posh lens on a consumer camera?

man in hat

man in hat

Messages
13
Name
Mike Tilley
Edit My Images
No
I've got a Canon 450D which came with an 18-55 kit lens. Want to upgrade to something a bit longer as I dont use the wide angle so much.

Have been looking at getting a Canon 28-135 however I'm liking the look of the Canon 24-105L.

The question really is it it worth putting such a posh lens on whats considered to be a consumer camera? Or will the quality of the optics be lost when the light hits the electronics?

Its lots of money to spend too, however I guess it could be an investment if I decide to upgrade the camera on a few years time.

Your thoughts most welcome
 
Better to put a Ferrari engine into a mini than a mini engine into a ferrari.

Basically, while you might feel a little held back with quality optics on a lower end camera, you'll feel a lot MORE held back with poor optics on a quality camera.

But the 450d is a very capable camera, so my say is: Do it! (y)
 
:agree: I'm sure you'll want to upgrade your camera body in the near future and when you do then you'll already have the start of a quality glass collection. Plus, as foodpoison says, the 450D is a very capable camera and will be helped immensely by the quality optics :)
 
bodies come and go, but lenses last a lifetime.








...or until to drop them on the floor by accident.
 
I've got a 400D and invested in 24-70L Zoom. The lens cost twice as much as the camera but I'm very happy with the results and I know that any problems are down to user error rather than not havin a good enough lens!

The only downside is that the lens looks too big for the little camera, but it is not a big enough deal to want to spend more £'s on a battery pack just to make the camera bgger.

The post above put it perfectly I think.:clap:
 
What they all said.

Good glass is an investment and will make a difference on any camera body.

I like FP's analogy, up to a point - sure putting a Ferrari engine in a Mini will make it go quicker until the Mini breaks under the strain. Putting good glass on a consumer camera body won't break it - it'll just keep going faster all the time.

(Sorry FP)
 
Actually I would add one thing...

It's lurvely jubbly to have nice lenses and whilst that is in most cases a more important fact than a nice body - it really comes down to the type of photography you shoot. IQ is only part of the equation.

If say you're into your motorsports or sports for instance (or anything with say fast changing distance between camera and subjects) you want a body that is responsive and above all accurate in the AF department to compliment the typically quick AF speeds of a good lens.
If you're typically shooting in low light without flash a super massive aperture helps but even I've found at f/1.2 I've needed ISO 1600 and 3200 and I crave something with lower noise at high ISO's.

So lenses are only part of a very large equation... :)
 
I agree with all of the above.

Better to have good, fast glass, which may cost a few pounds more than having a cheaper, slower, not as good glass which will perform bad as soon as the light drops.

I think it's a good idea :) My first additional lens that went on my 400d was a 70-200f4L lens, so it's allll good!

But you'll catch the 'L' disease, you'll find that only 'L' glass will do from then on!
 
In almost all cases it's better to go for glass than a new body. The 450D is an extremely capable camera with excellent IQ. The 24-105 will suit it very well as an general purpose zoom lens.

It's also worth noting lenses don't depreciate at anywhere near the rate of bodies. Bodies lose a huge amount of value due to new releases whereas lenses don't.
 
Before you spank your hard earned on a 24-105 L try the new 55-250 IS lens on the 450D

I picked up a 55-250 from Ffordes for £149 inc postage and I'm very pleased with the IQ. The 24-105 on the 450D is front heavy and a bit OTT, imo.

If you're not happy with the 55-250 you could sell it on and it would only cost you £20 / £30 to find out if you can save £500 / £600
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Before you spank your hard earned on a 24-105 L try the new 55-250 IS lens on the 450D
Click to expand...

The 24-105 is over double the width of the 55-250 at the short end and it's hard to see how they can be linked to the same requirement. :shrug:

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
The 24-105 is over double the width of the 55-250 at the short end and it's hard to see how they can be linked to the same requirement. :shrug:

Bob
Click to expand...

"Want to upgrade to something a bit longer as I dont use the wide angle so much"

Seems to cover your point ;)
 
Fair enough Tyrone....I guess we have a different interpretation of "wide angle" and "a bit longer". (y)

Bob
 
The way I see it is he's already got wide angle covered (if he does decide he needs it occasionally) and the 55-250 will give him the extended range he's after for a couple of hundred quid. The 55-250 sits very nicely on the 450D and as I said, even after my judgment being skewed by only using L glass, I'm impressed with the IQ. Both the 450D and the 55-250 won a mention in the 2008 TIPA awards and they work very well together.
 
Most "Amateur" DSLR's now give very good quality and the old adage that you stick a milk bottle on a Hassleblad and you will get crap shots still holds true,the results I get from my 350D are good when I use the 18-55 kit lens but on a different planet with the Canon 24-85 and that is not a very expensive lens.I would love to be able to afford something like a 24-70L.
 
The question really is it it worth putting such a posh lens on whats considered to be a consumer camera? Or will the quality of the optics be lost when the light hits the electronics?

No, you are correct to do this. Many people buy a posh camera then put rubbish glass in front.

Glass, glass, glass - go for it :)
 
Bodies come and go at fairly regular intervals.

Good glass however has a true longevity factor.
 
Going back to the OP's original post, I don't think he should overlook the 28-135mm lens he was originally looking at.

I have owned this lens and the copy I had was superb, sharp and the IS was there when needed, Ok its not an 'L' but it is a bloody good walkabout lens if you get a good copy.
 
Ok its not an 'L' but it is a bloody good walkabout lens if you get a good copy.
Click to expand...

Is that suggesting that some are bad then?
 
Hi Mike
I agree with the others - always go for the best glass you can afford as it will outlast your cameras if you look after it and if you should you want to sell it for any reason then the depreciation will not be as much. I have a 350D and 400D and whilst some might think a 70-200L stuck on the front looks silly I don't care as it takes some cracking pictures.

Off topic - have you tried chocolate chip/grated, chocolate and beetroot scones or cakes - they are wonderful. Or Pimms with equal parts Pimms, apple juice and tonic (with all the trimmings). I tend to experiment with food occasionally :D
 
PsiFox said:
Is that suggesting that some are bad then?
Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately as with most things today QC is below profit on company's agendas so you do get good and bad copies of this model, but not only this model the 'L' models seem to suffer from it too. :(
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Before you spank your hard earned on a 24-105 L try the new 55-250 IS lens on the 450D

I picked up a 55-250 from Ffordes for £149 inc postage and I'm very pleased with the IQ. The 24-105 on the 450D is front heavy and a bit OTT, imo.

If you're not happy with the 55-250 you could sell it on and it would only cost you £20 / £30 to find out if you can save £500 / £600
Click to expand...

One thing to point out about this suggestion is that the 55-250 is an EF-S lens IIRC, which means that if you decide to upgrade to a full frame camera in future, it won't work on one.

All of the 'L' series lens, like the 24-105 are EF lenses, which work on both cropped sensors like the 450D and full frame like the 1D/1DS and/or 5D
 
CScottMcQueen said:
Yes, unfortunately as with most things today QC is below profit on company's agendas so you do get good and bad copies of this model, but not only this model the 'L' models seem to suffer from it too. :(
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you buy camera lenses from a photocopier manufacturer :naughty:

:nikon:(y)




:exit:
 
I agree with most of the above....always go for the best glass you possibly can...even if it means hocking the family jewels! :LOL:

If you can possibly avoid it, don't go for the lenses that only fit cropped sensors (EF-S), as Markta said. It's the one thing you will certainly kick yourself over, if you ever move up to full frame camera's.......and believe me....one day.....you will. ;)
 
Blimey...I go to bed for a few ZZzz's and everyone and his mate has answerd my question:eek:....might need another coffee before I dive in..... :D

Just to clarify a one point. Basically I want a lens that can cover a good range. Now I do like a good wide angle ;) but have found I use the long end much more. So I recon 24mm on a crop camera would suite me fine and 105mm at the other is more than I have and where I find the current lens lacking at only 55mm.

Right, kettles goind on........
 
Kerioak said:
Off topic - have you tried chocolate chip/grated, chocolate and beetroot scones or cakes - they are wonderful. Or Pimms with equal parts Pimms, apple juice and tonic (with all the trimmings). I tend to experiment with food occasionally :D
Click to expand...
I wondered who would be the first to stumble onto those pages :D

No and no in answer to your question....however in the interests of scientific experimentation....the weekend is looking interesting ;) :D
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
"Want to upgrade to something a bit longer as I dont use the wide angle so much"

Seems to cover your point ;)
Click to expand...


Hmmm... 24 x 1.6 = 38.4 which (in 35mm terms) isn't really all that wide. I think this lens is also to replace the kit lens and the 24-105 is "something a bit longer" and is missing the 18-24 bit which is probably the wide angle he doesn't use so much.

To the OP, there's absolutely nothing wrong with sticking good glass on the front of a "consumer" camera - far better to do that than stick your kit lens on a 1D.
 
Hi,

Good glass is a real investment. Apart from the wide angle range from 10mm - 20mm, all my Nikon AF lenses are f2.8 constant - 20mm-35mm, 35mm-70mm, 70-210mm, 200mm prime, I also have a 300mm f4 prime, and a beautiful 70-210 f4 (constant aperture, and pretty rare) zoom. All have ED glass, and are beautifully sharp, and all are at least 10 years old. They come from a time when Nikon was changing from AIS manual lenses to AF, and the glass formula came from these magnificent lenses. I also have a fair few AI and AIS manual lenses, all beautiful, and very, very good.

A quick count up of what these lenses would cost today, would probably be around £20,000!! OK, they are not VR, but with the constant 2.8, everything over 200mm could be used, at a pinch, handheld, and still produce a good sharp image in poor light conditions, and used on a tripod, they are peerless!!

Professional lenses were made to take a lot of abuse, and to work hard, and still keep going.

A good lens will outlast a digital camera by (probably) a factor of 10. There must be thousands of people out there still using F2 and F3 film bodies, and AI(S) lenses. The results will be as good today as they were 40 years ago,
 
the 24-105 is a very good lens - i've got one on my 5d and its the lens that stays on the camera most of the time. Its a lot of money, but buy quality, buy once.

I wouldn't rule out a nifty fifty either - OK its a prime lens, but at under £60 used its a great lens, and certainly isn't shown up even on my full frame sensor body. If that is the sort of focal length you are looking for it might be a cheap trial, buy and sell on if its not what you want for £10 maximum loss !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top