Rethinking my confused strategy!

wibbly

wibbly

Messages
5,217
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Since owning my Canon 40d for almost a year I've had just 2 lenses which have kept me pretty happy to be honest - a 50mm 1.8d and the Tamron 17-50mm.

However I find I rarely shoot anything below 24mm and with thoughts turning slowly toward FF at some point in the future I am wondering if I should be looking at a change to a 24-70mm as I tend to miss the extra length sometimes having only 50mm max.

It did cross my mind to go with a 70-200 but I am wondering whether to get a base walk around lens right first and maybe something future proof with a 24-70.

It's one of those things that's started to bug me a bit now I've started to think, but I'm thinking in time go for a 24-70, a 70-200 and something shorter such as 10-20 or 12-24

Thoughts appreciated together with any thoughts on the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. It would be replacing the Tamron 17-50, which concerns me slightly as that is such a sharp lens... :bonk:
 
Re the Tamron I have one and it is biting Sharp,I would keep that until you do actually decide to go full frame.As for a longer len's the Canon 70-200 f4 is superb but if that is to expensive I can thoroughly recommend the 70-300 is
 
Worry about it when you get the full frame camera.

The contradiction is that if you don't go wider than 24mm now, when you put the 24-70 on full frame, it will look like 15-44 does now so you're back where you started.

On the other hand, if you just want a L lens, go for it ;) It will still be an L lens when (if?) you change. Why do you want FF? That's the key question.
 
Thanks for the answers gents, much appreciated... I'm not sure if you've added to my haze or made things clearer :lol:

The Tamron lens is indeed a superb lens, I love the results I get with it I am very happy with, however sometimes I would like that extra reach (even just a little bit)... and that's why I was thinking about trading up (in size) to a 24-70mm now, in terms of losing at the bottom end but gaining at the top.

With regards to moving to FF, I have always been of the impression that FF gave a better image in terms of quality - regardless. Is this not the case? :shrug:

I was also under the impression that a Full Frame camera offered 1:1 in terms of lenses so a 24-70mm lens was a 24-70mm lens... is this not the case? I know at present my 40d is something like a 1:6 factor, or is something akin to the Sigma lens mentioned?
 
wibbly said:
Thanks for the answers gents, much appreciated... I'm not sure if you've added to my haze or made things clearer :lol:

The Tamron lens is indeed a superb lens, I love the results I get with it I am very happy with, however sometimes I would like that extra reach (even just a little bit)... and that's why I was thinking about trading up (in size) to a 24-70mm now, in terms of losing at the bottom end but gaining at the top.

With regards to moving to FF, I have always been of the impression that FF gave a better image in terms of quality - regardless. Is this not the case? :shrug:

I was also under the impression that a Full Frame camera offered 1:1 in terms of lenses so a 24-70mm lens was a 24-70mm lens... is this not the case? I know at present my 40d is something like a 1:6 factor, or is something akin to the Sigma lens mentioned?
Click to expand...

Full frame gives you better image quality - sharper, less noise, cleaner colours, higher ISO. But you won't notice it unless you output large, like prints above A4, and it's very hard to spot on screen.

Otherwise, FF is pretty mcuh all downsides - expensive, big, heavy, especially if you want more 'reach' with longer lenses.

Your 40D has 1.6x crop factor compared to FF, but focal length is always focal length and that doesn't change. There's nothing real or unreal or 1:1 about it, it's only the field of view that is cropped.

How about a Canon 15-85? Very good range, very sharp. Bit of an underated lens IMHO, perhaps because it doesn't have a very low f/number. TBH though I don't think the difference between 50mm and 70mm is worth bothering about. Take a step foward?
 
Thank you Richard, that explains a lot to me. :)

My only concern with a Canon 15-85 is the f/number which is something in the favour of the Tamron I currently have at f2.8. Indeed I seem to shoot with the Tamron more than the 50mm 1.8 I have most of the time, as the results are sharper and the lowlight attributes not far off that of the nifty.

Maybe I should resort back to plan A and consider keeping the Tamron and looking at a 70-200 instead for the time being! :bonk: :D
 
As you have two nice lenses how about a adding a Tamron 55-200mm?

This lens gets rave reviews and it's only something like £120. APS-C only though, but as has been said... maybe it's best to forget about FF compatibility for the moment?
 
As you already have the 17-50 range sorted, how about getting one of the 70-200 f/4 lenses. (new prices £500 for the non-IS or £900 for the IS lens). These are both lenses that you'll use if you go FF - but then with cash to splash, you'll want the f2.8 variety.
The good news, is that the 70-200's keep their value extremely well - just look at the high 2nd hand prices to verify.
 
Steven, thanks I think I am erring on the side of a 70-200 f2.8 but it's likely to be a Sigma or Tamron, I would like some kind of IS, and can't afford the Canon version but do like the f2.8 option.

Alan thanks for your suggestion, but I think I really want to go for something more future proof.

Still can't convince myself one way or another what to do for the best!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top