Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 13, 2006, 9:50 PM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

You got to be careful when reading on-line reviews

Older lenses tend to be around longer and get more feedback, especially the popular focal lenghts made for the 35mm days. The newer one like the 24-105 (or even the EFs 17-55) are better lenses, but are so new that most folks have yet to experience... or write positive reviews

Going for full-frame in the future is one thing, but one also gives up a lot by not getting a digital only 17-55 (actually any 3rd party brand too in this focal range) which is(are) sharper in fact than the 24-70!!! :O

-> Check the previous thread on this: f/2.8 and f/4 is just 1-stop apart - http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2006, 2:31 AM   #12
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Amarilla

Please be careful.

The reason the wedding photographers like the 24-70 and 24-105 so much is that they are all using 5D and 1D cameras.

The sensor on the 30D is SMALLER (slightly less than half the size) than the sensor on the 5D, the 5D is the same as 35mm film.

Therefore when choosing an all-around lens you need to multiply the focal length by 1.6 to get an equivalent field-of-view.

You have two incompatible wishes at the moment:
1. Buying the best all-around lens for the 30D.
2. Buying a lens that was designed for a full-frame sensor/film.

24*1.6=38.4
70*1.6=112
105*1.6=168

17*1.6=27
55*1.6=88

Can you see that 24-70 on a 5D gives very similar coverage to 17-55 on a 30D?

You can avoid EF-S or digital lenses only at the cost of forcing lots of lens changes and having less sharp pictures. If you had got the 5D then either the 24-70 or the 24-105 would have been excellent choices. But you got the 30D and that makes them not the best choice for that camera.

If you insist on avoiding EF-S lenses (which begs the question of why you bought the 30D in the first place) then please consider the Canon EF 17-40 f4 L instead of the two lenses you are looking at presently.

17-40 * 1.6 => 27-64 which is similar coverage to the 24-70 on the 5D.

Advantages to 17-40L:
1. Build quality.
2. It will be usable on a camera he may or may not get 2-3 years in the future.

Advantages to 17-55:
1. An extra stop of light f2.8 vf4.
2. Much sharper. (Read the MTF charts).
3. Image Stabiliser.

But I have a question - why avoid EF-S? If your husband upgrades to a 5D later on then he will be doing 1 of two things with the 30D:
1. Selling it.
2. Keeping it.

If he sells it then he can simply sell the EF-S lens with the camera at the same time. If he keeps it as a backup camera then the EF-S 17-55 will still be the best general purpose lens to use on that camera.

I currently have a 20D, and to go with it I have an EF-S 17-85. I will be upgrading next year to a 5D. If I had chosen the 24-70 (which I did consider) I would have had 3 years of the frustration of not having a wide enough angle on my main lens, which would have necessitated far more lens changes.

All my other lenses are non EF-S, but it does make a difference whether you have a 1.6 crop camera which lenses are the most useful for a given photographic style. You are reading advice about the best lenses to use on the 5D and 1D cameras and applying it to a 30D. For a given photographic style the "best" lens selection for a 30D is not the same as the "best" lens selection for a 5D. When I upgrade to the 5D I am going to keep most of my old lenses, but will have to buy some new ones too, because for the kind of photography I do they are not the best focal lengths.

At any rate that's enough from me.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2006, 6:56 AM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Amarilla,

I'm going to chime in again. NHL and Peripatetic make some good arguments - but it just brings out, again, that lens choice is a VERY individual thing. If your husband is going to embrace SLR photography as much as you think he is, then he's going to form his own opinions regarding what equipment to buy. And I can pretty much garantee you they'll be different than my opinion, NHLs or peripatetic's. This is why I think the best course is to allow HIM to choose his accessories and additional lenses.

Get him a kit lens so you can take photos on Christmas. Then provide him a gift certificate so he can make his own choices on equipment. Let HIM decide if he wants to avoid EF-S lenses at all cost. Let HIM decide if the build quality of one lens is worth more to him than the sharpness of another. Let HIM decide if he wants to use third party lenses or stick with just Canon.Especially when you talk about possibility of multiple lenses. In the end, the lenses and accessories are tools that have to fit HIS needs. And his needs may evolve along a different path than you anticipate. Let his learning curve and interests drive the purchases. Give him a lens to get started (a kit lens for less than $100 can provide great Christmas pictures) and if he wants to jump right in and buy another lens (with your certificate) then he can do so in a matter of days. Maybe he decides he'd rather have a telephoto lens and the kit lens is fine for his wide angle needs now, or macro is an important first step.

Let me provide an example - I use a 28-135mm lens as my walk-around. I'm very happy with it. I find the 70-135 range very useful and am greatful for it. I usee it more than my 17-40. Other folks swear you must start out with a 17mm lens. Why? because that's what THEIR STYLE dictates. Peripatetic and I both use fast primes - I prefer an 85mm 1.8 - he prefers a 28mm 1.8. Neither is wrong - we just have different styles. So, my advice is: don't choose your husband's style for him. Once he figures out his own needs people here can give him advice on a lens when he knows his requirements and restrictions.

Anyway, just some food for thought. Best of luck
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2006, 1:26 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6
Default

Wow… This is a real science…:O



Thank you very much for all your detailed responses and interesting opinions.





I have been researching further today and considering the cons and pros of your comments and the reviews I read.



Currently my main constrictions are:



Money: I have come to the conclusion that I will have to stretch my initial budget.



Time: I have to order tonight because time is ticking away and we will travel for Christmas.



Macro is my husband's first love, so I do not want to make any decision in that regard. He will choose whatever he considers best. I suspect that he'll be willing to "over-spend" on this type of photography –to the detriment of other types. So, at the moment I have decided to partially cover those "other areas" the best I can. This is what I have decided so far:



1) 24-105[/b] as a general purpose ("light") lens (for travelling/holidays, etc seems to be ideal).

2) 17/40[/b] for wider angle, landscapes, and indoors. I presume that a wider angle (EFS 10-22 or Sigma 12-24) may be a better choice for landscapes, but I do not know whether my husband will like the idea of EFS lenses or non-Canon lenses, I rather not invest in those lense. Another advantage is the money back voucher that Canon offers at the moment for the 17/40. 3)

3) EF 50mm f/1.8II. I am aware now (thanks to you) that for a cropped dSLR a 35mmmay be a more reasonable choice, but I will be running out of money after the 24-105 and the 17/40; and the EF 50mm f/1 8II seems to be a nice lens to have and a good compromise price-wise.



My head is spinning:?, but I have learned a lot. I have nearly made my mind up, so please scream if I got it all wrong or if another combination seems to be far more reasonable (for instance, I am not yet very sure whether a 70-200 would be a better choice than the 24-105; but perhaps it is better if I leave the telephoto choice to my husband, as I do not think he'll be needing a telephoto for family Christmas pictures… but then again, I know nothing…:?)



What about flash, polarizing filters, UV(O) filters, cleaning kits, and other accessories? Are they a must at the moment?



I am very grateful to you all. THANK YOU. :?

All the best,


Amarilla
Amarilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2006, 2:06 PM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

This is up to you of course, but just a thought...

If you do decide on getting the 17-40 then a 70-200 f/2.8 is a better match (less overlap). The EF 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS is a better buy than the IS version because it's actually a sharper lens out of the two, but cost about the same as the new 24-105... (and is again a stop faster like the 24-70)

-> We are going in circle, but with those extension tubes you could turn the 70-200 into that Macro again :-) :lol: :G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2006, 3:27 PM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
This is up to you of course, but just a thought...

If you do decide on getting the 17-40 then a 70-200 f/2.8 is a better match (less overlap). The EF 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS is a better buy than the IS version because it's actually a sharper lens out of the two, but cost about the same as the new 24-105... (and is again a stop faster like the 24-70)
Yep, but to me 28-70 is a very useful range. So if I only had those 2 lenses I would be swapping an awful lot. I find anything short of 70mm to be too short as a walk-around lens and in truth anything short of 100mm too short for a walk-around lens.

So to me it's not just about covering all ranges. It's about having a lens that covers MY general walkaround needs 70% of the time.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2006, 5:39 AM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Too bad she's concerned about the 3rd party otherwise I would have suggested the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EEX which could better match the requested need: :-)
"% of type of photography-
--- Landscape - 25%
--- Portrait indoors - 25%
--- Portrait outdoors – 10%
--- Macro -30%
--- Fast sports photography -? (once only – Formula 1, but it is not his usual type, I think).
--- Wildlife photography -10%"


17-40 -> 28-64 (35mm equivalent for landscape and indoor)
50-150 -> 80-240 (35mm equivalent for everything else outdoor)

-> But again IMO any 17-50 f/2.8 will probably do a better job and is a stop faster as well as fill that 10mm gap!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2006, 8:10 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
polarwasp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 167
Default

So with 17-50 and 50-150 you're left with $$$ to follow JohnG's advice... sounds good to me you have the best ofboth worlds!
polarwasp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2006, 1:26 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

I agree, get your husband a "starter" lens like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8...it won't break the bank...IMHO, it's the second best lens to Canon's 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens. IQ is almost as good, but at only 1/3 the price. Then let your hubby decide what lenses/accessories to get next.
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2006, 3:55 PM   #20
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Also a Full-Frame upgrade is not for everyone...

There are many advantages to full-frames, but there are also many pitfalls:
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secret...FrameWars.html


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:42 PM.