Lens Options needed

  • Thread starter Thread starter whiteflyer
  • Start date Start date
W

whiteflyer

Guest
I am looking to buy a new lens for my up-coming birthday and can not decide what to get. Your thoughts on the following would be gratefully recevied.

I have a Canon 30D which as you know is a 1.6 crop sensor.

For the same money I can get either a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens or Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

Both have IS and USM :) but do I want the wide angle and extra stop of the 2.8 or the reach and build of the 105 L

Then again should I splash out and little more for a EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM and get a bit of both ( 2.8 at 70mm) :thinking: :thinking: :thinking: :thinking:
 
Looking at your kit list Joe is right - a straight replacement of the kit lens (not as bad as some say but definately has its deficiencies). Or if you're thinking along the 24-70 line then save yourself some pennies and get the Sigma version instead of the Canon and get yourself a head start on saving up for your next purchase! ;)
 
OK I'm just about to press the button on 2 lenses, and before I spend over a grand, I want to know if I'm making a huge mistake or missing something.

I'm about to order a 17-55 f2.8 IS and a 70-200 f4 L IS.

That 15 mm gap wont matter will it :thinking: and f4 is plenty fast enough for outside work :thinking:
 
A 15mm gap is nothing to worry about at all. I can't see you going wrong with any of those lens choices. The only thing I'd say is avoid EF-S lenses if you think it's possible you may upgrade to a 1 Series body or a 5D in the future as they wont fit.
 
CT said:
The only thing I'd say is avoid EF-S lenses if you think it's possible you may upgrade to a 1 Series body or a 5D in the future as they wont fit.
Click to expand...

Although a lot of people say that, I totally disagree. You can always sell the lens later if you do upgrade and no longer need it, but you cannot get back those opportunities you missed out on because you never bought it.

Michael.
 
Yes, but there are other, non-EF-S versions out there that would be a wiser choice if a future upgrade was that likely. Most people know in their own minds I think whether in fact they could ever begin to justify a 1-series or 5D purchase. If you KNOW that your future lies in the 1.6x crop bodies then no problem.
 
Witch said:
Yes, but there are other, non-EF-S versions out there that would be a wiser choice if a future upgrade was that likely.
Click to expand...

What alternative is there to the 17-55? Sigma and Tamron both have lenses covering roughly the same focal range, but both are also designed for digital bodies only, and neither of them have IS or USM/HSM.

Admittedly maybe a bit of a stereotype, but generally the sort of person that is likely to buy a full frame body because of the improved quality it offers would be more likely to want to replace third party lenses with Canon L ones for the same reason.

Canon's only EF option for a fast wide angle zoom would be the more expensive 16-35 which also does not have IS and loses a lot at the long end.

If you start worrying about future upgrades you would never buy anything. And who knows whether some technological advance will see Canon come up with a new standard making EF lenses as obsolete as FD ones?

Michael.
 
Yeah - i said that too :(

I'd recomment the 24-105 to partner the 70-200. Read the luminous landscape comparison of the 24-105 against the 24-70. Sorry, know nothing about the 17-55, but would avoid due S mount and non-L build (not our of any L snobbery, but if you're considering the other 3 L's you'll notice a huge difference in BQ)
 
I must admit I don't see the logic in buying a lens *now* based on the camera you *may* have in X years time.

Eg, buying a 24-105 lens for an APS-C camera over a 17-xx is going to leave the user with no wide angle option since it's the equivalent FOV of 38mm on a full frame camera and has 35mm of overlap at the long end when paired with a 70-200.

EF-S lenses are designed specifically for APS-C cameras. This is why lenses like the 10-22, 17-55 and 60 macro all produce such fantastic results, as good as or even better than EF mount L lenses. And why shouldn't they? The glass elements on EF lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind which makes the process of producing high quality optics more difficult and expensive.

I own a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and 17-55 f/2.8 IS and despite the fact one is made of metal and the other from polycarbonate they don't feel any different really. I notice the difference in weight far more. It's strange that some people complain about the build quality of the EF-S lenses like the 17-55 and 10-22 and yet I don't recall seeing any posts from people stating lenses like the 100 f/2.8 macro feel cheap. Can anyone tell me what they think the benefits of a metal lens body over a polycarbonate one are? Or what's a realistic premium to pay for a lens that's weather sealed when being used on a non-weather sealed camera?

IMO you should buy the lens you need to shoot the things you enjoy *today*. Worry about what lens you'll need/use when you go full frame when and if the day ever comes.

Just as an after thought, I wonder how many people buy 17-40 L's because they give an equivalent FF FOV of 28mm on a crop sensor and proudly state it'll work on a FF camera so they won't have to sell it should they ever upgrade. Then when they slap it on a 5D they suddenly find it's like looking through a 10-22 on a crop sensor and too wide for their needs? I don't see that being any different than buying an EF-S mount lens today and selling it along with the camera when/if you upgrade.

I think the OP has made the right choice with his lenses. Better a 15mm gap in the middle than losing 7mm at the wide end and the 17-55 will comfortably match either of the 24-xx L lenses for sharpness.
 
Chris L said:
I must admit I don't see the logic in buying a lens *now* based on the camera you *may* have in X years time.

Eg, buying a 24-105 lens for an APS-C camera over a 17-xx is going to leave the user with no wide angle option since it's the equivalent FOV of 38mm on a full frame camera and has 35mm of overlap at the long end when paired with a 70-200.

EF-S lenses are designed specifically for APS-C cameras. This is why lenses like the 10-22, 17-55 and 60 macro all produce such fantastic results, as good as or even better than EF mount L lenses. And why shouldn't they? The glass elements on EF lenses are designed with a larger sensor in mind which makes the process of producing high quality optics more difficult and expensive.

I own a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and 17-55 f/2.8 IS and despite the fact one is made of metal and the other from polycarbonate they don't feel any different really. I notice the difference in weight far more. It's strange that some people complain about the build quality of the EF-S lenses like the 17-55 and 10-22 and yet I don't recall seeing any posts from people stating lenses like the 100 f/2.8 macro feel cheap. Can anyone tell me what they think the benefits of a metal lens body over a polycarbonate one are? Or what's a realistic premium to pay for a lens that's weather sealed when being used on a non-weather sealed camera?

IMO you should buy the lens you need to shoot the things you enjoy *today*. Worry about what lens you'll need/use when you go full frame when and if the day ever comes.

Just as an after thought, I wonder how many people buy 17-40 L's because they give an equivalent FF FOV of 28mm on a crop sensor and proudly state it'll work on a FF camera so they won't have to sell it should they ever upgrade. Then when they slap it on a 5D they suddenly find it's like looking through a 10-22 on a crop sensor and too wide for their needs? I don't see that being any different than buying an EF-S mount lens today and selling it along with the camera when/if you upgrade.

I think the OP has made the right choice with his lenses. Better a 15mm gap in the middle than losing 7mm at the wide end and the 17-55 will comfortably match either of the 24-xx L lenses for sharpness.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but speaking from experience, its damned expenive to KEEP upgrading lenses - best to buy future proof the first time round.
 
Jonnyreb said:
Fair point, but speaking from experience, its damned expenive to KEEP upgrading lenses - best to buy future proof the first time round.
Click to expand...


True, though you'd actually only be upgrading once and it's likely that you'd only have to upgrade the wide angle(s), as there's no EF-S mount telephotos available and the 70-200 range are all extremely sharp already.

As such I doubt many people would see much advantage (other than less weight for an f/2.8 IS version) in going for an EF-S mount telephoto to compliment the 17-55 as they'd be losing maybe 50mm on the long end if Sigma's, Tokina's and Tamron's 50-150mm tele's are any indication of the crop sensored versions focal range.

As for the 60 f/2.8, I freely admit that I'm probably weird for prefering it over the 100 and accept that I'll have to pay extra to get it's FF equivalent if I did upgrade:D
 
Chris L said:
True, though you'd actually only be upgrading once and it's likely that you'd only have to upgrade the wide angle(s), as there's no EF-S mount telephotos available and the 70-200 range are all extremely sharp already.

As such I doubt many people would see much advantage (other than less weight for an f/2.8 IS version) in going for an EF-S mount telephoto to compliment the 17-55 as they'd be losing maybe 50mm on the long end if Sigma's, Tokina's and Tamron's 50-150mm tele's are any indication of the crop sensored versions focal range.

As for the 60 f/2.8, I freely admit that I'm probably weird for prefering it over the 100 and accept that I'll have to pay extra to get it's FF equivalent if I did upgrade:D
Click to expand...

The 60mm is a lovely lens and one i'd have loved to have kept - no advantage I can see to the 100mm except the obvious in mount. I wish i caould afford the luxury of the 180mm!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top