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 Apr 2011 (Tuesday) 00:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Must have lenses for Crop Cameras?

 
Keebert
Senior Member
Avatar
613 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Texas
     
Apr 12, 2011 14:00 |  #31

gjl711 wrote in post #12206300 (external link)
My crop camera dream team below:
Canon 10-22 for the wide stuff.
Canon 17-55 as a walk around.
Canon 100L for the macro world.
Canon 70-200IS F/2.8
Canon 400mm f/5.6 for the long stuff.

I'm getting there!

My only issues are the 10-22, fast 30mm and the 400:

  • Why can't Canon make a 10mm prime for crop? If I look at the shots taken with the 10-22, most are at 10! Maybe there is something coming in the future (external link) though.
  • Why isn't there a Canon 30/1.4? Sigma seem to be the only company offering a "normal" lens for crop cameras but the copy variability has kept me away.
  • Why can't they put IS on the 400mm?

5D3, 50/1.4, 40/2.8, 24-105L, 100L, 70-200L II, 400/5.6L, 600EX-RT, Zuiko 28/2.8, flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Bendel
Senior Member
Avatar
323 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Apr 12, 2011 15:22 |  #32

Keebert wrote in post #12208024 (external link)
  • Why can't they put IS on the 400mm?
    [/LIST]
  • They do...you just have to pay $8,000 for the f/2.8


    Brandon
    Canon 5D, 24-105 F4L, 70-200 F4L, 85 F1.8, 430EX II

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    Velorium
    Senior Member
    493 posts
    Likes: 1
    Joined Jul 2010
         
    Apr 12, 2011 15:46 |  #33

    Bendel wrote in post #12208585 (external link)
    They do...you just have to pay $8,000 for the f/2.8

    $10,500 for the new one that's not out yet.




      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    shoenberg3
    Senior Member
    466 posts
    Likes: 15
    Joined Mar 2011
    Location: San Jose, CA
         
    Apr 12, 2011 17:36 |  #34

    I think 17-55 is a terrible suggestion for crop when the 18-55 IS (kit lens) will deliver the same image quailty and essentially the same range for much cheaper. And 2.8 isn't really fast enough to justify it for speed (as opposed to 3.5). I would recommend saving that money for something else (wider lens, a telephoto, or a prime faster than F/2).


    Buy prints of my photographs at Redbubble -> shoenberg3 | Redbubble (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    juanpafer
    Goldmember
    Avatar
    1,836 posts
    Gallery: 8 photos
    Likes: 50
    Joined May 2009
    Location: Fort Myers, FL
         
    Apr 12, 2011 17:55 |  #35

    ^ I have used both. The 18-55 is sharp and a very nice lens but the 17-55 is superior in every way. You are right, 2.8 is not that fast, but your comparison 2.8 vs 3.5 is only valid at the wide end. At the long end you are talking about 2 whole stops and that is 4 times more light. That is substantial.


    Juan

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    shoenberg3
    Senior Member
    466 posts
    Likes: 15
    Joined Mar 2011
    Location: San Jose, CA
         
    Apr 12, 2011 17:59 |  #36

    nobody is denying that 17-55 isn't superior. but i feel that the gains (slightly to somewhat faster aperture, better build maybe, and better IS) are way too minimal to merit a price that is 6 times more. I would seriously spend that 1K saved on a sweet prime or a used 400 5.6 maybe. Or grab a Samyang 14mm for some wideangle fun. Or maybe give it to charity...

    You mention "substantial" improvement in speed at the 50mm range (2.8 vs 5.6), which is sort of daft in my opinion, since you can just grab a 50mm 1.4 for 350 and you would still have save more than 500 dollars (or, if you don't mind manual focus, grab a sweet zeiss 50 1.7 or takumar 50 1.4 for less than 200)


    Buy prints of my photographs at Redbubble -> shoenberg3 | Redbubble (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    Bendel
    Senior Member
    Avatar
    323 posts
    Joined Jan 2008
    Location: Wisconsin
         
    Apr 12, 2011 18:17 |  #37

    shoenberg3 wrote in post #12209468 (external link)
    nobody is denying that 17-55 isn't superior. but i feel that the gains (slightly to somewhat faster aperture, better build maybe, and better IS) are way too minimal to merit a price that is 6 times more. I would seriously spend that 1K saved on a sweet prime or a used 400 5.6 maybe. Or grab a Samyang 14mm for some wideangle fun. Or maybe give it to charity...

    You mention "substantial" improvement in speed at the 50mm range (2.8 vs 5.6), which is sort of daft in my opinion, since you can just grab a 50mm 1.4 for 350 and you would still have save more than 500 dollars (or, if you don't mind manual focus, grab a sweet zeiss 50 1.7 or takumar 50 1.4 for less than 200)

    Unfortunately not all situations allow a prime to be used. We all know that primes are a step above zooms, but people still buy zooms. Ever think that maybe there is a reason for that? You're comparing apples and oranges


    Brandon
    Canon 5D, 24-105 F4L, 70-200 F4L, 85 F1.8, 430EX II

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    juanpafer
    Goldmember
    Avatar
    1,836 posts
    Gallery: 8 photos
    Likes: 50
    Joined May 2009
    Location: Fort Myers, FL
         
    Apr 12, 2011 18:20 |  #38

    shoenberg3 wrote in post #12209468 (external link)
    ... but i feel that the gains (slightly to somewhat faster aperture, better build maybe, and better IS) are way too minimal to merit a price that is 6 times more.

    We will have to agree to disagree. To me the faster aperture (4x more light at the long end), the increased sharpness even wide open, the much, much improved AF system and the better IS are worth it.

    There are many fast primes out there. A 50 prime is not interchangeable with a 17-55 zoom. Alternative yes, replacement no.


    Juan

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    shoenberg3
    Senior Member
    466 posts
    Likes: 15
    Joined Mar 2011
    Location: San Jose, CA
         
    Apr 12, 2011 18:32 |  #39

    17-55 is not sharper than 18-55 IS per various lab tests. Let's at least get that right.

    In any case, I think 17-50mm tamron would be a much better choice (more bang for the money).

    I do think zooms are quite overrated and can actually hinder creating strong images. Is it better for getting it all in? Sure, but that's not the purpose of photographic art, imo. I do understand it when we may need a zoom at telephoto distances because it might sometimes be the only way of getting close to the action...


    Buy prints of my photographs at Redbubble -> shoenberg3 | Redbubble (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    bishoy
    Member
    Avatar
    220 posts
    Joined May 2008
         
    Apr 12, 2011 18:51 |  #40

    17-55 is not sharper than 18-55? What are you guys talking about.
    I can understand that the sharpness difference/AF/Build/mo​re fast aperture is not for everyone.
    Beginners may not get any benefit of all these $900 features so $170 lens is better in this case.
    But for the money, the 17-55 justify the difference for quality. Comparing to third party brothers is another story.


    Gears: 5D Mk III | 40D | 24-70 f2.8L | 100 f2.8L IS Macro | 50 f1.8 | 430EX | 3x YN460 II | 3x RF-602 | Couple of light modifiers and backdrops
    Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | flickr (external link) | Blog (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    juanpafer
    Goldmember
    Avatar
    1,836 posts
    Gallery: 8 photos
    Likes: 50
    Joined May 2009
    Location: Fort Myers, FL
         
    Apr 12, 2011 18:55 |  #41

    shoenberg3 wrote in post #12209637 (external link)
    17-55 is not sharper than 18-55 IS per various lab tests. Let's at least get that right.

    Ok, let's at least get that right. It is sharper per various lab tests.

    TDP (external link): Feel free to look at the many FL/aperture combinations. The 17-55 is sharper.
    Photozone (external link): again, the 17-55 is sharper.
    slrgear: "a lens profile that's head-and-shoulders above the 18-55mm"

    ...and if you don't want to go with lab tests and prefer hands on experience, most of the people that today have the 17-55 started with the kit lens. Today the 17-55 is probably the most recommended walkaround zoom for crop. It has been criticized by its ability to collect dust, for its build, for not being an L, for being expensive, but few will say that the kit lens is sharper. Would you mind showing some examples?


    Juan

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    shoenberg3
    Senior Member
    466 posts
    Likes: 15
    Joined Mar 2011
    Location: San Jose, CA
         
    Apr 12, 2011 19:06 |  #42

    http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1 (external link)
    http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1 (external link)

    http://lenstip.com …USM_Image_resol​ution.html (external link)
    http://lenstip.com …_IS_Image_resol​ution.html (external link)

    Look at these charts and tell me 17-55 is sharper. If anythign 18-55 edges it out very slightly on PZ. On LT, 18-55 lags at 50mm but matches it or betters it at other focal lengths and at the edges.

    TDP is known to have sometimes outrageous results, so I do not refer to them. I am not seeing where slrgear said what you posted.

    No one is denying 17-55 isn't an excellent performer. But it seems like that some are having difficulty swallowing the fact that lowly kit lens is matching the 17-55 in image quality for so much less..

    replying to your edit: umm.. nobody is saying 18-55 is sharper, only that it essentially matches the 17-55 in optical performance. I would rather trust lab results on resolution than people making claims based on their unscientific "feelings" about sharpness -- especially when they just have plunged 1000 dollars on it.


    Anyways, I think we can actually agree that both are very sharp. Now, does the OP need a constant 2.8 over 3.5-5.6, when he can just add cheap primes for better speed (and other advatanges)? Does he really need improved AF for a walkaround lens (ie not for wildlife or sports)? For 6 times the cost?

    Any sensisble person would answer in the negative.


    Buy prints of my photographs at Redbubble -> shoenberg3 | Redbubble (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    MOkoFOko
    nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
    Avatar
    19,889 posts
    Likes: 21
    Joined Jun 2010
    Location: Michigan
         
    Apr 12, 2011 19:17 |  #43

    shoenberg3 wrote in post #12209864 (external link)
    http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1 (external link)
    http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1 (external link)

    http://lenstip.com …USM_Image_resol​ution.html (external link)
    http://lenstip.com …_IS_Image_resol​ution.html (external link)

    Look at these charts and tell me 17-55 is sharper. If anythign 18-55 edges it out very slightly on PZ. On LT, 18-55 lags at 50mm but matches it or betters it at other focal lengths and at the edges.

    TDP is known to have sometimes outrageous results, so I do not refer to them. I am not seeing where slrgear said what you posted.

    No one is denying 17-55 isn't an excellent performer. But it seems like that some are having difficulty swallowing the fact that lowly kit lens is matching the 17-55 in image quality for so much less..

    replying to your edit: umm.. nobody is saying 18-55 is sharper, only that it essentially matches the 17-55 in optical performance. I would rather trust lab results on resolution than people making claims based on their unscientific "feelings" about sharpness -- especially when they just have plunged 1000 dollars on it.

    I'm a big fan of the 18-55 IS kit lens, but I'm not crazy enough to purposely misinterpret the results.

    In terms of image quality, sharpness is not everything. But, regarding pixel-counts alone, the 17-55 trumps the 18-55 IS where it counts--on the wide end. The links you provided were wrong. You linked the 17-55 test @8mp. The 17-55 obviously wins straight out of the gate at f/2.8. Better distortions, CA, bokeh, and focusing--and the 17-55 is actually sharper. While I personally think the 17-55 is overpriced, it does have major improvements over the 18-55 kit lens.

    18-55 IS: http://www.photozone.d​e …n_1855_3556is_5​0d?start=1 (external link)

    17-55 IS: http://www.photozone.d​e …non_1755_28is_5​0d?start=1 (external link)


    My Gearlist

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    shoenberg3
    Senior Member
    466 posts
    Likes: 15
    Joined Mar 2011
    Location: San Jose, CA
         
    Apr 12, 2011 19:20 |  #44

    You are seriously telling me that based on those charts, 17-55 "trumps" 18-55 IS at the wide end?

    Words fail me. I am done.

    btw, the links were wrong because they were identical links, ie not for the reason you think.. i have fixed that now.


    Buy prints of my photographs at Redbubble -> shoenberg3 | Redbubble (external link)

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    MOkoFOko
    nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
    Avatar
    19,889 posts
    Likes: 21
    Joined Jun 2010
    Location: Michigan
         
    Apr 12, 2011 19:24 |  #45

    shoenberg3 wrote in post #12209936 (external link)
    You are seriously telling me that based on those charts, 17-55 "trumps" 18-55 IS at the wide end?

    Words fail me. I am done.

    In a word, YES. At 17/18mm, the imatest numbers roughly match the 1755 and 1855 at 2.8 and 4.0 respectively--and at 4.0 and 5.6. Same level of sharpness, half as much light required for the 17-55 IS. That on its own is worth GOLD.


    My Gearlist

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

    4,384 views & 0 likes for this thread
    Must have lenses for Crop Cameras?
    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 Guashumerda
    847 guests, 186 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.