Can a lens be too good for a camera?

D

dangee

Messages
18
Edit My Images
No
I’m pretty new to the whole DSLR thing but have recently bought an entry level Canon (EOS 1000D) which I’m really pleased with. I got the Canon 18-55 (non-IS) lens kit and bought into the whole Jessops ‘get a cheap lens with the camera’ (I know) and ended up with the Tamron AF 70-300.

Out of the two, I’m veering to the longer style lens and am thinking of buying one really good lens.

Now, please answer the question without laughing or telling me I should learn how to use my current kit before throwing more money into it!

The Canon L series stuff looks pretty cool. The used prices also seem high, so if I buy used I reckon I could move it on without too much of a loss if needs be.

So, would a lens from the L series be a welcome addition or would its quality be lost on an entry level 1000D?

Thanks,

Dan
 
Definitely invest in glass before the body in this case! L lenses on a 1000D will still let you achieve great results! Putting cheapo glass on an expensive body is a different matter altogether though!

Chris
 
chris321 said:
Definitely invest in glass before the body in this case! L lenses on a 1000D will still let you achieve great results! Putting cheapo glass on an expensive body is a different matter altogether though!

Chris
Click to expand...

:plus1:
 
Think of it like this:

You put a ferrari engine into a mini, it's going to be awesome!

Put a mini engine into a ferrari, it's going to be useless.

Top notch glass on a lesser body, awesome picture quality.

Crap glass on a top notch body, no point.
 
Good glass is good glass. Get the best glass your can afford it will make sense in the end. If or when you upgrade your body the lenses will still work.
 
No... a lens can't be too good for a camera.
A top class body can make life a lot easier at times, but whatever the body you *always* benefit from top class lenses!
 
Remember too, the entry level dslrs of today are more advanced than the pro ones from only a few years back.....
 
I'm a definite :plus1: on this one - I always thought my camera was pretty average, and then I borrowed my bro's 70-200L f2.8 - WOW! :love:

Naturally, I couldn't afford one of these at the time, but it piqued my interest, so I got myself a nifty-fifty - high class glass at low class prices! (y)

The IQ was [compared to my old 18-55 non-IS kit lens] incredible. I have since invested in a sigma 17-70mm and was, and am, very impressed with the image quality. I have now totally convinced myself that I am only going to upgrade my body once I really need to! For the moment, however, I think my EOS 350D is just gonna have to live with being smaller than my lenses [can a camera body be envious?? :naughty:], especially the 100-400L that I will be purchasing from Kerso later in the week :LOL:
 
Garbage in, garbage out. Feed a soft, distorted or low contrast image to a pro camera and the camera will faithfully record the rubbish from the lens. Get a peach of a lens and any modern camera will do a great job of making the most the lens has to offer. Buy a cheap consumer zoom and you may find you can't get the shutter speed you need, or you have to push the ISO so high that noise becomes a problem. It will be soft(er) wide open and probably have more distortion, especially at the extremes of the zoom range.

If you start buying fast glass, like f/2.8 or faster then it will enable high precision focus points to operate, making AF faster and more accurate. You will also benefit from a brighter viewfinder, more control over shallow DOF, yahdah, yahdah, yahdah. If you like zooms, and shoot manual exposure, a fixed maximum aperture, be it f/2.8 or f/4, will make the lens so much more of a pleasure to use, as your aperture won't change each time you adjust the zoom.

A good lens will last years - easily ten, maybe twenty, perhaps more. There is only relatively little technical progress to be made in the area of optics, I would imagine, whereas bodies are improved year after year after year. Good glass is almost an "investment". Bodies you really just "rent" until the next upgrade beckons.

Let's not forget that pro glass will have superior build quality and may well be weatherproofed (although you really need a weatherproofed body to seal the deal) and I'd feel happier using a sealed lens in harsh conditions than a cheapy.
 
Normally I have to spend some time justifying big spends. This is great- within 10 minutes you've all done it for me!
 
I have a Canon 1000D and I upgraded the Kit Lens to a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The difference was so huge that it felt like I'd bought a new camera altogether!

I have a friend who's a serious photographer and he let me borrow his Canon 24-70 f2.8L and I could see the step up in image quality immediately. But it's out of my budget and I can't justify that, which is why I bought the Tamron alternative
 
That's an interesting question. I would normally say use the best glass, and that is true for the majority of cases, but there have been comments made about glass that has been designed for full frame film cameras not performing at their best when mounted on a cropped sensor body. The Minolta 20mm f2.8 being one of those lens, due to the curvature of the rear element.

Bear in mind some of these lenses can be over 20 years old and the idea of digital and crop sensors was not even a pipe dream.
 
RobY said:
That's an interesting question. I would normally say use the best glass, and that is true for the majority of cases, but there have been comments made about glass that has been designed for full frame film cameras not performing at their best when mounted on a cropped sensor body. The Minolta 20mm f2.8 being one of those lens, due to the curvature of the rear element.

Bear in mind some of these lenses can be over 20 years old and the idea of digital and crop sensors was not even a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

Good point well put but I've got a couple of very old lenses (ones about 20 years old and the other is about 60) that work really well on my very new digital crop sensor. Do check the reviews on any lenses your thinking of getting. :)
 
dangee said:
Normally I have to spend some time justifying big spends. This is great- within 10 minutes you've all done it for me!
Click to expand...

Sure, great glass is exactly that, great. But it's not like you won't be able to take nice pictures with what you have. I would say to play around with your current setup and find out the limits of it and then try on a better lens. This way you'll also notice how much a factor the lens is and how much you add to the picture.

And ultimately a lens cannot be too good for a body.
 
A friend of mine got the 1000D + 18-55mm (IS) lens and borrowed my 70-200mm F4 L glass- he didn't want to give it back, as it was so clear etc.
 
Thanks for the advice so far.

Just to open it up a little, the three I’m looking at are:

24-70 (f/2.8)
24-105 (f/4)
70-200 (f/2.8)

I suppose my preferred range would be 70-200 (but I’m slightly scared by the price). Out of the other two I’m leaning to the speed of the 24-70, but would like the extended range of the 24-105.

Anyone have any experience of them?
 
aligibbs said:
Depends what you want to photograph + what your budget is :)
Click to expand...

I suppose I’m after an all-rounder…ideally 28-300!

Would be looking at £800-900, and I would want to wait to go second hand, ideally.

Ultimately, I think I’ll end up splashing on a replacement for either the 18-55 (24-70 (f/2.8)) or the 70-300 (70-200 (f/2.8)) and saving for the replacement for the other.

As I’m typing I think I’m talking myself out of the 24-105 (which would be a bit of a compromise).
 
I've got the 24-70 and 70-200. Both are fine lenses and I've used them both to shoot at weddings. Personally I favour f/2.8 glass, and faster, over anything else, and I do rather like IS too.

For a crop body camera the most favoured "standard zoom" is undoubtedly the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS, which I also have, if your pocket can stand it. The 24-70 and 24-105 are aimed more to be used as standard zooms on full frame bodies. They can certainly be used on croppers too, but if you need wide, say for shooting landscapes or indoors, then 24mm on a crop body is not very wide at all. Of course, only you can know which focal lengths and apertures will meet your needs best. From the mixture you've listed it seems to me like you really aren't sure what you want. The lenses have differing strengths and weaknesses, depending on what you want to shoot and in what sort of lighting.

So, what do you want to shoot and in what sort of lighting?
 
tdodd said:
I've got the 24-70 and 70-200. Both are fine lenses and I've used them both to shoot at weddings. Personally I favour f/2.8 glass, and faster, over anything else, and I do rather like IS too.

For a crop body camera the most favoured "standard zoom" is undoubtedly the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS, which I also have, if your pocket can stand it. The 24-70 and 24-105 are aimed more to be used as standard zooms on full frame bodies. They can certainly be used on croppers too, but if you need wide, say for shooting landscapes or indoors, then 24mm on a crop body is not very wide at all. Of course, only you can know which focal lengths and apertures will meet your needs best. From the mixture you've listed it seems to me like you really aren't sure what you want. The lenses have differing strengths and weaknesses, depending on what you want to shoot and in what sort of lighting.

So, what do you want to shoot and in what sort of lighting?
Click to expand...

Ah…my inexperience shining through!

I’m mainly interested in shooting close-up portraits and landscapes...in daylight.
 
I have both a 17-40mm F4 L, 70-200mm F4 L- you could probably acquire both within your budget if you go second hand. Bit slower than F2.8- but if your shooting in daylight- do you really need it? (Having said that, I would love the 70-200mm F2.8IS)
 
Good answer, but that creates a problem. For close up portraits to be flattering you want long glass. On a crop body something around 85mm would be a nice length, but you could really use anything from around 70mm to 200mm with good effect. A fast aperture would also really help with creative DOF and nice bokeh. f/2.8 is probably the slowest aperture you should have available, but some people like even faster glass, like f/1.8 or even f/1.4 or f/1.2. The 70-200/2.8 IS would be a terrific choice, but pricey. The long end of the 24-70 might be OK, but would be right on the limit of being OK.

For landscapes you will typically want much wider glass, and a crop body needs even wider glass than a full frame camera would. The 17-55 would be a good choice to cover a wide range of situations, but not ultra wide. There is also the Canon 10-22mm, which is an "ultra-wide" and ideal for landscapes, and there are similar alternatives from other manufacturers.

If you want to do it all with one lens then you will definitely have to compromise, either on your focal length range, your speed or your IQ.

I don't know how you feel about primes, but an 85/1.8 would make for a very nice portrait lens. Very sharp, fast, quiet, accurate AF, compact and light, a real bargain for a high quality (although not pro grade) optic. That would leave the wide end to be covered. You don't need fast glass for landscapes so a more modest wide zoom would work. To be honest, even your kit lens, stopped down to around f/8, should serve you fairly well for landscapes, at least while you develop your photographic skills.

EDIT : Actually I've just been browsing through some of my old photos to look for some "portrait" style shots. I'm not a portrait photographer, so these are nothing great, but here are some examples, all shot with an xxD body. It does seem as though you could even go as wide as 50mm on a crop body, which might make the 17-55 a promising all rounder for your needs....

50mm f/1.8 lens at 1/500, f/2, 100 ISO....
20080813_105254_6714_LR.jpg


70-200/2.8 IS lens at 70mm, 1/100, f/4, 800 ISO....
20080816_201505_2300_LR.jpg


70-200/2.8 IS lens at 200mm, 1/800, f/4, 200 ISO....
20080615_140957_5688_LR.jpg


70-200/2.8 IS at 70mm, 1/100, f/2.8, 800 ISO....
20080829_143610_7939_LR.jpg
 
tdodd said:
Good answer, but that creates a problem. For close up portraits to be flattering you want long glass. On a crop body something around 85mm would be a nice length, but you could really use anything from around 70mm to 200mm with good effect. A fast aperture would also really help with creative DOF and nice bokeh. f/2.8 is probably the slowest aperture you should have available, but some people like even faster glass, like f/1.8 or even f/1.4 or f/1.2. The 70-200/2.8 IS would be a terrific choice, but pricey. The long end of the 24-70 might be OK, but would be right on the limit of being OK.

For landscapes you will typically want much wider glass, and a crop body needs even wider glass than a full frame camera would. The 17-55 would be a good choice to cover a wide range of situations, but not ultra wide. There is also the Canon 10-22mm, which is an "ultra-wide" and ideal for landscapes, and there are similar alternatives from other manufacturers.

If you want to do it all with one lens then you will definitely have to compromise, either on your focal length range, your speed or your IQ.

I don't know how you feel about primes, but an 85/1.8 would make for a very nice portrait lens. Very sharp, fast, quiet, accurate AF, compact and light, a real bargain for a high quality (although not pro grade) optic. That would leave the wide end to be covered. You don't need fast glass for landscapes so a more modest wide zoom would work. To be honest, even your kit lens, stopped down to around f/8, should serve you fairly well for landscapes, at least while you develop your photographic skills.
Click to expand...

Some really helpful advice...thanks.

Dan
 
I could be wrong here, but isn't the crop factor greater on the xxD than the xxxD, and hence presumably 1000D - this means that the nice 'n' cheap nifty-fifty is already an 80mm f1.8, although I will concede that IIRC the difference in crop factor is small, so 80mm on xxD is [I think] over 100mm 35mm equivalent?

Big Dog said:
I get a bit worried at times that my lens is better than me!!!!
Click to expand...

That's almost definitely true with the lens I plan on getting, but then that's the point - I can grow into it! :D
 
xxxxD, xxxD and xxD are all 1.6X croppers, making a 50mm lens have the same angle of view as an 80mm lens on a full frame camera. You can squeak by with 50mm, as I think my example above shows, but that is at the wide end of the typical portrait range for close ups, which I take to mean head shots. For half length and full body shots you could happily go a little wider, but long is never a bad thing in terms of how the photos look. The dangers with too long are either - you don't have enough room to back away from your subject far enough, or, you can't work a nice rapport, without raising your voice, when you are 30' away to fit a wider view into the frame.

If you think about portrait lenses for full frame then something like the 85L or 135L might be typical choices. The longer lens would be better suited to tighter shots. 135/1.6 = 85mm.
 
I started out about a year ago and initially much prefered long lenses like you - part of the novelty perhaps.

Since then I've become more and more centred on the 85mm F1.8 lens which is literally all I ever use (subjects are children, people at weddings, the odd shot of a car mod I'm doing for another muppet board etc). This would be equivalent of 50mm f1.4 on the 1000D.

I bought the 70-200F4L IS and frankly it's the worst purchase I've ever made, has probably cost me about £10 per shot so far! It's great in lots of ways BUT it lacks the background blur abilities I love. The F2.8 version is really big and heavy which many say dampens the appeal. Plus both are large and white which makes me (at least) self concious using them.

I would hang on to your money for a bit and see what you're missing before making a purchase. Adding a relatively inexpensive prime might be just the answer.

HTH
 
I was in the same dilemna a few weeks back. I had the 350d and some old and slow lens. I ideally wanted something from 17/28-250/300 and I wanted quality. But that range in a quality and fast lens did not exist. So i opted to break it down into 2 different lens. On a cropped body i knew I couldnt live with a 28mm lens, and a lot of people recommend the 17-50 2.8 IS, but that is a lot of money. So I bought the excellent Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 instead for £240 second hand. I felt that I wouldnt need IS as the focal range was fairly small. I should easily be able to get shutter speeds of 1/100+ with a fast lens like that. For the longer range, I knew I needed a fast lens with IS as the focal range requires fast shutters and the IS would really help my shaky hands. Also I love the portraits and candids at the longer end, so I upped my budget a bit and invested in the superb 70-200m 2.8 L IS. Overall I spent £1409, which is a lot. But i doubt I will need any other lens for a long time. If i do get one, it would be a specialist wide angle for landscape type stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top