Lens upgrade considerations

F

Fraczish

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all!

I'm researching Canon lenses for my Daughter, her 21st birthday is on the horizon and she has just finished A level Photography course.
She currently has an entry level Canon DSLR (I'm not sure exactly which) and she has a twin pack of kit lenses.
She has expressed an interest in a new lens, initially talking of a 50mm 1.8. this seems logical as she is interested in portraiture.
With one eye on the future I know she would like to gain experience with weddings and such like.
I'm sure a new Body will come in the next couple of years if things get serious so I would like to ensure any lens would be compatible.
I guess it's difficult to pinpoint a specific lens untill you are set on what you want to shoot, but is there any recommendations to take it to the next level whilst still keeping options open? I've looked at the 24-70 f4 for example.
Would you guys recommend jumping straight into the "L" series stuff yet?
I'm sure there is alot I've not considered and very much appreciate any help or advice.

Many thanks in advance
 
The 50mm f1.8 is a comparatively cheap introduction to a fast prime lens. I don't know about the MkIII STM version, but the Mk II is cheap, plasticy, noisy, but good value. The 85mm is possibly better for portraits but at £ 360ish is over twice the price of the 50mm STM. They're both EF lenses so will be compatible with pro grade bodies.

L lenses are probably for the future.
 
Bear in mind putting a 50mm on a Canon crop sensor will give you 80mm, until she upgraded to a full frame body, so the 50mm 1.8G would be a good purchase at this point (first lens I bought when I had a crop sensor body).
 
What budget are you thinking? That's probably a good place to start /narrow options as the 50 1.8 is something like £100 and the 24-70 is f4 is about £800 new.

For portraits 24-70 may not be the best option, as she is probably interested in a wider aperture lens (i. E. Lower f number).

A prime lens as suggested may be a better option especially if she already has the general purpose kit lenses
 
My start in buying my own equipment was a 100d and the two 'kit' lenses that it came with.

I bought a 50mm f1.8 and it definitely helped the lower light shots in dimly lit restaurants at night, but on the 100d was not wide enough, so I bought a sigma 18-50 f2.8 which does the job.

I was on a job and borrowed the videographers 16-35 L ii f2.8 and it produced a huge jump in image quality, it really opened my eyes as to what a good bit of glass on an entry level body can do! I used most of the money from that job to buy a 24-70 L ii f2.8 and do not regret it a bit!

Since then have upgraded to a full frame and the sigma is no good as it is a for a crop sensor. It just sits on my backup camera doing nothing. My FF eos r can take it but crops to 11 mp and has the same range as the 24-70, so not worth using. With my 24-70 being so good I hardly use the 50mm.

My advice is to view the lenses as an investment and go for the best you can afford. Good glass is not cheap but looked after properly should last a life time, what is your budget?
 
Some excellent and really informative replies so far. Appreciate that.
So my budget is probably upto £500 I'd say. Should I consider a used lens?
Would I better buying a used higher quality lens or a new lesser quality one?
I think I will get her a 50mm regardless as it's a bit of a no brainer at the price.
I guess I like the thought of getting her something that offers an noticeable image quality upgrade whilst still offering some future proofing and a bit of range to cover a few different fields of photography.
 
A really good lens is probably worth 3 or 4 generations of camera body.

The 50mm f1.8 is good value. If you're going a lot of video, maybe the STM version is worth more than the Mk II version secondhand.

Pro grade lenses such as Canon's L range, Sigma's EX or ART models are lovely, but expensive. Good lenses hold their value well and you can get some good bargins on the secondhand market. mpb or Wex for example also give warranty.
 
Fraczish said:
Some excellent and really informative replies so far. Appreciate that.
So my budget is probably upto £500 I'd say. Should I consider a used lens?
Would I better buying a used higher quality lens or a new lesser quality one?
I think I will get her a 50mm regardless as it's a bit of a no brainer at the price.
I guess I like the thought of getting her something that offers an noticeable image quality upgrade whilst still offering some future proofing and a bit of range to cover a few different fields of photography.
Click to expand...

There are a shed load of top quality used lenses about.
It's probably best to buy one from a dealer. At least you get some kind of warranty with your purchase.
The best and most versatile lens in the canon line up (in my opinion) is the 24-105 f4 L, either mki or mkii.
It covers wide to short telephoto and produces really good images (given its much maligned as a kit lens)

Just my ten penneth.
 
Last edited:
Can’t go far wrong with a 24-70 for weddings. I dunno if you could get a 2.8 for 500 quid but could definitely get an f4. And pretty much all wedding photographers use flash so not having the extra aperture range shouldn’t be a concern as f4 will still get a decent separation. In fact most people I know that have the 2.8 never use it wide open anyway.
 
Petrochemist said:
And the FOV is why an 85mm is considered good for portraits, getting the photographer far enough back so that perspective is not unnatural...
50mm works very well for portraits on APSC.
Click to expand...
AOV/FOV we're saying the same thing.
 
soupdragon said:
There are a shed load of top quality used lenses about.
It's probably best to buy one from a dealer. At least you get some kind of warranty with your purchase.
The best and most versatile lens in the canon line up (in my opinion) is the 24-105 f4 L, either mki or mkii.
It covers wide to short telephoto and produces really good images (given it's much maligned as a kit lens)

Just my ten penneth.
Click to expand...

I concur!
Great lens, great value, and proper 'L' quality....despite its 'kit lens' status.
My mkI creeps a bit when pointing downwards though (and the OS is a tad noisy)... it's fairly old, but is still super sharp.
Mine was around £350 from Wex, and it's rarely off my camera.
Word of warning though....once you go 'L', nothing else will seem sharp again!
I bought the nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8 STM) a few months back - I wanted a fast prime for indoors - and I ended up returning it....it just wasn't as sharp as my 24-105 F/4.
 
I have a 50mm STM, its great, I have only had it a couple of days but it works well, seems very well built, not so wide but for portraits its brilliant. This guy explains it well.

 
soupdragon said:
AOV/FOV we're saying the same thing.
Click to expand...
I thought it was obvious enough that I was agreeing with you & expanding your comment. Did I really have to start the comment with something like '+1' (which I tend to reserve for opinions)?
 
stu.h said:
Bear in mind putting a 50mm on a Canon crop sensor will give you 80mm, until she upgraded to a full frame body, so the 50mm 1.8G would be a good purchase at this point (first lens I bought when I had a crop sensor body).
Click to expand...

I don't know why FF equivalence has to enter every single thread - I wonder when Medium Format folk will start hitting the FF threads with it? As it's becoming increasingly popular and much more affordable.

... but either way, it's a Canon she has, not Nikon so the 50mm 1.8G would be useless. For Canon it's the 50mm 1.8 STM, and a very good little lens it is. It works great on APSC, perfect for portraits.
 
Fraczish said:
I guess it's difficult to pinpoint a specific lens untill you are set on what you want to shoot, but is there any recommendations to take it to the next level whilst still keeping options open? I've looked at the 24-70 f4 for example.
Click to expand...
I would say any high quality fixed aperture zoom f/4 or faster is the only logical step at this point... f/2.8 would be preferable IMO, but the cost may not be justified at this point.
I'm not terribly familiar with Canon lenses, but I think the 24-105/4L recommendation sounds about ideal.
 
Thanks everyone for all the responses.
It looks like there is clear winner in the 24-105/4L. I've had a scoot about, some good used examples around 4/500 pounds.
Does anyone know the real world difference between the IS and IS II? The cost is certainly considerable
 
I've used a selection of L lenses (inc. 50mm 1.2) as well as the Sigma ART. On a 5d4 in good light, a couple of stops from fully open, I would challenge you to spot the 50mm STM F1.8 from the 1.2. Maybe the 50 Mp of the DSR will show more of a difference, but not the 5d4. The STM has pretty serious distortion, but it is easy to correct.

If your daughter is starting out, with a 500 quid budget, there could be a lot to be said for a 50mm STM - and the rest on a 35mm. If secondhand doesn't scare you there could be serious 35mm glass to be had. Some of the greatest ever photographers did all their best work on one lens

NB - F4 will put you at a disadvantage in many wedding scenarios indoors. I don't recall many wedding shooters I've seen with below F2.8. Even then, a crop camera will make you bump the ISO up (you don't really want the flash set at nuke level).
 
Last edited:
I don't know what camera she has but a 24-105mm f4 wouldn't be high on my wish list for an APS-C camera, if that's what she has. When I had Canon APS-C the zoom lens that impressed me the most was the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. For FF I personally would go for either a 35 or 50mm.

Hope she's happy with whatever she gets :D
 
PeteSnapz said:
Can’t go far wrong with a 24-70 for weddings. I dunno if you could get a 2.8 for 500 quid but could definitely get an f4. And pretty much all wedding photographers use flash so not having the extra aperture range shouldn’t be a concern as f4 will still get a decent separation. In fact most people I know that have the 2.8 never use it wide open anyway.
Click to expand...

The 24-105 was my "go to" lens for weddings.
Having to work fast, I could shoot for a head & shoulders shot, mid length then full length from roughly the same spot.
 
I've used a 24-105 as my main 'walkabout' lens on crop cameras and now FF for about 10 years now. They're quite under-rated. Thankfully noise handling and processing on newer bodies is much better now so you can use a higher ISO without it being too much of a concern. Yes, there are times when I'd like a f/2.8, but the range of the 24-105 suits me more than 24-70 does.
 
andrewc said:
I've used a 24-105 as my main 'walkabout' lens on crop cameras and now FF for about 10 years now. They're quite under-rated. Thankfully noise handling and processing on newer bodies is much better now so you can use a higher ISO without it being too much of a concern. Yes, there are times when I'd like a f/2.8, but the range of the 24-105 suits me more than 24-70 does.
Click to expand...

For this reason I am looking at getting a 24-105, just that little bit more range. I have a 24-70 and it is great for my needs on a crop body but not quite enough on a ff, I shoot a competition where I can't move any closer! I am going to rent or buy a 70-200 but think that the 24-105 may mean I am not changing lenses as much!

The 24-70 f2.8 is a fantastic lens but also very heavy, too heavy to take on holiday!!
 
Fraczish said:
So after much searching I've purchased a 2016 MK1 version 24-105 F4L. Excellent condition, all paperwork and box etc. £330
Think this is pretty reasonable all things considered. Really appreciate all the help from everyone!
Click to expand...
Nice one, good price as well. She will notice a huge difference from the kit lenses.
 
andrewc said:
A 50mm lens on a crop body is still a 50mm lens...
Click to expand...

It is in the most technical sense but in a practical sense the "field of view" isn't the same on an APSC to a 35mm

When composing it is really the field of view that actually matters not the focal length and sensor size - but rather the field of view and it's relationship to what is being shot.

ie I shoot a particularly scene at 21mm on my D800 using my 14-24 - if I put that 14-24mm lens on a D500 and shot at 14mm it will look just the same - that's what matters - not the FL
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
It is in the most technical sense but in a practical sense the "field of view" isn't the same on an APSC to a 35mm

When composing it is really the field of view that actually matters not the focal length and sensor size - but rather the field of view and it's relationship to what is being shot.

ie I shoot a particularly scene at 21mm on my D800 using my 14-24 - if I put that 14-24mm lens on a D500 and shot at 14mm it will look just the same - that's what matters - not the FL
Click to expand...


It's not what matters to someone who only ever shoots APSC, they don't care about FF equivalence and why should they? - to them it's 50mm, on APSC. They're not dumb, they know how it'll look, they don't need to be constantly reminded what the equivalent is on another format. The lens doesn't change, the sensor is cropped is all.

WD40 said:
NB - F4 will put you at a disadvantage in many wedding scenarios indoors. I don't recall many wedding shooters I've seen with below F2.8. Even then, a crop camera will make you bump the ISO up (you don't really want the flash set at nuke level).
Click to expand...

F4 won't put you at any more disadvantage on APSC than it would on FF, unless you mean the FF can handle higher ISO better? because both will take in the same light per aperture. Another part of equivalence that people always get wrong.

Honestly, I can't wait until MF gets more popular and they start checking FF users on their settings using 'equivalence'
 
Last edited:
Another vote for the 24-105 L here. I find it's a really handy focal length; it may not be as pin-sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8, but it's got Image Stabilisation and another 35mm of focal length handiness, which often comes in handy. It's a damned sight cheaper than the 24-70 f/2.8 too!

As for 'cheap' STM lenses, if your daughter decides to go 'full frame' (which, given the price mint-ish used Canon 6D Mk 1s can be bought for these days, may be sooner than you think!), then have a look at the Canon 40mm STM pancake lens. It's a tiny and slightly odd looking thing, but the image quality from it has got to be the best bang for buck going in the Canon lens range. I find that 40mm (on a full frame DSLR) is a handy focal length too, not as 'remote' as a wide angle, and not as 'tight' as a 50mm, which is often just a bit too tight to frame things when in slightly cramped surroundings.

A 40mm may or may not be handy for wedding photography (depending on the look you want), but for the price these can be found second hand, I think they're good to have in the camera bag for times when they're just right for the job.
 
Last edited:
Snip:
Cagey75 said:
Honestly, I can't wait until MF gets more popular and they start checking FF users on their settings using 'equivalence'
Click to expand...
I've been using MF (120) film cameras for years, and still use the 35mm focal length equivalence thing to think in when I'm considering focal lengths, so I wouldn't count on MF users becoming your cavalry! ;)
 
Mr Badger said:
Snip:
I've been using MF (120) film cameras for years, and still use the 35mm focal length equivalence thing to think in when I'm considering focal lengths, so I wouldn't count on MF users becoming your cavalry! ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not really, that was in jest, IMO M43 is the king of deep DOF ... :P This actually matters more to some.
 
Hi Guys,
So the lens arrived today, all looks ok, couple of tiny particles inside the lens which wasn't described and also the focus ring makes a kind of slight grinding/crunching noise in places... Sounds like there is sand or something in there.. this isn't normal right?
 
If it has to be returned Camera Jungle have a couple described as excellent for about £340
 
If it's not right then don't hesitate to send it back for a full refund (if possible). The Canon 24-105 L Mk 1 was a popular lens, so there should still be plenty of good ones about. If you manage to get a refund then perhaps have a look at MPB and see what they've got, if there's nothing much to choose from then check back every couple of days or so, as they have a fairly brisk turnover.
 
After contact, the seller has been very helpful and has offered to cover the cost of a professional clean. Seems a genuine guy in all fairness.
Has anyone got any experience with this sort of cleaning service?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top