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 10 Sep 2009 (Thursday) 15:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Upgrade from first lens'

 
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,335 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2947
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Sep 11, 2009 17:35 |  #16

BenJohnson wrote in post #8625939 (external link)
IMO, any lens starting at 24-28mm is no good as a "walkaround" on a crop body.

i disagree...i think it's good for outdoor use

the thing i think many people fail to realize is if you'r ecoming from a P&S camera...like many people are now...more so than those coming from film to crops...you're not really used to the wider angle...i think most point and shoots start at more than 30mm 35mmequivalent...so if your used to that framing anyways...the wideness isn't too big of an issue...however i do think you need something for when you want wider


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DaveSt
Senior Member
407 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Lima, Ohio
     
Sep 11, 2009 17:53 as a reply to  @ DreDaze's post |  #17

I thought I might chime in here as I own a couple of the lenses right now that have been mentioned so far. When I wanted to upgrade after I got my 300D, I ended up going with the Canon 17-85IS, mainly because of the focal range. I wanted something that would be good inside for family shots but still have decent range when outside. There aren't many lenses that fit that description as well as the 17-85 and it has been a very good although not great lens for a few years now. It is certainly limited indoors without a flash and although I get sharp pictures if I can stop down a little I do still get some soft pictures at times.

I recently purchased a used Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and I was expecting to be blown away by it compared to the Canon but I'm really not. First, if you plan on taking family pictures indoors with available light it still isn't that fast. In most cases a flash is still required to keep decent shutter speeds and in that case my slower (f/4-5.6) Canon can do the same job paired with a decent flash. Second, if you are using the lowest f-stop on the Tamron (f/2.8 ), often times the depth of field is shallow enough that only part of what you are shooting is in focus. I'm sure this is mainly the fault of the photographer, but a wide open lens leaves little room for error from what I have seen. Third, 50mm doesn't give a lot of reach. I can live with that as long as moving closer is an option, but those extra 35mm really come in handy and I can't see the Tamron being much of an option for taking family snapshots outdoors because of that.

I would agree with the earlier sentiment that the 18-55IS + 55-250IS is a good combination as long as you don't mind carrying multiple lenses. I have the 55-250IS and every time I use it I can't believe how good the pictures are for so cheap a lens. I don't have the 18-55IS, so I would say the 17-85IS + 55-250IS is a good combination as well assuming you can swing a decent used flash at some point.


Dave

[30D] [Sigma 30 f/1.4] [50 f/1.8] [EF-S 60] [EF-S 15-85IS] [EF-S 55-250IS] [Sigma EF-500 DG Super]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
topcatproduction
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
86 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Great Britain
     
Sep 12, 2009 05:47 as a reply to  @ DaveSt's post |  #18

Thanks for that reply, it's good to know when people aren't actually blown away by a lens when upgrading! With the telephoto I will still want at least 300mm so I suspect I will probably buy a canon 70-300 IS (maybe tamron TC as well for more scope) as I love but cant justify the money on a 100-400.
So a 17-85 IS may be the way forewards as it offers good wide angle, but with a telephoto I dont quite need all the zoom of the 17-85...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
minliu2k
Member
36 posts
Joined Dec 2007
     
Sep 12, 2009 09:04 |  #19

swjim wrote in post #8621763 (external link)
You might want to look around for a used 70-200 f/4L, it's one of the best bang for the buck lenses out there IMHO.

x2, either a used 70-200 f/4L IS or a new 70-200 f/4 non-IS will serve you for a long time.


5D2, 16-35/f2.8L, 35/f1.4L, 85/f1.8, 135/f2L, 70-200/f4L, 70-200/f2.8L, Zeiss 21mm, Voigtl'ader 125mm/f2.5,
430EX II
Canon 40D EF-S 10-22, 17-55/f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
98 ­ SNAKE ­ EATER
Member
124 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
     
Sep 12, 2009 09:19 as a reply to  @ post 8625939 |  #20

I have an EF-S 17-85 IS and it's probably the most used lens in my bag due to its range :)

Although I don't think it's worth the price new, it's definitely worth more than the $200 bucks I paid for it used :p

Definitely a step up from the 18-55 IS Kit lens in both build quality and overall feel as well as optics :cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaveSt
Senior Member
407 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Lima, Ohio
     
Sep 12, 2009 10:10 |  #21

topcatproduction wrote in post #8630059 (external link)
Thanks for that reply, it's good to know when people aren't actually blown away by a lens when upgrading! With the telephoto I will still want at least 300mm so I suspect I will probably buy a canon 70-300 IS (maybe tamron TC as well for more scope) as I love but cant justify the money on a 100-400.
So a 17-85 IS may be the way forewards as it offers good wide angle, but with a telephoto I dont quite need all the zoom of the 17-85...

Don't forget that you need to multiply everything by 1.6 assuming you are using a crop sensor camera. The 55-250 is really a 88-400 when you figure the 1.6x factor which gives you a pretty respectable zoom lens for a very good price. If the extra 50mm the 70-300 gives is worth the extra money then by all means that is the one you should go for. The build quality of the 70-300 is better as well.

As far as overlap goes, that is more of a personal preference. I like having the 17-85 because in most cases it means I don't need to carry another lens with me when I don't feel like lugging a camera bag around. Much the same can be said for the 55-250 if I know we will be outside most of the day. I like being able to just carry the camera for a day without the extra baggage. I can't do that many times with my 17-50 even though optically it is probably a better lens. There always seems to be a trade-off somewhere.


Dave

[30D] [Sigma 30 f/1.4] [50 f/1.8] [EF-S 60] [EF-S 15-85IS] [EF-S 55-250IS] [Sigma EF-500 DG Super]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,335 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2947
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Sep 12, 2009 10:17 |  #22

if the person has never used a FF camera...there's really no point brining in the crop factor...

DaveSt wrote in post #8630888 (external link)
The 55-250 is really a 88-400 when you figure the 1.6x factor which gives you a pretty respectable zoom lens for a very good price.

i think this line is like Skip's batman signal...


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaveSt
Senior Member
407 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Lima, Ohio
     
Sep 12, 2009 13:01 |  #23

DreDaze wrote in post #8630923 (external link)
if the person has never used a FF camera...there's really no point brining in the crop factor...

Why? It was an important consideration when I was looking for a longer lens, and I have never used a FF DSLR either. If 400mm is long enough for everything you want to shoot, there is no reason to go for a more expensive lens with longer reach. The crop factor becomes even more important IMO when looking at wider lenses. A 28-135 might be sufficiently wide on a FF camera, but it sure isn't on a crop camera.

DreDaze wrote in post #8630923 (external link)
i think this line is like Skip's batman signal...

Must be an inside joke


Dave

[30D] [Sigma 30 f/1.4] [50 f/1.8] [EF-S 60] [EF-S 15-85IS] [EF-S 55-250IS] [Sigma EF-500 DG Super]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
topcatproduction
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
86 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Great Britain
     
Sep 12, 2009 13:19 as a reply to  @ DaveSt's post |  #24

Thanks for all the input, I'm still well amateur so not all of it meant something :oops: but get the basics!

I think it may be the 17-85 IS (does it have a USM?) and the 70-300 then. I am pretty confident I need the 300mm as I still cant always zoom far enough with my 75-300, if needed would a teleconverter work ok with it?

TC




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaveSt
Senior Member
407 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Lima, Ohio
     
Sep 12, 2009 13:47 as a reply to  @ topcatproduction's post |  #25

The 17-85 does have USM.

It sounds like the 70-300IS is what you need considering you already have a lens in the range. I'm pretty sure it will take a teleconverter, but it is going to be become a VERY slow lens at that point. I believe with a 2x teleconverter when you are at the long end of the lens you will be at f/11. You might have some focus issues . The 55-250IS will not take a teleconverter, so it sounds like that lens isn't a great choice for you. Like I said before, everything has a trade off. If you know you need more than 300mm and plan on using a teleconverter, you might be better off looking at something like the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. You will lose the IS, but you will have a much better working aperture when using the teleconverter. Maybe even something like the Canon 70-200 f/4 would be a better choice.


Dave

[30D] [Sigma 30 f/1.4] [50 f/1.8] [EF-S 60] [EF-S 15-85IS] [EF-S 55-250IS] [Sigma EF-500 DG Super]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Sep 12, 2009 14:43 |  #26

The original poster's least expensive option would be 18-55 IS (better than the non-IS version) and 55-250 IS (better than the non-IS 75-300). These are budget lenses with "entry-level" build quality, but decent optical performance in both.

A more expensive option would be the 17-55/2.8 IS paired with one of the 70-200s. A tele-zoom like the 70-200 will benefit a lot from IS, which still leaves a choice of f4 or f2.8 lenses. The f2.8 IS is big and heavy, not to mention pricey. Try it before you buy it, especially for use on any of the smaller Rebel/xxxD camera bodies. The f4 version feels a lot better balanced on the smaller cameras.

The 17-55 is mid-grade/USM build quality and tops in IQ, but it's an EF-S lens so can't be used on a full frame camera, if you might ever get one (I wouldn't let that stop me from buying an EF-S lens, especially a good one like this that holds it's value if I ever needed to sell it).

The 70-200/4 IS is an L-series lens, top build and image quality, and features a recent generation of IS that's very effective. The f4 versions of this lens don't come with a tripod mounting ring, an accessory you might not need but I'd personally want even though it's $160 additional.

I have to disagree with the statement that the 28-135 isn't a good walk around lens on a crop sensor camera. I think it is and have used it that way... a lot. I paired it first with a 20mm (not really wide enough on 1.6X crop camera) and now with a 12-24/4 Tokina most of the time. But, I'm always surprised how much less I used the wider lens, as opposed to the 28-135 range. I'd have to say that a lot of this comes down to personal preference.

Now, ultimately I upgraded to a 24-70/2.8 for the faster aperture and better dust sealing, but the 28-135 is very capable in terms of image quality. I'd challenge anyone to distinguish 8x10 prints from the 28-135 vs 24-70... The differences between these lenses - besides price - isn't in the images. It comes down to build quality, durability, max aperture and sealing against dust and moisture. The 28-135 is so commonly supplied as a kit lens that it's often possible to pick up lightly or unused ones at bargain prices. In fact I recently bought another one, as a backup for my 24-70.

The 12-24, 24-70 (and/or 28-135) and a 70-200 constitute my zoom lenses. The rest of my kit are prime lenses.

I could go most places, take a lot of types of shots and be pretty happy with just the 12-24 and the 28-135, though.

If you look back a few years, to the good/bad old days of film... most people got a camera with a 50mm lens. Their first additional lens purchase was usually a 70-210 or 80-200 lens. Their second additional purchase, if they went so far, was often a 28mm lens. So they had a kit covering 28mm wide to 210mm telephoto. It was pretty unusual for most consumers to have anything longer or wider than these lenses. In fact, many didn't even have this much of a kit. Yet they managed to make a lot of great photos.

Now if you "do the math" looking at the 12-24 and the 28-135mm lenses with a crop sensor camera, just these two lenses cover a range equal to 19mm to 216mm on a film camera! So, in essence you'd have more kit with just these two lenses than most film shooters ever owned in their lives.

The 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS pair is equal to 29mm to 400mm on a film camera! And the 17-55 IS and 70-200 IS is like having 27mm to 320mm on a film camera!

Want wider? It's easily available with a third lens. Canon offers the 10-22. Tokina offers an 11-16. 12mm (equal to 19mm lens angle of view on film/full frame) is wide enough for me.

By the way, most pro shooters don't go for zooms when they look at lenses longer than 200mm. This may change over time, as tele zooms are getting darned good and still keep improving. But, I think you'll find the majority of pros still turn to the 300/4, 300/2.8, 500/4 etd. prime lenses, which are called "Super Telephotos" for a reason!


p.s. Regarding teleconverters... of the above only the 70-200/4 is practical to put a 1.4X teleconverter on.

The main reason is that with a 1.4X you lose one stop of light. With a 2X, you lose two stops.

Now, Canon cameras cannot auto focus with lens apertures smaller than f5.6, and at f5.6 only with the center AF point (except for the 1-Series models and older EOS-3 film camera, which can still focus at f8, center AF point only) .

So, an f4 lens plus a 1.4X makes the combo an effective f5.6. It will work, but it will be a little slower and your viewfinder will be dimmer. An f4 lens plus a 2X teleconverter makes for an effective f8, auto focus is lost, and manual focusing with a dim viewfinder is difficult.

Your f4.5-5.6 lens will not auto focus at all with either Canon teleconverter, and most third party ones. Some third party teleconverters aren't recognized by the camera, so might still try to auto focus, but will be slow and will hunt a lot.

Besides, I can't think of a zoom lens I'd be willing to put a 2X on... Most just lose way, way too much image quality in the process. Even the 70-200/2.8.

I do use a 1.4X occasionally on my 70-200/2.8. It's okay. But I prefer to shoot with a prime lens instead (some of which will take 1.4X and 2X teleconverters very well).

If 300mm isn't enough reach on your camera, sorry but you are just going to have to walk closer... or get the subject to come closer to you... or buy a 400mm lens (which also won't always be enough reach... so you'll need a 500mm... then a 600mm... then an 800mm ;)).

We didn't mention the 100-400mm lens above... maybe we should have if you want more than 300mm reach. It's and f4.5-5.6, though, so it's not usable with the teleconverters, either.

Cheers!


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Sep 12, 2009 15:10 as a reply to  @ amfoto1's post |  #27

DaveSt wrote in post #8630888 (external link)
Don't forget that you need to multiply everything by 1.6 assuming you are using a crop sensor camera. The 55-250 is really a 88-400...

On the contrary, DO forget about the crop factor; and the 55-250 is REALLY a 55-250.

Unless you have a notion of what focal length you would need to use to get the field of view you want on a 135 format film camera, crop factor is a virtually useless and potentially confusing piece of marketing nonsense intended to fool suckers into thinking that less (a smaller image) is actually more (greater reach).

Get the focal length that does the job for you. If that is 300 mm, it is 300 mm. No conversion is required.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Sep 12, 2009 15:22 |  #28

xarqi wrote in post #8632208 (external link)
If that is 300 mm, it is 300 mm. No conversion is required.

True...

Unless you happen to be trying to compare with the kits most film camera users were limited to using, but quite happy with for a few decades.

300mm is a whole lot of lens on a crop sensor camera. That's just a simple fact. 400mm or 500mm is even more! 800mm is getting to the point it's nearly impossible to find your subject (been there, done that).

Perhaps we should have asked why the original poster felt they needed more reach...

Bird photos? If so, they will never have a "long enough" lens to get absolutely every shot... No one ever has. Try using attractants, blinds and working on stalking skills. But sometimes subjects are just out of reach... so sit back and enjoy the show.

Sports? Get out of the bleachers and onto the sidelines, and simply don't try to catch all the action at both ends of the field. It just isn't possible. Even the pros with 400mm and 600mm primes limit their shooting to a particular zone. If Sports Illustrated needs the whole game covered, they'll put several photographers around the a football field, for example.

Other? Well, it depends upon what "other" is... ;)


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DaveSt
Senior Member
407 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Lima, Ohio
     
Sep 12, 2009 15:32 |  #29

xarqi wrote in post #8632208 (external link)
On the contrary, DO forget about the crop factor; and the 55-250 is REALLY a 55-250.

Unless you have a notion of what focal length you would need to use to get the field of view you want on a 135 format film camera, crop factor is a virtually useless and potentially confusing piece of marketing nonsense intended to fool suckers into thinking that less (a smaller image) is actually more (greater reach).

Get the focal length that does the job for you. If that is 300 mm, it is 300 mm. No conversion is required.

To each their own I guess. I think it is an important consideration, but perhaps that is because my ignoring the crop factor led me to purchase a couple of lenses that just didn't work well for me when I bought my first DSLR. I thought a 50mm and a 28-135 would be about all I needed to start with but this left me without any sort of wide (or just plain normal indoor) options. Being a newbie, I simply went from lens recommendations that were made for FF cameras seeing as digital DSLR was quite new at the time. I wish I had taken the crop factor into account, and I honestly have never had someone try to sell me anything crop related by telling me I was getting more for less. You can ignore it if you want, but you probably have enough experience to automatically know what lens/focal length you need before you start shopping. For those of us that are simply amateurs or new to the field I think the crop factor makes a difference especially with the kind of money lenses take out of our pockets. Luckily there is an active buy/sell community in the photo world and making a mistake isn't a huge deal.


Dave

[30D] [Sigma 30 f/1.4] [50 f/1.8] [EF-S 60] [EF-S 15-85IS] [EF-S 55-250IS] [Sigma EF-500 DG Super]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,335 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2947
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Sep 12, 2009 20:42 |  #30

DaveSt wrote in post #8631572 (external link)
Why? It was an important consideration when I was looking for a longer lens, and I have never used a FF DSLR either.

it just seems like an unneccesary step...multiplying your focal length by 1.6....when you can look at the mm on the lens to determine if you need longer/wider/whatever.​..it matters if say you used to shoot film, and you know that 400mm was the perfect length for you...but if you've only shot on a crop you can know what lens length works for you without having to multiply by 1.6, and then divide by 1.6 later when you're looking for a lens...

amfoto1 wrote in post #8632059 (external link)
Your f4.5-5.6 lens will not auto focus at all with either Canon teleconverter, and most third party ones. Some third party teleconverters aren't recognized by the camera, so might still try to auto focus

i don't think the canon TC's will fit any lens that's not an L...the kenko TC works with the 70-300mm IS...the autofocus is about the same if you aren't maxxed out at 300mm using center point only...if you are at 300mm you can use the outer points well, but the center hunts like crazy


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

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

3,422 views & 0 likes for this thread
Upgrade from first lens'
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 Wierdninja
820 guests, 205 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.