Hello, and a lense question

Hello all, new guy here. I was referred to this site by someone on another forum I visit. I was asking for Canon lense advice and he directed me here, to a photography related forum. Already I can see I'm going to have a lot of great stuff to read here. In the meantime, I'll pose the same question that I did on the other forum. I'm looking to make a significant upgrade in my photography gear, and have roughly $1,500 to spend (a bit less if I want to keep my wife happy).

For the past couple years I've been using my first DSLR, a Canon EOS Rebel T3, with the kit 18-55mm lense, and a Giottos carbon fiber tripod. The vast majority of the photography that I do is while on motorcycle touring trips, backpacking, and the occasional family trip. Landscape and landscape+ motorcycle photos are my most common, but I also throw in the odd photo of a cool building, dinner plate, or bird.

For an upgrade I'm considering one of three things; a new camera body (Canon 5D Mark II), or two Canon lenses, the 24-105 F/4L IS or the 70-200 F/4L IS. If I go with the new camera body, I'm not sure my current kit lense would even work since it is a full frame camera, so that option might be out of the question (I can't afford both a body and lense upgrade at the moment). I know that the two lenses will fit on my current T3 body, but I won't get the full use out of a crop body camera. I'm OK with that. I figure that if I'm going to spend money to upgrade a lense, I want to to work for my future camera as well as my current one.

Now down to my thinking on these two lenses. There are many times I'm out on a trip taking photos with my kit lense and wishing for just a bit more reach for my subject. it seems the 24-105 F/4 would fill this role nicely, without breaking the bank like a 24-70 F/2.8 would. It also seems like it would be an ideal lense for a single-lense system, if I only plan on taking one with me for the day or for a trip.

On the other hand, I've read nothing but rave reviews of the 70-200 F/4L IS. My brother, who is an amature large format photographer (and very good at it, he's been "carried" or whatever they call it by a gallery), explained that with the 70-200, I'll be able to take landscape photos and subjects in a way I never even considered before with my kit lense. That sounds pretty cool to me as well.

So without making this post too long, I'd really appreciate any feedback or suggestions. I'm pretty determined that if I chose to buy a lense, it's going to be an "L-series", just because I don't want to have to upgrade down the road. So if you folks were in my shoes, which of the three items (camera body or either lense) would you upgrade first?...or something else entirely?

If it helps, I'll throw up some of the types of photos I'm currently taking with my camera:

Welcome to POTN.

Well, if you want honesty.. i wouldn't buy an "L" lens, just in case you may update some day.

Of all the pictures you attached, most are at 25mm or wider, so a 24-105 would start limiting you there.

My suggestion is an EF S15-85. It's nice and wide, and 85 is a decent length on the long end.

Your current 18-55 won't fit a full frame camera(5D II), so you would have to buy another lens, knocking that route out of your budget.

The T3 is still a decent body, and a lot of what you seem to like shooting, doesn't need super-fast AF and large MP... so the T3 should do you for a nice while longer.

Alternatively, the 70-200 f/4L IS would match up nicely against your 18-55(leaving little "noticeable" gap), and would allow you to take some tele shots... as well as landscapes. Landscapes don't have to be taken wide.

So.. my advice.. 15-85 or 70-200 f/L IS.

Jedi5150 wrote in post #15177033
I know that the two lenses will fit on my current T3 body, but I won't get the full use out of a crop body camera.

Somebody's got your thinking a bit messed up. You would get "full use" out of any lens you choose to use on your current body. The things you need to consider when choosing a lens is the focal length (or focal length range if you're looking at a zoom lens) and the maximum aperture (minimum f-stop number).

Focal lengths of EF lenses are no different than the focal lengths of EF-S lenses. In other words, an EF-S zoom lens set to 50mm will provide the very same field (angle) of view as an EF 50mm lens.

By the way - the word describing the tube full of glass is not "lense". It's lens. That's the way you will see the word in all your Canon literature. The plural form is lenses.

Jedi5150 wrote in post #15177033
Now down to my thinking on these two lenses. There are many times I'm out on a trip taking photos with my kit lense and wishing for just a bit more reach for my subject. it seems the 24-105 F/4 would fill this role nicely, without breaking the bank like a 24-70 F/2.8 would. It also seems like it would be an ideal lense for a single-lense system, if I only plan on taking one with me for the day or for a trip.

Hello, and welcome to POTN.

You haven't really mentioned why you want to upgrade your camera. Why do you feel you need full frame? What do you think it will do for you?

The paragraph I quoted is the key to deciding your next step.

You have identified a need that your current gear doesn't fulfill.

You need more reach. Both the lenses you mentioned will give you this, but they are not the best for the job. I notice a lot of the shots you posted are taken at wider than 24mm. Based on that small sample, I would think that 24mm being your widest would severely limit you (I know it would limit me).

With that in mind, I would suggest looking at a lens to complement, rather than replace, your current 18-55mm which you can upgrade later on down the road once you have met your more pressing need of having more reach.

So now we can consider lenses to give you more reach. IMO the 24-105 and 24-70 should not be considered because they are not going to give you very much over the 18-55 in terms of reach. They are more replacements (and not very good ones on crop at that, again IMO). This list from cheapest to most expensive are my recommendations:

-Canon 55-250 IS (this will complement your kit lens well, it is very cheap, has good IQ, and is light and compact)

-Tamron 70-300 VC USD (this lens will fit on FF cameras should you upgrade later on, it is more expensive than the 55-250, but is better at virtually everything, though IQ is similar - not that the 70-300 is bad, just that the 55-250 does have very good IQ)

-Canon 70-200 f4 non IS (This is a noticeable step up in terms of quality from the 55-250 and 70-300's, you get much better build, noticeably better IQ, and faster AF. This lens is my personal recommendation for those who don't have a money tree growing in the backyard)

-Canon 70-200 f4 IS (This is basically the same as the non IS, except that it adds weather sealing and IS. I have owned this and the non IS, and I can tell you that IQ is extremely close, though some will tell you the IS is better)

-Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS (This lens IMO makes the Canon 70-200 f4 IS rather pointless unless you want something smaller and more compact since the price is similar, as is the IQ, but you get f2.8 instead of f4)

-Canon 70-300L (Great lens, but slower aperture than the 70-200's in order to gain more reach, and more expensive than the f4's and the sigma)

If you want something that will last you, then I would suggest that you might skip the 55-250, and consider the others.

If you go for the Tamron or the 70-200 f4 non IS, that leaves you room to upgrade your kit lens or add an ultra wide angle.

You could jump in and go for the more expensive options, but you have not tried a telephoto lens yet, so you do not know if you will use it enough to justify spending so much money on one. So I would personally not advise you to go for the $1000+ lenses at this point in time.

Some will say you can't use telephoto lenses without IS, but I personally have not found it necessary for my style of photography. I do not know whether you need IS or not.

With all that in mind, I would recommend you either get a new Tamron 70-300 VC, or a used 70-200 f4 non IS. Why used for the latter? Because they are very commonly found used, and if you find out that you do in fact need IS, you can re-sell it at the same price you bought it, with zero, or very minimal, loss. New for the Tamron because used copies are comparatively rarer than the Canon 70-200's.

The 24-105 is a fantastic, all-arounder with the crop body; I've been using mine on the 40D and 7D for a few years now, and I love it. It's also my primary landscape lens, backed up by the 10-22 for when I need to go wider. I'd suggest that combo over the 24-105/70-200 combo you mention.

I've got the 70-200, and while it's a wonderful lens I find I don't use it nearly as much as the others. Especially for landscapes/travel scenery. The 70-200 would give you some fun options for isolating very specific elements in a scene, but sounds like it would benefit you further down the road than the other two lenses.

Thanks Kel and Skip! Kel, honesty is definitely what I'm looking for, I appreciate the thoughts on the alternative lens. And thanks as well Skip, for the spelling correction. I knew it didn't look quite right as I typed it, but couldn't think how else to change it.

I was unclear on using one of the two L series lenses on a crop body camera. I believed that to make full use of the lense you would need to have a full frame camera body. Thanks for clearing that up for me Skip. The camera body upgrade is now out of the question, so the lens selection is all that remains. I recently came across the subforum showing examples of photos taken with various lenses. That is going to give me many hours of great food for thought before making my decision.

Sirrith, thanks for the very logical way you layed out the info, and your lens suggestions, and Snyde, I appreciate your comments as well.

Personally, I don't care for some of the specs of the T3- there's a lot of limitations to that body- but it is what it is. Mainly lower MP - less cropping ability, f/5.6 sensitivity for all af points, smaller LCD, 3 fps, etc...
If I was looking for a lens for that - I'd go with the 15-85 or the 18-135 ( I'd choose the STM variant over the older IS variant. ). The other thing I would suggest- if you don't have one- is an external flash like the 430 EX II.. It'll allow you to use some fill in shots like that of you sitting with your dog.

Now, if you still remain stuck with the "L" lens mentality- then I say- go for it- the 24-105L should be wonderful for most shots.. Keep your 18-55 to sell with your body when you decide to upgrade- plus it will give you a bit wider when you do need it. When you get to a full frame body- that 24-105L will feel "wider" - similar to having a 15-65 on your T3. I see a few of your shots are bumping the long end- so it makes me wonder if having more MP for cropping, or a longer lens is what you really need.. Reality is that to be compatible with future purchases- i.e.. not waste money on lenses not compatible with a future body upgrade- all you need is EF lenses rather than EF-S lenses.. All L lenses are EF lenses- and any EF lens will work on both crop bodies and full frame..

Hint: Consider trying a different browser- like Google Chrome.. It'll highlight a majority of spelling errors- and also give you suggestions for some.. For example, if I misspell lens with the e- like lense - it underlines lense in red, and if I right-click it- it gives me what it thinks are best choices- such as lens or lenses or sense or lease..

As far as your shooting is concerned, I see a lot of relatively high f numbers in your pics- like f/11, f/22, etc... Is this intentional or is this because the camera chose it, or what ? For most lenses, I would refrain from shooting tighter than say f/16... .. Shooting with a wider aperture, aka lower f/number will allow you to separate the subject more from the background... The 18-55's is not a bad lens- just a bit short for a walkabout- imo. It's OK wide open- sharpens up at about f/8... A prime example- your sword shot - wide open- and at 55mm- would probably have been even better than it is now. But I prefer the longer focal lengths when I can use them..

wayne.robbins wrote in post #15179179
As far as your shooting is concerned, I see a lot of relatively high f numbers in your pics- like f/11, f/22, etc... Is this intentional or is this because the camera chose it, or what ? For most lenses, I would refrain from shooting tighter than say f/16... .. Shooting with a wider aperture, aka lower f/number will allow you to separate the subject more from the background... The 18-55's is not a bad lens- just a bit short for a walkabout- imo. It's OK wide open- sharpens up at about f/8... A prime example- your sword shot - wide open- and at 55mm- would probably have been even better than it is now. But I prefer the longer focal lengths when I can use them..

Thanks for the feedback Wayne, greatly appreciated. To answer the question in your last paragraph, the high f numbers are accident. Even though I've been taking pics on my trips for several years now, I'm really a point-n-shoot photographer using a DSLR camera, for all intents and purposes. In fact only recently did I start playing around with chaning the f stop for my pictures. All I've been doing manually to this point is selecting the shutter speed. I've never taken a photography class (my wife and I just started looking at some at the local community college today). My brother, who is an excellent photographer but lives far away, has given me some "DSLR tips for dummies" for my landscape photos. I basically keep the ISO set at 100 and forget about it, and then just play around with various shutter speeds for my pics to see what I like best in the end.

My brother and I were laughing recently about the photo I posted above with the seagull on the railing. I told him I liked how the gull and railing were in focus, and the ocean was blurry. He told me that my camera accidentally took a good picture, and luckily I was there to hold the camera while it did so. He really is right, I didn't manually tweak the f stop, I set it on one of the dummy preset modes. Hahaha. Well, I'm really getting more interested now in learning to use my camera to its full extent, particularly after seeing a lot of the photos on this forum. I've sepnt a lot of time in the lens example subforum, and holy cow!!!...if those pics don't motivate someone to learn to take better pictures, nothing will.

Your composition is not bad... Interesting subjects.. Interesting locations... But the true power of DSLR's is when you put yourself into control and take control from the camera. And the beauty is- you don't have to go 100% Manual- you can go just part way- to like P or AV, or TV... ; personally- I would think that AV is the best starting point- considering your subject matters..

The thing is- I've met a number of DSLR owners that thought it was their equipment, mainly lenses, holding them back.. Some will suggest going to lenses with larger apertures- expensive lenses- but for the most part- their current lenses will work- they just lack the know how. For blurred backgrounds- the formula is pretty simple- sometimes people discover it by accident;
1. Use your longer focal lengths- imo- one of the most important ingredients.
2. Use your lens opened wide or nearly wide open- lowest F # you can. Given choice between f# and focal length- go with the longer focal length! Stop it down if you need to increase how much-front to back- that is in focus.
3. Shoot in AV mode. Put your camera in Auto-ISO ; the T3 is the same generation as the T3i- it's Auto-ISO should work half-way decently enough.
4. It is important to get an idea of how far you are to your subject vs the distance from your subject to the background... The closer you are to your subject- the better; the further your background is from your subject- the better... Sounds confusing- but that's what it is mostly.

Note that I added this thought- key for one to understand; under most decent lighting conditions- most bodies are very similar and usually just as capable!. The differences in bodies are when you are working in the extremes- like extremely low light, or shooting a lot of pictures in bursts, etc.. But in good light- most really are very capable of taking great pics..

Nothing in there says you need an L lens. A EF-S 55-250mm lens will work - cheap- decent little lens.. Nope- not as good as a $1400 lens nor as good as a $2200 lens- but it can do the job- under decent lighting conditions. From there- practice !... Even if you don't buy from them- places like Adorama and BH Photo Video - have lots of video tutorials out there - certainly not the only places- but it might help with other basics.. But the important piece is to practice... Even if it's just a soda or wine bottle on a table- you can use it to learn how much you can really do with your current equipment. Don't be afraid to post some samples later for critique- most will help you attain what you are trying to do- and seeing this is POTN- never say you have a pile of cash that needs spending...

Thanks again Wayne! Your posts are not only informative, but you break it down into very easy to understand language for a beginner. What you say makes perfect sense...of course it's not exactly the fun answer to hear when you've got your heart set on something new and shiny. On a serious note, I know it will be a long time until my skill is at a point where my gear is holding me back. But on the other hand, I'm kind of anal about wanting to know for certain what problems are mine, and what problems are with the gear. It seems that if I buy nice quality equipment, the gear factor will be taken out of the equation, and all that will be left (to complement or blame) will be myself. The second bonus of buying decent equipment early, is that from the get-go I'm learning on equipment that I will be using for a long time, and hopefully will become second nature to use, whereas that might not happen if I become proficient at the hobby only to switch to a new set of equipment once I start getting decent. Lastly, the "weather resistant" lenses and bodies are very appealing to me, since I do tend to get wet (rain and snow) and dusty when out backpacking and adventure motorcycle riding. As you can see, I can find ways to justify it to myself, however, in the end I recognize that your logic is probably the better route to follow.

Just wanted to say those few photos you posted are pretty damn nice! I'm a rider myself (Honda ST1100) when the allergies around here aren't kicking my butt. Haven't done but a couple trips, and would love to do more... and lug the camera with me!

What actually popped into my mind when thinking about lugging my camera crap around with me was "Gee, self, wouldn't it be better to have something smaller?" I had recently looked at the Olympus OM-D EM-5. The micro 4/3 format fascinates me, but I would want a viewfinder. The OM-D EM-5 has that, plus an optional add-on grip and battery grip for better grip, and it's still smaller than a full size DSLR. Well... anyway, maybe SOMEDAY I'll get something like that! I'll still keep the 7D, tho!