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 24 Jul 2017 (Monday) 17:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Will this lens work well with my camera?

 
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2418
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Wilt.
     
Jul 25, 2017 09:32 |  #31

24-70mm f/2.8 is a nice fast aperture zoom, although it lacks the IS feature which reduces handheld camera shake that plagues handheld cameras at slow shutter speeds (below 1/3). But it does not provide an APS-C camera (yours) with very Wide Angle capability; it would be shooting from 'wide normal' to 'medium telephoto' zoom range. So if you got that lens, I would recommend pairing it with a lens like the 16-35mm zoom to provide wider angle capability (and a bit of FL overlap which reduces the need to swap lens so much)

There are a number if incarnations of 18-55mm zoom. https://en.wikipedia.o​rg …EF-S_18%E2%80%9355mm_lens (external link)
Compared to the 24-70mm f/2.8

  • Some are f/3.5-f/5.6, others are f/4-f/5.6 (the first aperture size are while the lens is set to shortest FL, the second aperture size are when the lens is set to its longest FL)
  • Some do not have IS, some have IS
  • Some have USM which is better for still photography, others have STM which is quieter so as to not be heard in audio track during video shooting

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,640 posts
Likes: 503
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Post edited over 1 year ago by davesrose. (2 edits in all)
     
Jul 25, 2017 09:52 |  #32

Wilt wrote in post #18410797 (external link)
  • Some have USM which is better for still photography, others have STM which is quieter so as to not be heard in audio track during video shooting

Canon has now introduced a nano USM technology that offers the speed of USM and quietness/smoothness of STM. The latest EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS uses the nano USM technology.

Digital Picture Review: Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens (external link)

Canon article on nano USM (external link) note that the 650D fully supports its video AF features


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2418
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jul 25, 2017 10:07 as a reply to  @ davesrose's post |  #33

Interesting to learn about nano USM.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PeterAlex7
Member
159 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2015
     
Jul 25, 2017 10:39 |  #34

sandpiper wrote in post #18410729 (external link)
Rubbish. In what way will it not "work as well"? I have crop and full frame cameras and multiple L lenses. ALL my lenses work just as well on the crop as on my full frames, if anything they are slightly BETTER on crop sensors as they miss out any imperfections with edge definition.

If you mean it won't be as wide as on a FF, then that is true, but if it is the focal length that you want that is irrelevant. Many responders, myself included, have commented that it won't be as wide as the 18-55, naturally, and that the OP may miss that shorter focal length.

However, if the 24-70 focal length range is suitable for them and what they shoot, the lens will be just as good as it is on full frame. The lens won't somehow become less sharp, or develop other issues because of the sensor behind it.

Maybe i should use as good as then.

Better on crop? Because crop sensors doesn't have the edge softness of full frame sensors?
I think it's just about the way we see it. This lens is CAPABLE to deliver more detail on that area, that is the advantage of using this lens isn't it?

Full frame sensors has less noise right? Less noise means better detail, so the lens will perform better with full frame sensor. I don't care if the difference is marginal, better is better.

I really have no intention to burn something in this thread, i apologise.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2418
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Wilt. (4 edits in all)
     
Jul 25, 2017 11:06 |  #35

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #18410855 (external link)
Maybe i should use as good as then.

Better on crop? Because crop sensors doesn't have the edge softness of full frame sensors?
I think it's just about the way we see it. This lens is CAPABLE to deliver more detail on that area, that is the advantage of using this lens isn't it?

Full frame sensors has less noise right? Less noise means better detail, so the lens will perform better with full frame sensor. I don't care if the difference is marginal, better is better.

I really have no intention to burn something in this thread, i apologise.

Lenses have a number of performance criteria, some of which make no difference on FF vs. crop and others which are seemingly 'improved' with the smaller sensor:

  • Resolution: the ability of the lens to deliver line-pairs of detail per millimeter of sensor is IDENTICAl regardless of frame size; a smaller frame 'pushes' the image harder because it has to be magnified by a 60% greater amount to enlarge the 60% smaller image to the same final print size. FF is magnified by about 8.5X to make an 8x10" print, while APS-C is magnified by about 13.5X. But if we took the same 10mm square area from the center of FF and from the center of APS-C, that area would be identical in detail resolution.
  • Edge vs. Center resolution: in theory because you 'use only the center of the image circle', it would SEEM that APS-C 'improves' the lens because the 'weaker area of the image circle is not captured'. But this is a false 'improvement'! If a lens provides 80 line-pairs per millimeter of resolution in the Center, and only 64 line-pairs per millimeter at the Edges, on an 8x10 the FF image has 9.4 line-pairs per millimeter at the Center of the 8x10" print and 7.5 line-pairs at the Edge, but the APS-C image has only 5.9 line-pairs per millimeter on its entireity of the print!
  • Vignetting: darkening of the corners of the frame because of non-uniformity of illumination of the image circle, this is noticed more when the frame area is larger than when the frame area is smaller, so in this regard a lens seems to 'vignette less' with the smaller frame.
  • Pincushion/barrel distortion: often seen as 'bowed' rather than straight lines parallel to the edges of the frame, this is often more strongly bowed closer to the edges of the image circle than at the center. So a APS-C sensor captures less of the bowed lines since the edges of the image circle are not captured.


As for 'noise', that is not INHERENT to the format size. If we compared a FF sensor from 2010 vs. an APS-C sensor from 2015, the inherent noise of the two image might be IDENTICAL due to improvements over the years in circuit noise and signal processors. Granted, if we compared FF vs. APS-C of the same vintage, the larger pixeled sensor should have the advantage in signal:noise qualities, if all else were equal.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
6,828 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Likes: 1434
Joined May 2011
Location: Gainesville, Florida
Post edited over 1 year ago by Phoenixkh.
     
Jul 25, 2017 11:14 |  #36

saea501 wrote in post #18410764 (external link)
If money isn't a big concern then get a 6D to put behind that 24-70. You will indeed get some lovely photos.

If you put the 24-70 on your 650D I think....I could be wrong...but I think you're going to hate the field of view it provides. I only say that because I did it. I tried full frame lenses on my 600D.......just no.

The 18-135 has been mentioned more than once here. I had that and the 18-200 in the past. They are great lenses....tremendously versatile, great image quality and priced right.

Wow.....4 months traveling around Europe. Heck, it'll take you a year to go through all of your pictures when you get back.

Safe travels.

I think this might be the best suggestion from any of us. She (I think Sapphire would be a woman... but I'm guessing) said money is no object... and she won't need anything more than center point AF for what she says she will photograph.

so... if you are still around, consider getting a refurbished 6D if you are in the States... with the 24-70 f/2.8 and take along a tripod and/or monopod if you don't think that will be too much of a hassle. You'll come back with some amazing photographs.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1DX2 | 1D IV | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS | 100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition | Editing Encouraged

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PeterAlex7
Member
159 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2015
     
Jul 25, 2017 12:27 |  #37

Wilt wrote in post #18410871 (external link)
Lenses have a number of performance criteria, some of which make no difference on FF vs. crop and others which are seemingly 'improved' with the smaller sensor:

  • Resolution: the ability of the lens to deliver line-pairs of detail per millimeter of sensor is IDENTICAl regardless of frame size; a smaller frame 'pushes' the image harder because it has to be magnified by a 60% greater amount to enlarge the 60% smaller image to the same final print size. FF is magnified by about 8.5X to make an 8x10" print, while APS-C is magnified by about 13.5X. But if we took the same 10mm square area from the center of FF and from the center of APS-C, that area would be identical in detail resolution.
  • Edge vs. Center resolution: in theory because you 'use only the center of the image circle', it would SEEM that APS-C 'improves' the lens because the 'weaker area of the image circle is not captured'. But this is a false 'improvement'! If a lens provides 80 line-pairs per millimeter of resolution in the Center, and only 64 line-pairs per millimeter at the Edges, on an 8x10 the FF image has 9.4 line-pairs per millimeter at the Center of the 8x10" print and 7.5 line-pairs at the Edge, but the APS-C image has only 5.9 line-pairs per millimeter on its entireity of the print!
  • Vignetting: darkening of the corners of the frame because of non-uniformity of illumination of the image circle, this is noticed more when the frame area is larger than when the frame area is smaller, so in this regard a lens seems to 'vignette less' with the smaller frame.
  • Pincushion/barrel distortion: often seen as 'bowed' rather than straight lines parallel to the edges of the frame, this is often more strongly bowed closer to the edges of the image circle than at the center. So a APS-C sensor captures less of the bowed lines since the edges of the image circle are not captured.


As for 'noise', that is not INHERENT to the format size. If we compared a FF sensor from 2010 vs. an APS-C sensor from 2015, the inherent noise of the two image might be IDENTICAL due to improvements over the years in circuit noise and signal processors. Granted, if we compared FF vs. APS-C of the same vintage, the larger pixeled sensor should have the advantage in signal:noise qualities, if all else were equal.

Thank you for your explanation, but I just found this from dpreview:

"Note that the full frame sensor performs better than the APS-C sensor, even though its pixels are not bigger. If you were to take full frame camera with the same pixel count as the APS-C one (and so have bigger pixels), the result would still be very similar indeed."

https://m.dpreview.com …and-sensor-sizes-on-noise (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2418
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Jul 25, 2017 12:40 |  #38

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #18410954 (external link)
Thank you for your explanation, but I just found this from dpreview:

"(1)Note that the full frame sensor performs better than the APS-C sensor, even though its pixels are not bigger.
(2) If you were to take full frame camera with the same pixel count as the APS-C one (and so have bigger pixels), the result would still be very similar indeed."

https://m.dpreview.com …and-sensor-sizes-on-noise (external link)

Second sentence is worded in a manner inconsistent with first sentence! "better...very similar" ?! poor writing.

Kinda long winded, it's gonna take finding time to read and think about statements within the article.

But I don't immediately see the relevancy of the article to the OP question which was posed, which implies one lens would be 'good' while another lens could be 'not so good' in the discussion of 'for FF' vs. 'for APS-C' characteristic of a given lens design.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Jul 25, 2017 17:48 |  #39

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #18410855 (external link)
Full frame sensors has less noise right? Less noise means better detail, so the lens will perform better with full frame sensor. I don't care if the difference is marginal, better is better.

.

But the LENS doesn't perform any differently, it projects an identical image onto the sensor plane regardless of format. The difference you are talking about, with the noise, is a difference in sensor performance and will be an issue regardless of lens used. Putting a better lens on a crop camera will result in a better image than using a cheap lens on the same camera. Sure, you may get a better image from a FF sensor in situations where you need high ISO, but the lens won't change that.

A better lens is a better lens and will perform better regardless of sensor format. I don't see the point in saying it isn't worth putting a better lens on a crop because it won't be as good as if you had a FF sensor. Besides, crop sensors can produce images just as good as FF sensors, when used within their limits. Their limits are lower that is all.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2418
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Wilt. (5 edits in all)
     
Jul 25, 2017 18:15 |  #40

sandpiper wrote in post #18411193 (external link)
But the LENS doesn't perform any differently, it projects an identical image onto the sensor plane regardless of format. The difference you are talking about, with the noise, is a difference in sensor performance and will be an issue regardless of lens used. Putting a better lens on a crop camera will result in a better image than using a cheap lens on the same camera. Sure, you may get a better image from a FF sensor in situations where you need high ISO, but the lens won't change that.

A better lens is a better lens and will perform better regardless of sensor format. I don't see the point in saying it isn't worth putting a better lens on a crop because it won't be as good as if you had a FF sensor. Besides, crop sensors can produce images just as good as FF sensors, when used within their limits. Their limits are lower that is all.

^
As I stated in my post 35,


  1. "If an (excellent resolution) lens provides 80 line-pairs per millimeter of resolution in the Center, and only 64 line-pairs per millimeter at the Edges"..., on an 8x10 the FF image has 9.4 line-pairs per millimeter at the Center of the 8x10" print and 7.5 line-pairs at the Edge, but the APS-C image has only 5.9 line-pairs per millimeter on its entireity of the print!"

  2. But if instead we put a mediocre lens which provides 60 line-pairs per millimeter of resolution in the Center, and only 50 line-pairs per millimeter at the Edges"..., on an 8x10 the FF image has 7.1 line-pairs per millimeter at the Center of the 8x10" print and 5.7 line-pairs at the Edge, but the APS-C image has only 4.4 line-pairs per millimeter on its entireity of the print!



It NEVER 'pays' to conserve money on glass when mounted on APS-C, it is not 'wasted' money at all. If anything, there is greater need to put better glass on APS-C, and go mediocre on FF!

  • FF with mediocre glass puts 7.1 line-pairs per millimeter at the Center and 5.7 line-pairs per millimeter at the Edge,
  • while APS-C with excellent glass purs 5.9 line-pairs per millimeter on its print!

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
9,411 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2105
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Jul 25, 2017 19:42 |  #41

DreDaze wrote in post #18410796 (external link)
He's also,looking for,a travel lens...he could get a slower zoom for lots of the other things he shoots, and then a faster than f2.8 prime to give more subject isolation all for about 1/3 the price of the 24-70II

Super zooms suck.

There, I said it.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,014 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 2147
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 25, 2017 20:05 |  #42

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18411253 (external link)
Super zooms suck.

There, I said it.

meh...just a blanket statement though...doesn't really mean much...have you used any of the newer zoom lenses being discussed here? i'm not even sure if they're considered super-zooms, or just zooms...i always thought a super-zoom was more like something that goes to over 200mm

either way, they're certainly capable lenses...do they 'suck' in comparison to the 24-70II...probably...does that mean they're not still a good suggestion for the OP, who seems like a total newbie, and is just out to buy something without really having a reason to buy it...i don't think so...they'd be a lot better off going that route instead of blowing money and wondering why their photos don't look as nice as the people they follow on instagram who use the same lens


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
9,411 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2105
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Jul 25, 2017 20:36 |  #43

No more of a blanket statement than saying an 18-135 is a travel lens.

For some reason I think the OP knows what he wants to achieve and might even be capable of achieving it ... with a little practice. And four months in Europe will provide plenty of time to practice.

I'd rather travel with the 20 and 40 pancake, and 2 of; 50, 85, 135 than any superzoom on the market. All those come in under the price of 24-70 and would probably kick its arse image quality wise.

I'm often happy traveling with Sig 35A, a old ass $35 fully manual 50 f/2 and 70-200 2.8 IS mkI , on full frame.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 405
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
Post edited over 1 year ago by CheshireCat. (2 edits in all)
     
Jul 26, 2017 03:51 |  #44

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #18410855 (external link)
Better on crop? Because crop sensors doesn't have the edge softness of full frame sensors?
I think it's just about the way we see it. This lens is CAPABLE to deliver more detail on that area, that is the advantage of using this lens isn't it?

A crop sensor only gets the central part of the image projected by a lens.
It is true that the central part is less affected by aberrations, but it is also painfully true that you will have a smaller FOV (Field Of View).
The issue here is that if you want the same FOV on the crop sensor, then you will need a different (wider) lens, which will _typically_ show same or worse aberrations than the equivalent FF lens.

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #18410855 (external link)
Full frame sensors has less noise right? Less noise means better detail, so the lens will perform better with full frame sensor. I don't care if the difference is marginal, better is better.

Within the same generation of sensor technology, bigger pixels will have better performance.

For traveling in Europe, I use a full frame mirrorless camera and 3 compact primes: 21, 35, 90. The 21 is used most of the times. I don't mind switching primes.
Be sure you cover at least 24mm (or 16mm on a crop sensor), otherwise you will often have to take multiple shots and stitch in post.
Also, bring a fast lens (I like 35/1.4) for night life.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mcoren
Senior Member
Avatar
624 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 303
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
     
Jul 26, 2017 07:45 |  #45

CheshireCat wrote in post #18411498 (external link)
A crop sensor only gets the central part of the image projected by a lens.
It is true that the central part is less affected by aberrations, but it is also painfully true that you will have a smaller FOV (Field Of View).

CC, you have a habit of bashing other peoples' choices that don't match yours.

What is "painful" is a matter of personal preference. If most of your shooting requires wide FOVs, short FLs, and/or shallow DOF, then an FF body is definitely the better tool for the job.

Personally, I do most of my shooting with longer FLs, 200mm and up. In that situation, a crop body is the better tool. The higher density sensor puts more pixels under the small distant subject, giving greater resolution right where it's needed. An FF body would hardly be an "upgrade"; I would lose capability.

Mike


Canon EOS 7D Mark II, EOS M5, and EOS 100 (film SLR)
A bunch of Canon lenses and a couple of Sigmas
A backpack, a bicycle, and a pair of hiking boots

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

6,459 views & 8 likes for this thread
Will this lens work well with my camera?
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 rkwhyte2
327 guests, 343 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.