Now I am really confused-"Lenses and Cameras"

[Marleetet]

A lot of you tried to help me out a few weeks ago with choosing between a 16-35L and the new 17-55IS. First of all thanks for all the advise.

I stayed with the 16-35 that I had already ordered, with the idea that I would find a camera shop on my swing through the North Central and Pacific Northwest part of the U.S. That way, I could have a lens to use and find a 17-55 to try out, before the BHP Video 14 day return was up. I might as well have been looking for 4 leaf clovers. Most of the camera stores I called out of the Yellow Pages (Minot, Spokane, Seattle), were no longer in business and their websites would direct you to suspicious looking discount camera websites.

It wasn't till Victoria, British Colombia, that I found a still in business camera shop: "Lenz". Nice people, with the 17-55 and a 5D. I shot the 17-55 at several settings (ISO, distance and objects). Hands down the 15-55IS produced the type of clarity and style of picture that I prefer. The versatility of that range, would have been a much better day to day lens as well. Like everyone says, the build is not L Series, but unless I drop it: my L's are pretty babied. Their price was way high: $1,499 CDN (roughly $1,399.00US), but I might have been able to wheel and deal a little.

But then, I asked to try the 5D with my 16-35, 50 and 70-200L 2.8IS.

OH, what a revelation and perhaps a mistake. The feel of the 5D is great. It's a little bigger than the 30D, so the tactile feel is much more solid and sure. The 5D's FF made the 16-35 opened to glorious widths, the 50 really was a "Nifty 50", and I am sure that the 70-200 would be used much more (I hardly used it in the Cascade, Olympic, Coastal and the Canadian Rocky mountain ranges (usually too close).

The full format might have changed my whole prespective on cameras and what I needed for lenses. With the 1.6 format, I am really lugging around a 26-56, 80 and a 112-320.

By the way, I love the 30D and my lenses, but for the price of another unneeded lens, I could have a 5D, 24-105IS, keep my 70-200 and get a 1.4 converter (for when I need it).

So guys and gals: what do you think?

Mark

[coldrain]

I'd exchange the 16-35L for a 17-55 IS USM, and then get a Tokina 12-24 f4 (that will be to your 30D what the 16-35 is for the 5D, but a lot sharper).

[aparmley]

In the end its ultimately your call Mark. I enjoyed reading your experiences re: cameras/lenses.

Do you really need FF? Ask yourself that much - if at the end of the day you need it for publishing purposes, etc then go for it. But, I think most people here are going to recommend, based on their value system, bank accounts, and experiences, that you stick with the 30D - in most of our eyes its a more versatile camera - And there is a gem of a 10-22 out there if you feel that the Ultra WA persective the FF camera and 16-35 gives you is necessary. A lot of us would miss the 1.6crop on the tele end of things!

Good luck.

[cwphoto]

I'd exchange the 16-35L for a 17-55 IS USM, and then get a Tokina 12-24 f4 (that will be to your 30D what the 16-35 is for the 5D, but a lot sharper).

I'm with Coldy, except I'd get the Canon EF-S 10-22 over the 12-24.

BTW; sharper than a 16-35 my arse!:p

[aparmley]

I'm with Coldy, except I'd get the Canon EF-S 10-22 over the 12-24.

BTW; sharper than a 16-35 my arse!:p

All I know is that if you go with a 10-22 it does making the next lens decision a little more interesting - do you go 10-22, 24-70 2.8L or do you go with the 17-55 IS - it certainly is an interesting decision. . . the L makes sense from a focal lenght coverage stand point. . . :confused:

[Vich]

So then, we're talking:

5D
16-35 f2.8L
24-105 f4.0L IS
70-200 f2.8L IS

What a dream. Some overlap is always nice to have to avoid continual swapping. Note: The 24-70 f2.8 may offer better image quality (and of course f2.8) but you loose IS. They're close enough for most.

The FF lenses are heavier in the normal range, and there's a few other subtle difference (DOF, vignetting, sweet spot of lens, less tele given lens size).

For me, 17-55 f2.8IS would be the only good arguement for going back to the 30D. That being countered by better high ISO performance on the 5D. I don't know if the AF is any different.

Given the higher megapixels on 5D, the "tele" advantage seems bogus, since you can just crop it later for the same effect, with more room for better framing. Someone will argue this point but it's close enough to be the same (crop later vs. in-camera crop).

My vote; keep the 5D. They're both great set-ups. You will earn equal envy points with either.

[cwphoto]

Remember you'll need to buy a flash if you go 5D too.

[coldrain]

I'm with Coldy, except I'd get the Canon EF-S 10-22 over the 12-24.

BTW; sharper than a 16-35 my arse!:p
Well, the Tokina is the better lens... especially concerning vignetting (the 10-22 vignets a lot, even stopped down, but luckily its vignetting is very gradual so most do not really notice it).

And, sharper, definitely. But do not worry, I would never consider photographing your ass ;)

Resolution figures measured by ColorFoto magazin:

Canon EF 17-40mm f4 L USM on Canon EOS 20D
Edge 17mm
930/941 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 17mm
989/990 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

Edge 28mm
926/941 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 28mm
988/1001 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

Edge 40mm
914/943 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 40mm
985/992 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM on Canon EOS 20D
Edge 16mm
899/936 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 16mm
953/979 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

Edge 26mm
894/948 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 26mm
939/1000 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

Edge 35mm
901/938 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 35mm
956/994 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

Tokina 12-24 f4 AT-X124 Pro DX on Canon EOS 20D
Edge 12mm
970/957 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 12mm
1018/1010 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

Edge 18mm
935/955 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 18mm
983/1009 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

Edge 24mm
915/947 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 24mm
958/992 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

I know that this is a bit difficult to compare because the 17-40 and 16-35 of course are equivalent on full frame to the Tokina 12-24 on APS-C, but then again, the lenses will not be magically sharper on full frame. The edges will get less sharp wide open. So... yes, the Tokina is sharper. And it is also a lot more contrasty than the 16-35. Only downside: no USM.

Oh, here the same figures from the Canon 10-22 USM:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM on Canon EOS 20D
Edge 10mm
938/937 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 10mm
982/989 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

Edge 16mm
946/928 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 16mm
998/991 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

Edge 22mm
941/933 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center 22mm
1000/989 line pairs per image height (wide open/stopped down 2 stops)

While the Canon 10-22 vignets a LOT more wide open than the Tokina 12-24, it has almost no distortion at 10mm, where it performs exceptional for such a wide angle lens. And of course it has an USM AF motor.

So... while the Tokina is sharper overall, and has a bit better contrast and is much better with vignetting, both lenses have their attractions.

[cwphoto]

Lies, damned lies, and stats Coldy. Some flaws:

The sample focal lengths aren't consistent across the test, ie; 12, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 26, 28, 35, and 40mm - the only common FL tested is between the 16-35 and the 10-22 @ 22mm. The rest are only tested for one lens.
The 16-35 isn't compared against the other lenses at equivalent f-stops.


The 12-24 gets a sample variation caning. By my own reckoning the 16-35 was just ahead (albeit marginal) of the 17-40 at equivalent FL and f-stop, plus it's f/2.8 so it got the nod in my bag.

I got no figures, just seat-of-the-pants stuff...

[coldrain]

Of course there are no tests at standard focal lengths, they test at wides, longest, and in the middle, and then wide open, and stopped down. Pretty good testing method i think, it shows what a lens sort of can do. They are tests of the lenses, not comparison tests.
One thing their tests do not test for, and that is CA and colour.

[Rhys]

I'm always in favour of full frame. I guess I grew up using full frame and thus prefer it. I know there are lenses that give roughly equivalent filed-of-view coverage but they're not quit ethe same. I remember lusting after an 8mm fisheye for my 35mm Nikon at one point.

[Marleetet]

Thanks for the opinions!

Just to clear up one thing: I didn't actually get the the 5D, I only lusted after it.

Aparmley, very interesting and philosophical question you posed there about if I really needed the FF? Except for the Pros in our group, do any of us need all the equipment that we have or will buy? For my business application of pictures, 5 mega pixels and a wide angle would have done (my Olympus Camedia C-60 has 6.1 MP and something like a 10-120mm optical zoom: Oh yeah- and it is a crappy camera). But, if I were to start buying only what I needed, I could have retired by now and missed out on a lot of fun.

I like the 5D for more than just the FF. But I am not sure if that is the camera yet, to move up to. Maybe when the 5D/B comes out and answers a few sniggling problems (No flash isn't one of them. By and large I hate flash photography. I would rather use the excellent noise resistant higher ISO's on the Canon and get real light pictures).

So this may still be a lens issue after all. Buying top end FF lens with future growth potential maybe cheaper in the end, than the limited EFS releases.

Mark

[DonSchap]

the tendency is to want MORE!

There is nothing wrong with having capacity or flexibility. When we go on a shoot, of course you want to travel lean... just for the sake of your back. With wide and selectable variations in your gear, you offer yourself that... plus the artisitic ability to cope with a shoot and the little problems, too.

If you merely have three lenses to cover all your bases... these usually will be heavy, expensive and artisitically limiting. If you spread the wealth among several lenses... along with these powerhouses, on the order of smaller range zooms and a wide variety of primes... you can pick and choose you tools as an artist selects his brushes or chisels. You can successfully GET THE SHOT you want... and not what you are stuck with.

I contend that a painter may never use all the colors of his pallette or the brushes in his cup... but, then again... he might. Guess they better be there, huh?

Think about it... life is short. ;) How much is too much? Cripes, I hope I never know... because then the party is kind of over.

I started with a 50mm f/1.7 when I bought my Minolta 7000, some years ago... it was nice... but, a just drop in the bucket. Then came the 70-210mm f/4... then the 28mm f/2.8... broadening my range... reaching out... for more light... with the 50mm f/1.4. The filters came into play... to craft the light even more... make it sing... speak out... my way. I knew what message I was trying to create with my work... and it took time, equipment and serious sweat to convey that.

Photography is an art form... never let your creative talent be hindered if you can help it. It is the doorway to your soul... let it sing.