6 IS, which is very sharp but much smaller/lighter/cheaper. The L design is necessary for weather proofing, and for more robust construction. Most L lenses do not extend when zooming or focusing whereas most EF-S lenses do.

To make the EF-S 17-55 2.8 L grade in terms of build would mean a redesign and a very substantial increase in cost and weight. EF-S lenses are intended primarily to be cheaper, smaller and lighter, while delivering high optical performance. EF-S lenses like the 17-55 2.8, 10-22, 60 2.8 macro are at least as sharp as any equivalent L.

I don't see any fundamental reason why there should not be any EF-S lenses built to L grade, but they would be expensive, which is not where crop format is mainly targeted. I think it's a marketing decision. But marketing philosophies are a moveable feast and I think the 7D represents quite a significant marketing shift for Canon in acknowledging crop format as pro spec. They even called it the 7D in line with their pro spec line, and not 60D which most people expected. So things change. If it goes well, and early signs are that it is not only the camera a lot of keen amateur enthusiasts are wanting, but many pro also, this might change Canon's thinking. But on the other hand, EF-S lenses are only of benefit at short focal lengths - there is nothing to be gained in producing EF-S lenses longer than about 60mm, so the question doesn't arise.

All IMHO of course

 

[Raymond Lin]

. But on the other hand, EF-S lenses are only of benefit at short focal lengths - there is nothing to be gained in producing EF-S lenses longer than about 60mm, so the question doesn't arise.

I know this is true but i have never thought of this ! lol

The only reason EF-S lenses are needed us because 24mm is not wide enough, and no one really can afford a 16-35L or a 17-40L as a kit lens. So, a 18-50mm is needed, and a new line of lenses are needed. Which means EF-S lens line up are always going to be limited in its focal length.

 

[HoppyUK]

Of course it was a money no object decision, which is why you were going for one of the cheapest full frame cameras on the market.

That is arrogant to the point of rudeness.

I wanted a D700 in preference to the D3. The D3 is much bigger and heavier, the two things I dislike most about some full frame cameras, and it deosn't include an on-board flash which is handy for fill-in and also as a master controller in multi-flash set ups.

The extra frame speed of the D3 is nice, but you can match that with the addition of a battery pack on the D700 for the odd occasions as and when, and I would have included one of those.

For me, the D700 is the better camera. It is not a question of money. Relative to the overall cost of changing everything from Canon to Nikon, the extra cost of a D3 is frankly neither here nor there.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Most L lenses do not extend when zooming or focusing whereas most EF-S lenses do.

24-105mm extends like a cheap zoom, and 28-300mm could be called a pump.

EF-S lenses are intended primarily to be cheaper, smaller and lighter, while delivering high optical performance. EF-S lenses like the 17-55 2.8

I don't think 17-55 is cheaper than 24-105mm f/4 (similar DOF and ISO profiles on FF), probably closer to 24-70mm in price but without weathersealing.

EF-S lenses are only of benefit at short focal lengths - there is nothing to be gained in producing EF-S lenses longer than about 60mm, so the question doesn't arise.

I really don't agree with this. EF-S 400mm f/5.6 would be far smaller and really affordable, 500mm f/4 would maybe become handholdable, and 300mm f/2.8 would get cheaper. That would go well with 7D, wouldn't it? 50-135mm f/2 zoom would have its place for weddings. Pentax is doing it, why Canon can't is big question. Maybe crop is not that important after all and 7D is just another marketing exercise.

 

[HoppyUK]

It seems everyone is missing the point about FF. DOF is different with the two cameras, i.e. same scene shot with 50mm f/2.8 on FF would require and equivalent of 35mm f/1.4L lens on crop. Now that really makes me sad. Long lenses are another story, but one could also crop to get the same shot, and shallower DOF really makes the shot sometimes. Medium format is even better if one can afford it. That is the exact reason why people switch from compacts to dSLRs.

Good point, yes, depth of field is different with crop format. The difference is equal to the crop factor, ie 1.6x with Canon vs full frame, so your comparison with a 50mm f/2.8 lens on full frame isn't quite right - the equivalent on a Canon would be 31mm f/1.8 (1.3 stops) so the difference is not as large as you're suggesting.

But is shallow depth of field really a reason to go full frame? How shallow do you need to go? You can still fit fast primes on crop cameras if shallow DoF is your thing. Personally, I tend to want more DoF than less and hardly ever use f/2.8 let alone lower, but I concede the advantage

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Good point, yes, depth of field is different with crop format. The difference is equal to the crop factor, ie 1.6x with Canon vs full frame, so your comparison with a 50mm f/2.8 lens on full frame isn't quite right - the equivalent on a Canon would be 31mm f/1.8 (1.3 stops) so the difference is not as large as you're suggesting.

But is shallow depth of field really a reason to go full frame? How shallow do you need to go? You can still fit fast primes on crop cameras if shallow DoF is your thing. Personally, I tend to want more DoF than less and hardly ever use f/2.8 let alone lower, but I concede the advantage

I am sure your maths is OK, I just wanted to stress which lens would be needed to get the closest DOF (or the same shutter speed at the highest acceptable ISO). There is 35mm f/2 lens, but it doesn't get the best reviews.

For landscapes shallow DOF doesn't matter, but for portraits, macro and wildlife it is important.

I don't really want / can't afford to get primes, hence I'd love to get DOF by using my 24-70 f/2.8 zoom, and the cheapo 70-200 f/4 longer zoom.

Just another thought: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.0 L IS USM at the current price would make much sense!

 

[DigitalRelish]

Of course it was a money no object decision, which is why you were going for one of the cheapest full frame cameras on the market.

Just because something's bigger, more expensive, faster, or has more features doesn't mean these are good reasons for buying kit unless there are specific needs being fulfilled.

There are plenty of people whose needs are better fulfilled with cropped cameras and I'm not just referring to those who need longer reach. For example, weight is a very important consideration for many. Almost every female photographer I've spoken to prefers the lighter cropped cameras coupled with lighter lenses. Something like a D3X would simply be unusable for them.

With a few cheaper full frame offerings available it could be said that the D700 is one of the more expensive full frame cameras on the market.

I recently sold off all of my Canon kit (5D plus several L lenses) to buy a Nikon D700 because it was better for my requirements than both the 5DMKII and D3 which were possible options. Despite both camera bodies costing more than the D700, they weren't my preferred choice. The 5DMKII would have meant not having to switch systems which in terms of overall cost would have actually been the cheapest option.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I think having the option to go shallower is something I personally like. It doesn't mean I would use it on every pic, but it is nice to have that option, when i need it.

 

[DigitalRelish]

There is 35mm f/2 lens, but it doesn't get the best reviews.

you could always read different reviews The EF 35mm f/2 was one of my favourite lenses on the 5D. The results I can get with a lens matter more to me that what any review says about it. They are the means to an end.

For landscapes shallow DOF doesn't matter, but for portraits, macro and wildlife it is important.

Surely, you should be qualifying such a statement with the fact that it's your opinion and not necessarily true for everyone?

 

[HoppyUK]

I really don't agree with this. EF-S 400mm f/5.6 would be far smaller and really affordable, 500mm f/4 would maybe become handholdable, and 300mm f/2.8 would get cheaper. That would go well with 7D, wouldn't it? 50-135mm f/2 zoom would have its place for weddings. Pentax is doing it, why Canon can't is big question. Maybe crop is not that important after all and 7D is just another marketing exercise.

But long focal length EF-S lenses would not be smaller or more affordable than EF. The problem is covering the larger image circle but that difficulty virtually evaporates with longer focal lengths. Neither Nikon nor Canon bothers to make format-specific long lenses as it's simply not worth it.

Just another thought: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.0 L IS USM at the current price would make much sense!

It's a nice idea, but it would be huge, heavy, very expensive, have poor edge sharpness at f/2 and lots of vignetting.

Low f/numbers are the lens designer's biggest problem. As f/number goes down, so too does zoom range. In practise, f/2.8 seems to be the limit for zooms if we are to get an affordable lens that performs well and isn't the size of a bucket. If you want lower, it's primes only.

There are some f/2 zooms for the 4/3rds format but they only get away with it because the 4/3rds sensor is quite a lot smaller than APS-C, so they don't have to worry so much about edge sharpness. Even then they are big, expensive things.

 

[Radiohead]

That is the exact reason why people switch from compacts to dSLRs.

The reason people move to an SLR from a compact is DOF?

 

[HoppyUK]

The reason people move to an SLR from a compact is DOF?

LOL

Unlikely, especially since most people are unaware that format affects depth of field. Ask the sales guy in Jessops a) if DoF is different, and b) by how much. You'll get a) a blank stare, or b) some extraordinary theories.

If I had £1 for every time I have pointed out that crop format has more DoF than full frame... Maybe I could afford a proper camera, like FmP.

 

[fly my pretties]

That is arrogant to the point of rudeness.

I wanted a D700 in preference to the D3. The D3 is much bigger and heavier, the two things I dislike most about some full frame cameras, and it deosn't include an on-board flash which is handy for fill-in and also as a master controller in multi-flash set ups.

The extra frame speed of the D3 is nice, but you can match that with the addition of a battery pack on the D700 for the odd occasions as and when, and I would have included one of those.

For me, the D700 is the better camera. It is not a question of money. Relative to the overall cost of changing everything from Canon to Nikon, the extra cost of a D3 is frankly neither here nor there.

Wasn't meant as rude my friend, I assure you. Just a nod to the absuridty of this thread that has blown up because of my opinion regarding a consumer product.

I apologise if it came off that way.

 

[HoppyUK]

Wasn't meant as rude my friend, I assure you. Just a nod to the absuridty of this thread that has blown up because of my opinion regarding a consumer product.

I apologise if it came off that way.

^^^

 

[DizMatt]

As for the Tamron 17-50, it is good, i had one. Only because i can't afford the 17-55 2.8 IS. The Tamron is sharp, but i would still get the Canon if i can afford it, it focus faster, and it has better flare control and has IS. As for the 17-85...yuk...

I agree with the DOF on FF is different, and comes with it, a more pleasing image.

complete agree with Raymond from my point of view

someone mentioned full frame cameras....I would love a 1Ds or a 5Dii...also a D700 would be great or a D3x
but the size and the cost limit me. I will never be in a position to get the most out of these cameras as things stand. I take photos for myself and occasionally others. I only do a bit of paid work and although full frame, 3D multi focusing from nikon etc would be nice the cost is prohibitive, as will the price range of these cameras.
the cheaper cropped cameras seem to be always in my price range and reasonable for what I require. as for 2.8 IS glass..very helpful

the only think close would be much heavier 2.8 IS L glass, which again, is too much for my price range vs reward/justification

2.8 is very handy for the type of shots I do in low light

 

[fly my pretties]

^^^

Thanks man, sometimes I read my posts back and I see them come off as quite abrasive. I don't know why, because when I'm saying them in my head they aren't. I have a very dry sense of humour, and I don't think it translates well to written text.

I get a lot of email complaints about my blog posts as well.

Thanks for being understanding.

 

[Radiohead]

While we're having a group hug - apologies if I cam across as a knob last night. It won't be the last time I'm sure

 

[dod]

nice one guys

I think this thread, if nothing else, shows we are all different. We all have different opinions based on our own particular requirements.

My own perfect walkabout lens is a 70-200, often with a 1.4X convertor on it. Ideally I'd have it coupled with a 1.6 crop 1D MkIII (That Nikon looks more attractive by the day ) but as they don't make one I have to settle for a 1.3.