Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 Dec 2010 (Sunday) 18:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Camera - Lens Rules?

 
pxchoi
Goldmember
1,146 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2009
     
Dec 13, 2010 00:04 |  #16

Getting good glass is definitely more than just 'new rims'. I would consider it as a huge suspension upgrade... Sure you may not have a lot of power under that hood, but the 'sporting' potential will increase dramatically.

What good is it to have 500hp, if you can't keep it planted... Kind of a waste of all the power, unless you just want to go straight. :p

Besides, when you do upgrade to a better body, you can rest assured that you'll have some good glass. So in my opinion, purchasing good glass is really an investment.


Patrick Choi
Portfolio (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link)
EOS 7D | 580EX II | 10-22mm f3.5-f4.5 | 17-55mm f/2.8 IS |70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
For Sale: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS | 10-22mm f3.5-f4.5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Dec 13, 2010 00:13 |  #17

themadman wrote in post #11440720 (external link)
There is a simple rule, Glass is supreme. There is close to no such thing as too good of glass for any body.

There is such thing as a body that somewhat defeats the purpose of the glass, though. For example the 24L is a near $2000 lens because it is an really fast, really wide lens on FF and is uniquely capable of creating subject isolation at a very wide angle. Put it on a crop body and it is like a 40mm semi-normal prime with considerably less subject isolation capabilities.

Likewise if someone is buying a 70-200 f2.8L because it is an excellent lens for action sports, pairing it with an XS with mediocre AF and burst rate might dampen the utility of the lens.

So normally I agree that glass is most important, but as always it depends on your goals.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
baput88
Member
120 posts
Joined Nov 2008
     
Dec 13, 2010 00:38 |  #18

Glass over body, IMO.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
phreeky
Goldmember
3,514 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Australia
     
Dec 13, 2010 02:10 |  #19

tkbslc wrote in post #11442407 (external link)
There is such thing as a body that somewhat defeats the purpose of the glass, though. For example the 24L is a near $2000 lens because it is an really fast, really wide lens on FF and is uniquely capable of creating subject isolation at a very wide angle. Put it on a crop body and it is like a 40mm semi-normal prime with considerably less subject isolation capabilities.

It might not use the full capacity of the lens, but it doesn't defeat the purpose. After all is there an alternative 24mm F/1.4 to use on crop bodies? Or do you think someone should buy a 5D + 35 F/2 or something just for those particular shots?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Dec 13, 2010 03:10 |  #20

phreeky wrote in post #11442768 (external link)
It might not use the full capacity of the lens, but it doesn't defeat the purpose. After all is there an alternative 24mm F/1.4 to use on crop bodies? Or do you think someone should buy a 5D + 35 F/2 or something just for those particular shots?

That's the point I was trying to make, you have reduced the lens to the equivalent of a fairly common and inexpensive lens on FF. Sure it is still a phenomenal lens, but you stripped it of most of it's "magic" by using it on crop.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
melcat
Goldmember
1,122 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 13, 2010 05:29 |  #21

You can run into problems with the lens and camera not physically balancing well (i.e. centre of gravity), especially if you put a big lens on a small body.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
56,266 posts
Likes: 2948
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Dec 13, 2010 10:20 |  #22

melcat wrote in post #11443143 (external link)
You can run into problems with the lens and camera not physically balancing well (i.e. centre of gravity), especially if you put a big lens on a small body.

I always hear this but still am totally unable to understand it. Most photographers I know will hold a camera/body pair one hand, left, underneath the lens supporting 100% of the weight of the camera/lens pair. The other hand operation the controls is there for stability. Where the hand is held depends on the lens/body configuration but from heaviest body to lightest I would be surprised if it moved more than an inch. But say it is true and a heavy lens with light body causes the system to become unstable and unbalanceable. Then why would a heavy camera not cause the same issue as the center of gravity will now move back. Is there an ideal weighted body? Does the weight of the body change per lens? Should Canon start including that in their specifications? (This lens is designed to operate with a 443gram body)


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Dec 13, 2010 10:22 |  #23

I often wondered that too. Maybe canon should sell counterweights threaded for the tripod mount to balance the camera. :lol:


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pulsar123
Goldmember
2,196 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 753
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Canada
     
Dec 13, 2010 10:44 |  #24

I am in similar situation to OP - I have Rebel XS, and I love it, and recently bought some decent glass (Tamron 17-50mm, and Canon 135mm F2L). There is only one potential issue you have to be aware of: these fast lenses are super-sensitive to mis-calibrations of the camera's and / or lenses AF systems; with more expensive cameras, you can calibrate all this yourself (AF micro-adjust feature), but Rebel XS cannot do that. I discovered my both expensive lenses are either front or back-focusing with the camera. If this is the case, you could either live with it (use slow Live View focusing, or MF), or send the camera and the lesnes for calibration (as I did).


6D, Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, 135L, 70-200 f4L, 50mm f1.8 STM, Samyang 8mm fisheye, home studio

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mundty
Goldmember
Avatar
1,125 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
     
Dec 13, 2010 11:24 |  #25

TomCross13 wrote in post #11440645 (external link)
I have a Rebel XS and either going to buy a 70-200 2.8L or 4.0L but just for fun I was wondering if there are any "rules" you guys go by about cheap cameras with expensive lenses? Kind of like a busted ass car with new rims.

The XS is an extremely capable camera. And no, that rule about not putting a cheap lens on a good camera is also false. Great photos can be achieved with any Camera/Lens combination, whether it be a 1Ds w/ 50mm f/1.8 or XS w/ 800mm f/5.6L... it does not matter.

The main reason to go with lenses before a better camera is for the versatility and features like Aperture/FocalLength/I​S.


www.mikemundt.com (external link)
EOS 5D Mark II | Canon 24-70 f/2.8L | Speedlite 430EX II | Manfrotto MT293A4 & 494 Tripod
Interests: Environmental Portraits | Urban/Travel | Wildlife | Landscape | Celestial | Experimental

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rabid
Member
78 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Kentucky
     
Dec 13, 2010 11:38 |  #26

I bought the 70-200mm F/2.8L when I still had my XS. Right now I am using that and two other L series lenses with my T2i. Not even counting the kit lenses, my 3 L's cost 5x what my body cost. Only now am I considering something like a 5D and only because I would like to have full frame and higher iso for landscapes at night. Most likely I will wait for the 5D Mark iii and buy a couple more nice lenses before them.

With a stereo system the rule used to be that you spend 50% of the money on speakers. I've never seen a ratio for photography.


If you want my expert opinion ask me about synthesizers. If you want my professional opinion ask me about computers. If you want an amateurish but enthusiastic opinion ask me about cameras.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
professoryeti
Senior Member
Avatar
573 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Charleston, WV
     
Dec 13, 2010 11:47 |  #27

tkbslc wrote in post #11442868 (external link)
That's the point I was trying to make, you have reduced the lens to the equivalent of a fairly common and inexpensive lens on FF. Sure it is still a phenomenal lens, but you stripped it of most of it's "magic" by using it on crop.

I completely agree with what you're saying, but there aren't a lot of other options for that scenario, and either way you're going to be able to make very nice images and be spending the same amount of money. A 5D2 and a 35/2 or a 50D and a 24LII would run around 2200 on the used market. Both would give you plenty of resolution, the ability to MFA, essentially the same FOV and effective subject isolation, and probably even a nod to the xxD/24L combo with regard to autofocus.

Personally, in this particular example I'd go with the 5D2 and 35 (which I have) but I couldn't tell anyone they were wrong for owning a xxD camera with the 24LII because regardless of the camera body it's still the best wide angle autofocus prime that Canon makes. Just because you shoot APS-C doesn't mean there's some better choice (you can make the better value argument with the Sigma 30/1.4 but the FOV is different by about 10mm).

Same thing with the 70-200 for sports example. If you currently own a XSi and a Nifty 50 and think "I'm going to buy one item for $2000" I'd rather shoot sports with an XSi and a 70-200L IS2 than a 1D3 and a Nifty 50. Obviously these are extreme examples and the "right" thing to do is somewhere in the middle (like a 1D2 & 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS).

Having great glass may make you want a better camera, but there's no reason to think you can't pair essentially any kit together.


Saturnalia for all you have.
5D Mark II | 5D | 24mm f/1.4L II | 35mm f/1.4L | Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 | Canon 100mm f/2.8L | 24-105mm f/4L | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II |
JoshNibertPhotography.​com (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
runninmann
what the heck do I know?
Avatar
8,156 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 151
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Michigan-U.S.A.
     
Dec 13, 2010 11:53 |  #28

gjl711 wrote in post #11444025 (external link)
I always hear this but still am totally unable to understand it. Most photographers I know will hold a camera/body pair one hand, left, underneath the lens supporting 100% of the weight of the camera/lens pair. The other hand operation the controls is there for stability. Where the hand is held depends on the lens/body configuration but from heaviest body to lightest I would be surprised if it moved more than an inch. But say it is true and a heavy lens with light body causes the system to become unstable and unbalanceable. Then why would a heavy camera not cause the same issue as the center of gravity will now move back. Is there an ideal weighted body? Does the weight of the body change per lens? Should Canon start including that in their specifications? (This lens is designed to operate with a 443gram body)

Perhaps, precisely because the CoG does move back - closer to the body. It's easier to hold a 10 lb dumbbell closer to your body than it is to hold it at arm's length because the lever arm is shorter when it's closer to your body. Supporting the heavier camera with the arm that's closer to your body should be easier than supporting the heavier lens farther away from your body.

I mentioned in a recent thread about the use of grips that I have recently removed mine form my cameras after four years of using them; and I definitely notice the difference in balance when using my 24-70 L or Sigma 70-200.


My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nureality
Goldmember
3,611 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2008
     
Dec 13, 2010 11:54 |  #29

The body will serve you well enough with the great lens, but I will say this, the XS mounted to a 70-200 f/2.8L IS (I or II) will look and feel like a lenscap on that heavy lens. The most likely issue you'll face is balance. The lens is heavy and the body is super light... get the grip for your XS for sure or you might find the lens unwieldy. Other than that... go for it. Be aware that you will lust for a heavier body to mate to that lens in no time, plus you'll want more MP's and FPS depending on what you intend to shoot and how.


Alan "NuReality" Fronshtein
Gear List | PBase |  (external link)flickr (external link)
Lots of Fun, Lots of Laughs, Happy Trigger Finger!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
petriej
Member
83 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
     
Dec 13, 2010 12:02 |  #30

So here's something I've been wondering about. Are there any combinations that won't physically fit? I happened to be sitting next to a guy this weekend who had a 5dm2 and either a 50 1.2l or an 85 1.2l. The lens was huge and it looked like there was no way that it could fit on my little t1i. Is it possible?


Canon 5DMK4 | Canon EOS Rebel T1i | Canon ELF SD1000 | Canon 70-200 F2.8 II | Canon EF 50mm 1:4 | Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS | Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS | 580EXII | Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 | Manfrotto 488RC4 | PW MiniTT1 | PW FlexTT5 | Black Rapid Sport

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,972 views & 0 likes for this thread
Camera - Lens Rules?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is vtoldina
745 guests, 277 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.