good and not so good canon glass ....

T

Tricky69

Messages
600
Edit My Images
Yes
is there a list somewhere ???

I think I've read that the 70-200 is not as good as the 70-300 (or the other way round) etc

good results wide open ? else I dont see the point in getting faster glass ?? if you cant use it that fast !

After moving to FF , I'm in another world - glass wise - EF-s I know about ... but FF EF is all new to me !

any other brands worth looking at, I dont want the hassle of the sigma type of pot luck on IQ .... Tokina / tamron etc any better ? or does canon just beat them all ?

the 'which' lens question comes up time and time again, so I was just wondering if there were a list / sticky anywhere :thumbs:

Ta

Rich
 
You've got that the wrong way around. 70-200L, f/4 or f/2.8 versions, are outstandingly sharp. You need an L prime to get anything better and even then you'll need to print big to see any improvement. Main benefit of those is lower f/number.

70-300 IS is also very good, great range, smaller, and much cheaper of course. It may be all you need. Full frame doesn't work lenses as hard as crop format due to the lower magnification so all lenses automatically perform better on full frame.
 
thanks hoppy ... what about wider ... 16-35 against the 17-40 for example ... is there really twice the lens for twice the price ?
 
Tricky69 said:
thanks hoppy ... what about wider ... 16-35 against the 17-40 for example ... is there really twice the lens for twice the price ?
Click to expand...

16-35 is f2.8 while 17-40 is f4.. the wider you go the more you pay
 
Tricky69 said:
thanks hoppy ... what about wider ... 16-35 against the 17-40 for example ... is there really twice the lens for twice the price ?
Click to expand...

As KIPAX says, you're basically paying for the extra stop, also I'm led to believe on a FF sensor, the 16-35 has better corner sharpness than the 17-40, but about the same sharpness in the centre. Both lenses are weather sealed though! :)

As for whether it's twice the lens for twice the price, I don't think so but if you have to get the shot at a decent ISO in poor light then I guess you have to pay extra for it!
 
KIPAX said:
16-35 is f2.8 while 17-40 is f4.. the wider you go the more you pay
Click to expand...

That's it. Low f/number costs loads. If you don't need f/2.8, get the 17-40.

I haven't compared the two but someone on here hired a 16-35L and compared it to the kit lens. While it was hardly a comprehensive test and I think all he did was shoot at a midrange f/number and pixel peep the centre of the frame but on that comparison he couldn't tell the difference and was majorly surprised (and disappointed :lol: ).

If all you do is place the main subject in the middle of the frame and shoot at f/8, then pretty much any old lens will deliver a damn good result. What you pay for with an L lens is edge sharpness, at low f/numbers, low distortion, flare control, fast AF, uncompromised design, rugged build and weather proofing.
 
HoppyUK said:
Full frame doesn't work lenses as hard as crop format due to the lower magnification so all lenses automatically perform better on full frame.
Click to expand...
Yes that's true, but.......
Full frame also uses the image edges ignored by crop sensors. These are notoriously bad. Full frame needs a damned good lens to get sharp edges, whereas crop sensor only needs a medium quality lens to get the same results.

And I agree with the comment about the kit lens - bloomin good at f8 in the middle of the lens but wide open and wide angle you can see the soft edges even on a 6x4 print - even on a cropped sensor camera; I binned my kit lens ages ago, I hate to think what it would look like on the 5D2 !!!!
 
Thanks all so far ... keep them comming :D

Any 3rd party glass I should be considering ?

I'm not 'AS' worried about them being a stop faster at the moment, as I've just jumped up at least 3 stops with the ISO performance of the new body. Yes .. I know about DOF ... got a couple of primes if I need that.

I was looking for a couple of walkabouts - wide, and long (to replace the 18-55 and 55-250 EF-S lenses from the 450D ), and just dont want to pay over the top if there is something 'nearly' as good for half the price :thumbs: - yes I know the 18 = 28 now .. but I wanted to start wider, and I dont so much need the length

top quality will come later after some more saving !

btw ... I have some OLD (35mm EOS days) glass ...
EF 22-55 F4 - 5.6 USM
EF 28-90 F4 - 5.6 II
EF 80-200 F4.5 - 5.6

I will be testing these on the new body and see if any are acceptable long term ...any views on these ???
 
Tricky69 said:
Thanks all so far ... keep them comming :D

Any 3rd party glass I should be considering ?

I'm not 'AS' worried about them being a stop faster at the moment, as I've just jumped up at least 3 stops with the ISO performance of the new body. Yes .. I know about DOF ... got a couple of primes if I need that.

I was looking for a couple of walkabouts - wide, and long (to replace the 18-55 and 55-250 EF-S lenses from the 450D ), and just dont want to pay over the top if there is something 'nearly' as good for half the price :thumbs: - yes I know the 18 = 28 now .. but I wanted to start wider, and I dont so much need the length

top quality will come later after some more saving !

btw ... I have some OLD (35mm EOS days) glass ...
EF 22-55 F4 - 5.6 USM
EF 28-90 F4 - 5.6 II
EF 80-200 F4.5 - 5.6

I will be testing these on the new body and see if any are acceptable long term ...any views on these ???
Click to expand...

One of the best reasons to go Canon full frame is the wonderful 24-105L. Hard to fault and nobody else makes anything like it. IS as well. I would just get it :)

To go with that, 70-200L 4 IS. Lovely thing. 70-300 IS is almost as good in many ways for most people, plus smaller, lighter, longer and cheaper :shrug: Get that and then you can maybe afford a 17-40L and you're properly sorted.
 
HoppyUK said:
One of the best reasons to go Canon full frame is the wonderful 24-105L. Hard to fault and nobody else makes anything like it. IS as well. I would just get it :)

To go with that, 70-200L 4 IS. Lovely thing. 70-300 IS is almost as good in many ways for most people, plus smaller, lighter, longer and cheaper :shrug: Get that and then you can maybe afford a 17-40L and you're properly sorted.
Click to expand...

Thanks Hoppy ... looks like I'll have to sell ANOTHER car :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top