Lens upgrade considerations
- Thread starter Fraczish
- Start date
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
If the seller agrees to pay to have the lens stripped down for a full service, then I'd ask whoever you send it to if they can check the internal lead for wear while it's in bits. I think it might be the aperture control lead? Whichever lead it is has been known to fail on some 24-105 L lenses and is something of a known possible weak point with the lens.
I don't think it would be fair for the seller to pay for this part and the additional time to replace it (if it needs replacing) as it's normal wear and tear, but it might be worth thinking about if it's being stripped down for a service as it might only cost £20 or £30 extra, rather than another £150 or so to replace it if it fails at a later stage.
I could be wrong, but I'd imagine a full Clean, Lubricate and Adjust (CLA) service alone would be in the region of around £150 to £200 though, so the seller might not want to pay that?
I don't think it would be fair for the seller to pay for this part and the additional time to replace it (if it needs replacing) as it's normal wear and tear, but it might be worth thinking about if it's being stripped down for a service as it might only cost £20 or £30 extra, rather than another £150 or so to replace it if it fails at a later stage.
I could be wrong, but I'd imagine a full Clean, Lubricate and Adjust (CLA) service alone would be in the region of around £150 to £200 though, so the seller might not want to pay that?
- Messages
- 9,819
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd agree with Mr. Badger's post - there is a flexible ribbon cable which has been known to fail. It happened to mine once, so if the cameras been stripped down for cleaning, it would be sensible to change that at that stage. It won't add lots to the cost.
That's a excellent tip, thank you!
I've contacted a local repair shop they have quoted £110 full strip down clean, inspect and repair. The seller has agreed to pay for this which is great. I will certainly mention this flex when I drop it it.
I've contacted a local repair shop they have quoted £110 full strip down clean, inspect and repair. The seller has agreed to pay for this which is great. I will certainly mention this flex when I drop it it.
- Messages
- 1,097
- Name
- Alistair
- Edit My Images
- No
I have the 24-105 f4 L, it's great quality, very versatile and good value for money.
However having used it for several months on a crop sensor 60D before I moved to full frame, I had two issues.
1) 24mm on a crop sensor is not very wide, so you won't be able to zoom out to photograph the whole of a church interior or as much of a landscape so easily.
2) Due to the fact that depth of field is affected by the crop factor, shooting wide open at f4 wasn't giving as shallow depth of field as I had been getting with my Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. f4 also doesn't let in as much light as f2.8 so in low light situations it's not so helpful.
I know you already bought the 24-105, but if you're returning it due to the gritty focus, I'd consider again.
If your daughter is looking at getting into weddings, I think a better option is a 24-70mm f2.8 (not the f4). Typical wedding venues like churches can be quite dark and you need the wider aperture to capture images in lower light levels. And these days, not many venues like photographers popping off flashes all around during the ceremony, fine for the posed photos and reception, but not the ceremony.
If she's likely to upgrade the camera body to a full frame one in the next year or so, a 24-70mm f2.8 is a good investment. A secondhand Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L Mk1 can be had for that budget or the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC (image stabilised) is a very good option for about £4-500 too.
If she's likely to stay with a crop sensor camera for the foreseeable future, then a better option might be the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS, which will give a wider angle and f2.8 for those dim churches and shallow depth of field shots. These can also be found for under £400 secondhand.
However having used it for several months on a crop sensor 60D before I moved to full frame, I had two issues.
1) 24mm on a crop sensor is not very wide, so you won't be able to zoom out to photograph the whole of a church interior or as much of a landscape so easily.
2) Due to the fact that depth of field is affected by the crop factor, shooting wide open at f4 wasn't giving as shallow depth of field as I had been getting with my Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. f4 also doesn't let in as much light as f2.8 so in low light situations it's not so helpful.
I know you already bought the 24-105, but if you're returning it due to the gritty focus, I'd consider again.
If your daughter is looking at getting into weddings, I think a better option is a 24-70mm f2.8 (not the f4). Typical wedding venues like churches can be quite dark and you need the wider aperture to capture images in lower light levels. And these days, not many venues like photographers popping off flashes all around during the ceremony, fine for the posed photos and reception, but not the ceremony.
If she's likely to upgrade the camera body to a full frame one in the next year or so, a 24-70mm f2.8 is a good investment. A secondhand Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L Mk1 can be had for that budget or the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC (image stabilised) is a very good option for about £4-500 too.
If she's likely to stay with a crop sensor camera for the foreseeable future, then a better option might be the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS, which will give a wider angle and f2.8 for those dim churches and shallow depth of field shots. These can also be found for under £400 secondhand.
Last edited:
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
As I've mentioned above, with the price you can now buy a lightly used, mint-ish Canon 6D Mk 1 for, I doubt it will be long before the lady in question goes over to full frame DSLR, so the depth of field and wide angle issues probably won't be too relevant for very long? I do enjoy the versatility of my 24-105 L. I know there's some shallow depth of field advantage in the 24-70 f/2.8 L that wedding and portrait photographers can be fond of, but if starting out on a budget would this not be achievable with a 50mm f/1.8 STM and some careful planning when framing shots?
- Messages
- 3,384
- Name
- Kell
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Forgive the ramblings, but hopefully this will make a coherent bit of reading at the end.
This is all based on personal experience (and I'm not a pro).
If she's thinking of upgrading to a FF body in the future (no matter how far off), then most (but not all) lens purchases should be EF lenses. Not all EF lenses are L series lenses, so they're not all mega-bucks, but it makes them future proof. If, on the other hand, she decides to keep both cameras (Full Frame and Crop) then a bit of mix and match isn't a bad thing.
When I got my first camera, I had no strategy for buying lenses (didn't think I needed one) and fell victim to a fair bit of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). As a result, I ended up wasting money on some things. I also had in my head that the first thing I should upgrade would be the body, but in fact it should be the lenses. A cheaper lens on a good body will drag the quality down, whereas a good lens will always be a good lens.
You didn't say which kit lenses your daughter has, but it would be interesting to ask her to look back at the shots she's taken and see which are her most used focal lengths. I didn't do this, and hence ended up buying lenses that incorporated focal lengths I didn't need. My kit lens was the 18-135.
I'd assumed it was rubbish as it was a 'kit' lens, and soon after bought an Sigma 18-250. This turned out to be a mistake. The Canon lens was sharper, and I ended up selling the Sigma lens when I sold that camera and keeping the 'kit' lens. However, I will say that I loved the flexibility of the lens and it made a great 'walkaround lens*' for holidays and the like as it offered versatility without the need to change lenses, but at the cost of ultimate image quality. It also produced ugly bokeh.
One of the first lenses I bought was a 50mm 1.8. Because everyone said 'you have to get a nifty 50'. And I loved it at first, but it seemed to go 'off' fairly quickly. Same lens, same camera, it just didn't produce sharp enough images towards the end. I also found that it wasn't quite wide enough*. I normally take a camera to events I'm part of (rather than shooting an event for someone else) and when you're indoors, I could never quite get far enough back in many situations. But I did love the f1.8.
In the end I replaced it with a Sigma 35mm f1.4 and found this to be much more useful* - extra light gathering as well as being that little bit wider (though it was a lot heavier). However, this is an EF-S lens, so would be useless if I then went full-frame.
Since being on here, I've tried not to duplicate/or replicate focal lenses where possible. So my strategy (such as it is now) was to try and cover lots of focal lengths without too much overlap or gaps.
Hence the latest lenses I've bought have been 10-22, 24-70, 70-300.
One of the things I would say about both of my non-canon lenses is that they represent great value compared to their Canon equivalents. My Tamron 24-70 2.8 was £700 new. And, in the reviews I read, doesn't lose out much to the Canon L lens in image quality. Where I struggle with it is that I'm sure I read a conspiracy theory that said Canon design in lens- recognition software so that their own lenses are quick to focus, whereas third party lenses aren't. There are definitely times with both my Sigma and Tamron lenses where I have to repeatedly press/half press the button to try and force it to focus. This doesn't happen with any of the Canon lenses. Not so bad for me as an amateur, but it might be a deal-breaker for someone thinking of becoming a professional.
The next most useful bit of kit for improving indoor shots is a flash. While it's true that you can't use one everywhere, a flash (even on top of a camera - as opposed to off-camera) would certainly be a worthwhile addition to her kit if she's going to be shooting indoors. Especially with a lens that doesn't open up beyond f/4.0.
My first flash was a Canon 430EXII - which I like, but (again after joining here) I found out you could get something as good for a lot less. I'm not completely up on what's what, but Yongnuo and Godox seem to be the standard alternatives, with Godox (I think) coming out as best for reasons which currently escape me. My last flash was a Yongnuo one I bought on here for about £60 (SH) versus a new price of over £400 for the equivalent Canon flash.
In summation. The best piece of advice i ever got on here is to work out what her current lenses are stopping her from doing and then go from there. For example, although my other lenses cover 24mm, I bought the 24mm pancake lens for times when I'm going out to dinner and don't want to lug about the 24-70, as it's heavy and bulky. The big lens was stopping me from taking my camera out. So that lens was bought for a specific purpose which I only discovered after using the other one for a while.
I'm perfectly happy for other people to contradict everything I've said above, TBH I expect it as I'm by no means an expert, but just trying to help someone avoid the same mistakes I made.
*For me.
This is all based on personal experience (and I'm not a pro).
If she's thinking of upgrading to a FF body in the future (no matter how far off), then most (but not all) lens purchases should be EF lenses. Not all EF lenses are L series lenses, so they're not all mega-bucks, but it makes them future proof. If, on the other hand, she decides to keep both cameras (Full Frame and Crop) then a bit of mix and match isn't a bad thing.
When I got my first camera, I had no strategy for buying lenses (didn't think I needed one) and fell victim to a fair bit of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). As a result, I ended up wasting money on some things. I also had in my head that the first thing I should upgrade would be the body, but in fact it should be the lenses. A cheaper lens on a good body will drag the quality down, whereas a good lens will always be a good lens.
You didn't say which kit lenses your daughter has, but it would be interesting to ask her to look back at the shots she's taken and see which are her most used focal lengths. I didn't do this, and hence ended up buying lenses that incorporated focal lengths I didn't need. My kit lens was the 18-135.
I'd assumed it was rubbish as it was a 'kit' lens, and soon after bought an Sigma 18-250. This turned out to be a mistake. The Canon lens was sharper, and I ended up selling the Sigma lens when I sold that camera and keeping the 'kit' lens. However, I will say that I loved the flexibility of the lens and it made a great 'walkaround lens*' for holidays and the like as it offered versatility without the need to change lenses, but at the cost of ultimate image quality. It also produced ugly bokeh.
One of the first lenses I bought was a 50mm 1.8. Because everyone said 'you have to get a nifty 50'. And I loved it at first, but it seemed to go 'off' fairly quickly. Same lens, same camera, it just didn't produce sharp enough images towards the end. I also found that it wasn't quite wide enough*. I normally take a camera to events I'm part of (rather than shooting an event for someone else) and when you're indoors, I could never quite get far enough back in many situations. But I did love the f1.8.
In the end I replaced it with a Sigma 35mm f1.4 and found this to be much more useful* - extra light gathering as well as being that little bit wider (though it was a lot heavier). However, this is an EF-S lens, so would be useless if I then went full-frame.
Since being on here, I've tried not to duplicate/or replicate focal lenses where possible. So my strategy (such as it is now) was to try and cover lots of focal lengths without too much overlap or gaps.
Hence the latest lenses I've bought have been 10-22, 24-70, 70-300.
One of the things I would say about both of my non-canon lenses is that they represent great value compared to their Canon equivalents. My Tamron 24-70 2.8 was £700 new. And, in the reviews I read, doesn't lose out much to the Canon L lens in image quality. Where I struggle with it is that I'm sure I read a conspiracy theory that said Canon design in lens- recognition software so that their own lenses are quick to focus, whereas third party lenses aren't. There are definitely times with both my Sigma and Tamron lenses where I have to repeatedly press/half press the button to try and force it to focus. This doesn't happen with any of the Canon lenses. Not so bad for me as an amateur, but it might be a deal-breaker for someone thinking of becoming a professional.
The next most useful bit of kit for improving indoor shots is a flash. While it's true that you can't use one everywhere, a flash (even on top of a camera - as opposed to off-camera) would certainly be a worthwhile addition to her kit if she's going to be shooting indoors. Especially with a lens that doesn't open up beyond f/4.0.
My first flash was a Canon 430EXII - which I like, but (again after joining here) I found out you could get something as good for a lot less. I'm not completely up on what's what, but Yongnuo and Godox seem to be the standard alternatives, with Godox (I think) coming out as best for reasons which currently escape me. My last flash was a Yongnuo one I bought on here for about £60 (SH) versus a new price of over £400 for the equivalent Canon flash.
In summation. The best piece of advice i ever got on here is to work out what her current lenses are stopping her from doing and then go from there. For example, although my other lenses cover 24mm, I bought the 24mm pancake lens for times when I'm going out to dinner and don't want to lug about the 24-70, as it's heavy and bulky. The big lens was stopping me from taking my camera out. So that lens was bought for a specific purpose which I only discovered after using the other one for a while.
I'm perfectly happy for other people to contradict everything I've said above, TBH I expect it as I'm by no means an expert, but just trying to help someone avoid the same mistakes I made.
*For me.
- Messages
- 1,097
- Name
- Alistair
- Edit My Images
- No
Do you mean the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art (which is full frame) or the Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC (which is crop sensor EF-S) ?
The 30mm is a lot lighter than the 35mm and smaller too.
The 30mm is also a bit wider which on crop sensor is a good thing, but I found that lens distorts a fair bit particularly up close.
I think the key is to work out what her currently lenses don't do so well but also what focal lengths she uses the most.
A general purpose zoom will allow give a lot of flexibility while working out what she likes to do and what focal lengths she prefers.
- Messages
- 3,384
- Name
- Kell
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Opps, sorry, meant the 30mm EF-s.
It does distort, but the profile exists in Lightroom, so it's one click to correct it.
Agreed.
Last edited: