OO can't make up my mind

C

chameleon

Messages
603
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm so very tempted to get a canon 24-70 as a general use lens for my 40D. I just can't quite make up my mind whether to splash out all that dosh or to go for something a wee bit cheaper like the 17-40?

What would you recommend as a very good or best short zoom to get?
 
I find the 24-105 and the 40D were just made for each other (y)
its a bit cheaper too if you don't mind "swaping" f/2.8 for f/4& IS
 
Thats the big question innit? Is it worth the extra wedge to get a 2.8 over a F4?
I am pretty disappointed with the standard lenses as they do appear pretty soft. I want something a wee bit sharper. Is F4+IS better than F2.8?
 
24 is too long for crop. 24-70 and 24-105 are full frame lenses.

The crop version is 17-55 2.8. I wouldn't mind betting it is sharper than either of the others, has a better range (for most people), is 2.8, and has IS. Use mine for 75% of walkabout pics :)
 
HoppyUK said:
24 is too long for crop. 24-70 and 24-105 are full frame lenses.
Click to expand...

:thinking: Erm bit of a strange statement that one
define "to long"

The 24 -105 serves my purpose perfectly on a crop sensor
 
Cobra said:
:thinking: Erm bit of a strange statement that one
define "to long"
The 24 -105 serves my purpose perfectly on a crop sensor
Click to expand...

24mm on crop format is equivalent to 38mm field of view on full frame, which is not really much of a wide angle. Most people find something around 17-18mm more useful, which is why all crop format kit lenses start around this figure.

The other thing about using full frame lenses on crop cameras is that you are paying for coverage (in money, size and weight) and just not using it. More than half of the image is simply being wasted.

Of course, if 24-105 is the range you want then that's absolutely fine, but I wasn't sure that the OP was fully aware of the differences between full frame and crop format lenses.
 
Don't know whether this helps to give you some idea of the 'width' of th 24mm
This was taken on a 400d which should be the same crop as the 40d (1.6) at 22mm.

It makes the scene 'feel' as if it was ~60 degrees wide

IMG_19001.JPG
 
HoppyUK said:
24mm on crop format is equivalent to 38mm field of view on full frame, which is not really much of a wide angle. Most people find something around 17-18mm more useful, which is why all crop format kit lenses start around this figure.

The other thing about using full frame lenses on crop cameras is that you are paying for coverage (in money, size and weight) and just not using it. More than half of the image is simply being wasted.
Of course, if 24-105 is the range you want then that's absolutely fine, but I wasn't sure that the OP was fully aware of the differences between full frame and crop format lenses.
Click to expand...


I guess you could also argue, conversely using the lens on a full frame
you are actually losing a little reach, and as for" More than half of the image is simply being wasted"

You could say that about any lens on a crop
( if its true I have no idea so I will just take your word for it)

I don't "do" landscape type shots but if I did I guess I would go circa 10 -22

I don't know whether the OP does landscapes or not either
but I stand by my statement of the 24-105
 
Cobra said:
I guess you could also argue, conversely using the lens on a full frame
you are actually losing a little reach, and as for" More than half of the image is simply being wasted"

You could say that about any lens on a crop
( if its true I have no idea so I will just take your word for it)

I don't "do" landscape type shots but if I did I guess I would go circa 10 -22

I don't know whether the OP does landscapes or not either
but I stand by my statement of the 24-105
Click to expand...

If you're happy with the 24-105 then that's absolutely fine, it is a fantastic lens :) But it is designed for full frame coverage, so more than half of the image area falls outside the crop sensor - literally wasted - because you're only using the bit in the middle.

All EF lenses are like this (Nikon FX too) whereas EF-S lenses (Nikon DX) are designed to only cover the crop format area. The advantages of doing this are very considerable, as it frees up the lens designer to do other things. For example, if you compare the EF 24-105L f/4 for full frame to the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, when used on their respective design formats they deliver a similar field of view, but the EF-S lens is a whole f/stop faster. That is a massive benefit inherant to the crop format, so I'm just saying it's worth thinking about.

Some other examples: you mention a 10-22mm lens. That is EF-S for crop format only. You could not design a zoom with a focal length range like that to cover full frame. Also compare the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 to the EF 17-40L f/4 - the EF-S lens is again a full stop lower f/number yet has a lot more reach, like a 3.2x zoom ratio compared to 2.4x for the EF lens. IS as well. If you want f/2.8 in that focal length range to cover full frame, the best Canon can do is the 16-35L f/2.8, but here you have to drop back to a 2.2x zoom range and take a big price hike.

The optical benefits of crop vs full frame run out quite quickly after about 60mm focal length or so, which is why EF-S lenses are only made in short focal lengths. Hope this explains :)
 
chameleon said:
Thats the big question innit? Is it worth the extra wedge to get a 2.8 over a F4?
I am pretty disappointed with the standard lenses as they do appear pretty soft. I want something a wee bit sharper. Is F4+IS better than F2.8?
Click to expand...

Absolutely!!!!! (y) I bought the 70-200 at 2.8 and I am so glad I did over the F4 - in fairness I've never heard a bad word said about the f4 version, but the bokeh on the 2.8 is fab and you can experiment with DOF - plus it is obviously far better in low light - it's just a no brainer if you can wait a little bit to save the extra cash!!!!

The 24-70mm F2.8 L is my next lens purchase and I have a 30D crop and I have no concerns about the crop factor issue.

I bought the 35mm f1.4L prime as a nifty fifty equivalent for the cropped sensor and find it is wide enough for most applications - so 24mm on a cropped sensor would be fine IMHO.

I would consider what type of photography you are interested in and what others lenses you would like to purchase in the future for the images you take.

With the above purchase I'll have 10-22, 24-70 and 70-200 and a 35mm prime which should be me done for a while :nuts:

As a side note, I am thinking of selling the 10-22 as I just don't use it as much as I thought I would - and I think I will use it less when I get the 24-70mm. As a side side note :p I don't take many landscape shots though!
 
HoppyUK said:
....................The optical benefits of crop vs full frame run out quite quickly after about 60mm focal length or so, which is why EF-S lenses are only made in short focal lengths. Hope this explains :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that
but TBH its a little over my head
but I am sure someone made sense of it and found it useful (y)
 
HoppyUK said:
All EF lenses are like this (Nikon FX too) whereas EF-S lenses (Nikon DX) are designed to only cover the crop format area. The advantages of doing this are very considerable, as it frees up the lens designer to do other things.
Click to expand...
Conversely, there are also often advantages to using an EF lens on a crop sensor as you can benefit from the "sweet spot" effect whereby vignetting is reduced and overall sharpness can be increased if the lens is slightly softer towards the edges.
The optical benefits of crop vs full frame run out quite quickly after about 60mm focal length or so, which is why EF-S lenses are only made in short focal lengths.
Click to expand...
EF-S 55-250 IS ?
 
Right, so it's narrowed down to
24-70 F2.8
24-105 F4
17-55 F2.8
17-40 F4
It's not getting any easier
If it helps I have a Sigma 10-20 n a 100-400L to go either side of it. Of and a nifty fifty.
I just want a really sharp everyday lens I can leave on the camera most of the time.
 
It really depends on what you shoot but for me, from that lot, it would be the 24-105. I've actually got the 24-70, on a crop camera, and much of the time it's too short at the long end :(
 
Vertigo1 said:
Conversely, there are also often advantages to using an EF lens on a crop sensor as you can benefit from the "sweet spot" effect whereby vignetting is reduced and overall sharpness can be increased if the lens is slightly softer towards the edges.
Click to expand...

Not really. If you want to look at it that way, then an EF-S lens is like an EF lens with all the extra glass cut away so you only have the sweet spot left. Hence the savings in size and weight. The best EF-S lenses are at least as sharp as EF.

Vertigo1 said:
EF-S 55-250 IS ?
Click to expand...

Yes, it starts at less than 60mm :thinking:

That's a cracking little lens, and another good example of how the smaller format of crop benefits lens design. Compare these two:

EF-S 55-250mm, f/4-5.6, IS, 390g, 108mm long, £220. In terms of field of view, it is equivalent to 88-400mm on a full frame camera. Canon makes an EF lens close to that configuration in the 100-400mm L, f/4.5-5.6, IS, 1,380g, 189mm long, £1,300.

Okay, one is a plastic consumer lens and the other a pro-spec L, but I think the differences are pretty convincing. However, there are downsides to crop format - it is smaller than full frame (obviously!) and that will always make a difference. But if you don't have a camera to take advantage of that, then why carry the penalty?

It's just another way of looking at the options :)
 
chameleon said:
Right, so it's narrowed down to
24-70 F2.8
24-105 F4
17-55 F2.8
17-40 F4
It's not getting any easier
If it helps I have a Sigma 10-20 n a 100-400L to go either side of it. Of and a nifty fifty.
I just want a really sharp everyday lens I can leave on the camera most of the time.
Click to expand...

Do you have L lust? What other reason is there for getting the 17-40 f/4 L, compared to the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 with IS?
 
For my wee bit of wisdom. I would ask what lens the OP has at the moment.

Also where does he find it limiting, not in image quality, but in use, with reference in particular to focal length.

I have both lenses , but use them on full frame cameras, and personally I would find anything longer at the short end than 24mm (on full frame) a bit limiting for a walk around and general use lens. However , depending on your photography you may find that, the equivalent of a minimum 38mm lens not restricting then it could be suitable lens for you.

As usual in this game, decision, decisions, decisions
 
Well, I'm currently using the bog standard 18-55 IS kit lens as a general walkabout lens. I sometimes use the 50 or the 10-20 when needs must. I must admit the 2.8 with IS would be nice for lower light. I am mostly taking train and car photos but often anything that catches my eye.
 
chameleon said:
Well, I'm currently using the bog standard 18-55 IS kit lens as a general walkabout lens. I sometimes use the 50 or the 10-20 when needs must. I must admit the 2.8 with IS would be nice for lower light. I am mostly taking train and car photos but often anything that catches my eye.
Click to expand...

Easy comparison then, how do you use the range on the kit lens? Is it fine for the way you like to shoot? If so, the 17-55 seems like the obvious choice.

Or, do you find you're always up around the long end? In which case, a 24-70 or 24-105 may be more suited.

Do you find the max aperture limiting or not in general? If so, only you can say wether a 2.8 chunk is worth the cash or not on an upgrade.

FWIW I went for the 24-70 L and use it for probably 80% or more of my shooting. But then that's on a 5D. The f4 on my 70-200 is seriously restricting me now, but I can't afford 2.8.

Choose right first time, whatever you end up going for.
 
When I bought my 350D I bought it body-only because I have a 28-70mm here which was the kit lens from an old film EOS. The very first weekend I used my camera, I found 28mm too limiting - I immediately replaced it with the 18-85mm IS.

Even at times I find that insufficiently wide, but there's no way I can justify the 10-22mm. Especially since I want to go FF at some point. With that in mind, I would quite happily buy an EF lens with a zoom starting at 17mm or 24mm or 28mm, but I would be considering it also as an investment against that future 5D purchase.

If you never plan to go full-frame then buy the 17-55mm - it's a cracking lens. If you decide to buy the 24-70 or the 24-105, at least you still have your old kit lens for the wide end.

Stroller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top