L glass on a 450d...worth it??

AndyWest

AndyWest

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,400
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Long story short, Cant find decent enough compact so have bought a 450 as it's such a nice camera to hold and it's light etc.

Anyhoo

Is the 450 worth having L glass attached? Is the sensor good enough to use the quality of the glass or would it be better to go for something like Canon 17-55 f2.8 is USM? I'm looking at the 24-105 IS f4 L glass but not sure f4 will be good enough unless i can up the ISO which i don't like doing much :(

I want a lens that will live on my camera. I would rather buy 1 decent lens than have 3 'OK' lenses.

Any other suggestions for gen purpose lens for about £700 welcome.

Thanks
 
AndyWest said:
Long story short, Cant find decent enough compact so have bought a 450 as it's such a nice camera to hold and it's light etc.

Anyhoo

Is the 450 worth having L glass attached? Is the sensor good enough to use the quality of the glass or would it be better to go for something like Canon 17-55 f2.8 is USM? I'm looking at the 24-105 IS f4 L glass but not sure f4 will be good enough unless i can up the ISO which i don't like doing much :(

I want a lens that will live on my camera. I would rather buy 1 decent lens than have 3 'OK' lenses.

Any other suggestions for gen purpose lens for about £700 welcome. Must have IS!

Thanks
Click to expand...

The 17-55mm EF-S isn't that far off being a L series lens. As you mentioned, its a walkaround lens, so what importance do you put on having wideangle as the 17-55mm will give you this option, the 24-105mm won't. The reason, well because you camera has a small sensor, you'll lose the wideangle aspect of the 24-105mm because of the angle to the sensor due to the sensor.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Both lenses are very good.
 
If you don't mind losing a few mm at the wide end then I think the 24-105 offers a great range as a walkaround for the 450D.

I do keep toying with the idea of selling mine to replace it with the new Tammy 17-50 VR and have some cash, but that's a financial decision rather than being unhappy with my 24-105.

If you think you will need a greater aperture than f/4 then consider the Tamron 17-50 VR/Canon 17-55 IS.
For £700 you could have the Tamron VR and money spare for another lens/accessory?
 
YES.

And I don't even shoot with Canon. The bodies make the headlines, the glass makes the pictures! You will always get a better picture with the quality in the glass rather than the body.
 
Don't know what the 450d is like, but the 400d ain't particularly hot above 400 ISO. Perhaps you need to take some test shots now (assume you have the kit lens at least) to see whether you will need the 2.8, I suspect you might if it is for all purpose.
I just about get away with the 28-135 as a walkabout lens, but it does get a bit difficult for wide-angle/group shots on the crop sensor.
L glass does make a difference even on the 400d
 
jnO said:
If you don't mind losing a few mm at the wide end then I think the 24-105 offers a great range as a walkaround for the 450D.

I do keep toying with the idea of selling mine to replace it with the new Tammy 17-50 VR and have some cash, but that's a financial decision rather than being unhappy with my 24-105.

If you think you will need a greater aperture than f/4 then consider the Tamron 17-50 VR/Canon 17-55 IS.
For £700 you could have the Tamron VR and money spare for another lens/accessory?
Click to expand...

I'm using the 24-105L on my 450D and it's on there most of the time as a walkabout lens. I'd certainly recommend it.
 
moaten said:
I'm using the 24-105L on my 450D and it's on there most of the time as a walkabout lens. I'd certainly recommend it.
Click to expand...

My thinking was partnering the 24-105 with a 10-22 as a walkaround kit. I am yet to get the money for the 10-22 though :(
 
Thanks for the replies.

I have been playing with the 18-55mm kit lens and i do like the wide end a lot. I like landscape so i think i had better look for something that end. I like the look of the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS, cracking high quality images!
 
I have the 24-104, you will love it. Previously had the 24-70, the extra 35mm makes a massive difference but as stated you do lose the wide angle with a crop factor. I also have a Sigma 10-20, you will have loads of fun with this lens but make sure you up the f number as it can get soft at the edges.
 
A combination of the 24-105L and 10-22 would be ideal. If you feel that the 10-22 will not get much use-as I indeed find-then a cheaper alternative is the Sigma 10-20 not quite as good at extremes but still very capable and almost half the price!!
 
The glass is what makes the picture...Been telling myself for ages, but still keep up grading the camera and keep the crappy glass! But yes, I had a D50 on my old Nikkor 600mm AIS ED - wow pin sharp. Always better to have good glass than latest body and cheapish lenses.
 
I've got the 400D so a very similar body - it's definitely worth L glass but make sure it's the right lengths... I've got an L 70-200mm which I love and use a lot but at the wide end there aren't any L lenses which give me what I want.


The 17-40 L if an f/4 which doesn't allow me a shallow enough DoF on a crop and the 24-70 L, while it's f/2.8, isn't wide enough for a walkabout lens for me (personal preference).
The 16-36mm L f2.8 seems to tick all the right boxes but it's just that bit too expensive...

... so I've decided that a 17-55 f2.8 IS gives me wide angle, just enough reach, a shallow DoF/fast aperture and the IS helps with low light. It may as well be an L lens except that it's not weatherproofed which I can live with.

I'm still waiting for reviews of the new Tamron VC version of this lens to see how it compares to the Canon.
 
Supposedly the 10-22 EF-S is L glass quality (not quite build), but couldn't be called so because of the -S
Pairing this with the 24-105 would be a good deal I reckon.
There is the equivalent Sigma lens to the 10-22, but I would reccomend buying this in person after having checked it, as there have been lots of threads of mis-alignment.
 
AndyWest said:
Thanks for the replies.

I have been playing with the 18-55mm kit lens and i do like the wide end a lot. I like landscape so i think i had better look for something that end. I like the look of the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS, cracking high quality images!
Click to expand...

Another option to consider is the new Canon 15-85IS, though you lose the wide aperture the wider angle should prove more useful for landscapes. I used a 24-105L on my 350D and though it made the body feel small it was a good walk around lens. Range is roughly the same as most 4x zoom compacts.
 
imagine said:
Another option to consider is the new Canon 15-85IS, though you lose the wide aperture the wider angle should prove more useful for landscapes. I used a 24-105L on my 350D and though it made the body feel small it was a good walk around lens. Range is roughly the same as most 4x zoom compacts.
Click to expand...
oooh yeah! I forgot about that one! There should be some pic examples by now! I'll go look.

Example pix here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=760140

Not sure about the f3.5-f5.6 ? Would prefer something a bit faster but the examples are good.

Warehouse Express £649.00 eeek!
 
heard bad things about Camerabox and cloned cards... search it here :|
 
I would put it between the 17-55 IS (which is as close to L as an EF-S lens gets)

and a 40d with a tamron 17-50 f2.8 on it

the lens definitely does make more of a difference than the body but thats generally said for the higher end bodies, for what I do the combination of f2.8 and exellent iso performance is what I need, you may also like your camera more because of the feel as well as the improved functionality
 
L glass on the 450D will be fine; although it will no longer be lightweight and compact :p

Personally I'd go for the 17-55 though - far more appropriate zoom range for a crop body than either of the 24-x varients and certainly on a par optically.
 
recrudesce said:
heard bad things about Camerabox and cloned cards... search it here :|
Click to expand...


I've had great customer service with camerabox;


1) My Canon S3 was 5 mths out of warrantee when it developed a grinding zoom. Sent it back, explained it was out of warrantee, and they fixed for nothing!

2) When I had a D40X, I bought a Tamron 70-300 motorised one, but it was always slow and often wouldn't focus. Got three lenses from them, all were the same so just sent them back and cancelled the purchase, thinking they had a faulty batch. Few days later, went into my camera shop and they were the same. Just a fairly rubbishy lens.

3) Camerabox always seem very good prices, esp considering the extra yr warrantee.

Just my opinion, but I think they're great. ;)
 
lawrenceots said:
I've had great customer service with camerabox;


1) My Canon S3 was 5 mths out of warrantee when it developed a grinding zoom. Sent it back, explained it was out of warrantee, and they fixed for nothing!

2) When I had a D40X, I bought a Tamron 70-300 motorised one, but it was always slow and often wouldn't focus. Got three lenses from them, all were the same so just sent them back and cancelled the purchase, thinking they had a faulty batch. Few days later, went into my camera shop and they were the same. Just a fairly rubbishy lens.

3) Camerabox always seem very good prices, esp considering the extra yr warrantee.

Just my opinion, but I think they're great. ;)
Click to expand...
I have used them before and have had no problems!
 
Well it looks like the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 is in the lead!
 
As i said before in a previous post, get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.It is TACK SHARP!! If you like i can show you a couple of images just to see how good it is.It will break my heart the day i have to let it go...
 
he he, it's ok i have seen plenty and i think it's deff the one to go for. If the 24-105 was f2.8 then i would have gone for that but then again i would miss the wide end! so the 17-55 is the one!

Just need to wait for a refund and i'll get ordering!
 
Paul Philpott said:
A combination of the 24-105L and 10-22 would be ideal. If you feel that the 10-22 will not get much use-as I indeed find-then a cheaper alternative is the Sigma 10-20 not quite as good at extremes but still very capable and almost half the price!!
Click to expand...
Not if you buy at Onestop-digital! You can get the Canon 10-22 there for £489, and I believe Kerso has it for £515. If you buy the Sigma from a shop here, given the reported quality issues, it is around £400, so maybe not that great a difference. I believe the Sigma is around £325 with Onestop, but it would be more of a hassle to return if you had a bad one.
 
I have been reading up on the 17-55mm and it does seem very impressive:

Quote from The Digital Picture.com
"Canon already had a superset of the 17-55mm focal length range covered with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. This lens has a higher build quality, image quality and feature set than the EF-S 18-55 - adding Ring USM and 3 stop image stabilization to the feature set. What the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens adds to the 17-85's feature set is a fixed f/2.8 aperture and L-Series grade UD (Ultra-Low Dispersion glass) lens elements. Of course, price, size, weight and a reduced focal length range are the downsides of the 17-55 compared to the 17-85."
 
AndyWest said:
I have been reading up on the 17-55mm and st does seem very impressive:

Quote from The Digital Picture.com
"Canon already had a superset of the 17-55mm focal length range covered with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. This lens has a higher build quality, image quality and feature set than the EF-S 18-55 - adding Ring USM and 3 stop image stabilization to the feature set. What the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens adds to the 17-85's feature set is a fixed f/2.8 aperture and L-Series grade UD (Ultra-Low Dispersion glass) lens elements. Of course, price, size, weight and a reduced focal length range are the downsides of the 17-55 compared to the 17-85."
Click to expand...

I am still wondering whether it's going to be anywhere near £200 better than the Tamron 17-50 VC though. If I were you I would be tempted to wait until that gets some reviews.
 
jnO said:
I am still wondering whether it's going to be anywhere near £200 better than the Tamron 17-50 VC though. If I were you I would be tempted to wait until that gets some reviews.
Click to expand...

I had seen many many example images of the non VC version and decided it was as close to 'L' glass as i could get but when i bought one i was a little disappointed. It was reasonably sharp but not as sharp as i had hoped. It was a good copy but jsut not good enough but for the price i could not complain at all. The 17-55 is pin sharp from 17mm through to 55mm all at f2.8. I couldn't ask for more........well maybe another 30mm focal length perhaps!

J.B.PHOTOGRAPHY said:
i have the 17-55mm and the 450d and it is great u have made a wise choice my friend :)
Click to expand...
Have you any image examples i could look at? I'm still looking at the Canon 24-105mm f4 L but not sure if i would miss the 17mm [ i think i would!] and the f4 is a concern.

I wish there was a lens that was 17-100ish mm f2.8 with L glass for about 700-800 quid.
 
What about the new 15-85 (canons efs equivelant to the 24-105), thats a very usefull range, early reports and examples show the glass to be very good. Not as fast as your hoping for, but has 4 stop IS :)
 
oRGie said:
What about the new 15-85 (canons efs equivelant to the 24-105), thats a very usefull range, early reports and examples show the glass to be very good. Not as fast as your hoping for, but has 4 stop IS :)
Click to expand...

I have had a look at some image examples and it is good but as you say it's not fast. The focal range is excellent though but it's all down to IQ and the 17-55 has it in spades. I will have another look at the 15-85 and see if there are any better images. It's also quite expensive too at £650ish :gag:
 
I'm in the process of trying to decide on a next lens, I really dont want to get anotehr ef-s as I would like to have a FF body one day, but the focul range on this is a dream really, but I agree expensive right now, but I figure that will drop in a few weeks. As said in other forums, shame canon didnt make this a 2.8 but then it would be bigger, more expensive etc.. Anyway, lovely example shot of a leaf on this thread at fredmiranda http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/809809/5
 
Well i have extensively compared Canons 17-40mm f4L, 24-105 f4 IS L and the 17-55 IS USM and the clear winner is the 17-55mm IS USM for image quality. I wish it had slightly longer reach but there is no perfect lens out there made by anyone for me at what i can afford so the 17-55mm is going to be purchased as soon as my refund gets paid up. Kerso seems to be the cheapest too!! Bonus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top