Which Lens?, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 or EF 28-135 + Another

Very recently got a 60D + EF 50mm f/1.4 + EF 28-135mm...

Because its on a cropped body the 28-135 isn't very wide at all, Because the EF-S 17-55 will only fit on a cropped body does that mean that actual focal length is 17-55?

Dean.

Yes, the actual focal length is 17-55. All lenses are the actual focal lengths printed on the barrel.

So at 28mm setting, the 17-55 will have the same angle of view as the 28-135 when it is set to 28mm.

deanbayley wrote in post #16039998
Very recently got a 60D + EF 50mm f/1.4 + EF 28-135mm...

Because its on a cropped body the 28-135 isn't very wide at all, Because the EF-S 17-55 will only fit on a cropped body does that mean that actual focal length is 17-55?

Dean.

The confusion around this is because when you view the same focal length on a full frame camera and on a crop sensor body the end results look different. This is a result of the sensor, not the lens. Any given focal length on a crop sensor will look like that focal length time 1.6 on aq full frame body but the focal length itself does not change depending on the body. A 15mm focal length on a crop body will have a similar angle of view to a 24mm focal length on a full frame. (15mm x 1.6, the so called crop factor). The reason EFs lenses like the 17-55 only fit cropped bodies is that their image circle is specifically designed for smaller sensors. When put on a FF camera with an adapter they will vignette badly as a result. Conversely EF lenses, when mounted on a crop body have an image circle larger then the sensor can use, so effectively the outer edges of the lens are not being used. But in either case the focal length of the lens is the same regardless of the mount type or the body being used.

So all lenses focal lengths figures are based on a 35mm sensor even if they won't fit a full frame camera?

So an EF-S 17-55 can only ever be a 27.2-88mm? (Because they only fit APS-C body's)

Dean.

deanbayley wrote in post #16041221
So an EF-S 17-55 can only ever be a 27.2-88mm? (Because they only fit APS-C body's)

Yes. 27.2-88mm is the angle of view you'd get, whereas 28-135 gives 44.8 - 216mm AoV.

deanbayley wrote in post #16041221
So all lenses focal lengths figures are based on a 35mm sensor even if they won't fit a full frame camera?

Careful... focal lengths are focal lengths regardless of the sensor size - they're not based around 35mm cameras. For example, 'crop' cameras are different to 'full-frame' cameras (as people have said), but these are different again to 'medium format' cameras. 50mm lenses are considered 'standard' lenses for full-frame 35mm cameras, however, 50mm gives a tighter field of view on crop, and a wider field of view on medium format.

The reason Canon has introduced EF-S (or crop-only) lenses is because they don't have to make the image circle of the lens as big as the EF lenses. Essentially crop cameras use all of the image from an EF-S lens, but only use the middle bit of the image from an EF lens, that's because the image circle of an EF lenses is bigger to accommodate the bigger 'full-frame' sensor. Similarly, EF lenses wouldn't produce an image circle big enough for medium format cameras because the sensor is even bigger still! You would get really heavy vignetting in the corners or maybe even see the full image circle in your picture... this is the same if you try and mount an EF-S lens to a full-frame camera.

deanbayley wrote in post #16041221
So an EF-S 17-55 can only ever be a 27.2-88mm? (Because they only fit APS-C body's)

It can only ever produce a field of view that is equivalent to 27-88mm on full-frame. So a picture taken at 27mm on a full-frame camera would look that same as a picture taken at 17mm on a crop camera.

HOWEVER... forget all of that, because you only have a crop camera, so you don't need to worry about the field of view differences currently you start at 28mm with your 28-135 lens... 17mm is significantly wider than 28mm so you'll be able to get more in for sure! Maybe pop to a local camera store to so you can see how much wider it really is? Hope that helps, Chris.

The 17-55 is sharper than the 28-135 at 100% peeping, something to consider between those 2 lenses.

Basically you gain 17-27mm but lose 56-135 when comparing the 17-55 to the 28-135. What you shoot really dictates what focal ranges you will need.

I have never had a Canon 18-135 or 15-85, so I cannot talk to the virtues, but there are other options too you could consider if you are looking for more of a general walkaround lens. Others like the 25-105L and 24-70L on the crop bodies too as general lenses.

deanbayley wrote in post #16039998
Very recently got a 60D + EF 50mm f/1.4 + EF 28-135mm...

Because its on a cropped body the 28-135 isn't very wide at all, Because the EF-S 17-55 will only fit on a cropped body does that mean that actual focal length is 17-55?

Dean.

Dean,

If you want wider than 28mm, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm or Sigma 17-50mm should work well for you. Back when I had a 50D, I'd use the Sigma 17-50mm almost exclusively when shooting indoors, but sometimes felt 28mm was wide enough and would use the 28-135mm most of the time when outside.

Jim

I had been using an EF17-85S with my APS-C Cams (Currently 7D's); with an EF 10-22S for wider shots when needed.

Due to many favorable reviews of the EF15-85S and it's superior performance over the 17-85, I decided to try one.

I was skeptical of achieving significant IQ over the 17-85, but I was wrong--- The image quality is "clearly" superior, without pixel-peeping, and the additional 2mm at the wide end makes a difference on an APS-C body.

If you don't need the 2.8 speed, I highly recommend the 15-85.

See reviews/comparisons here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/

Leigh
www.leighwax.com

A couple of 15-85S examples:

http://www.leighwax.co​m/p18349134/h5dd5a2cc#​h5dd5a2cc

http://www.leighwax.co​m/p18349134/h5dd5a7ca#​h5dd5a7ca

There's also the new Sigma 18-35/1.8 if you want really fast.

Still, the 28-135 is a pretty good lens so if you are enjoying that one, you could look at an ultra wide to compliment it. Things like the Sigma 8-16, 10-20 (two versions), Canon 10-22, 16-35 (expensive though), Tokina 11-16, 12-24, Tamron 10-24 may all compliment your current lens nicely if you need wider.

If you want wider in your main lens then just about any of the 17-5x lenses from Canon, Sigma or Tamron are excellent for faster options (there's also a Tokina 16-50 that could be considered) then there are plenty of options from those three manufacturers with wider focal length ranges with variable apertures that are also typically excellent optically.

I have two lenses I use all the time on my 60D, and the rest are hardly touched now, my 17-55, and the 70-300L.

I love the 17-55 (after a trip to Canon to fix a front focusing issue out of the box) and I would recommend it all day long. It's fast, fast focusing, and gives really sharp images with good color. Most of the time all I do in post is just crop with the images it gives. The 15-85 is also a very good lens, however I find myself needing the speed, and one thing that is often overlooked is that the max aperture of your lens is used when metering and autofocusing - if you have one that is faster, it can focus better in low light, and the 17-55 really shines there. I can take pics with no flash of Christmas lights and things and the AF is dead on. Superficially, it looks more professional on your camera, it's a pretty large and commanding lens, particularly if you get the hood on it (recommended).

Keyan wrote in post #16042400
I have two lenses I use all the time on my 60D, and the rest are hardly touched now, my 17-55, and the 70-300L.

I love the 17-55 (after a trip to Canon to fix a front focusing issue out of the box) and I would recommend it all day long. It's fast, fast focusing, and gives really sharp images with good color. Most of the time all I do in post is just crop with the images it gives. The 15-85 is also a very good lens, however I find myself needing the speed, and one thing that is often overlooked is that the max aperture of your lens is used when metering and autofocusing - if you have one that is faster, it can focus better in low light, and the 17-55 really shines there. I can take pics with no flash of Christmas lights and things and the AF is dead on. Superficially, it looks more professional on your camera, it's a pretty large and commanding lens, particularly if you get the hood on it (recommended).

No argument, but I wanted to add that the 15-85 also focuses quickly even in very low light and while its certainly not a low light lens, the AF is very sharp and accurate in low light. In moderately low light I can get very good images handheld, if the subject is static, thanks to the 15-85's great 4 stops of IS.

I don't doubt that at all, the 15-85 is a fine lens, and honestly for well lit areas I wouldn't mind one for a walkaround lens.

couple of 17-55 shots in low light:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/8​332064002/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/8​250137566/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/61744772@N06/8​332065784/

Well until they release a ultra compact, lightweight 10-800mm f/1.2 looks like i'm buying more glass than i'd planned on..

Think I'm sending the 28-135 back, Its not very wide and not that fast..

The 18-35 f/1.8 sounds like a great fast lens but doesn't have the zoom i'm looking for..

The 27.2-88mm f/2.8, errr i mean, 17-55mm Sounds like the one to go for, thanks for the tips guys!

And Keyan love the pics, they've sold me on that lens..

Dean.