Quality vs. Cost: what would be my ideal Canon lens setup?

[Gintaras]

This is the weekend and a good time to have a chat.

I have my question concerning lenses as I was still scratching my head thinking for a long time about possible choices and best lens setup from Canon at a reasonable cost. I shoot mostly wide to tele, sometimes close ups but not very often.

I am firmly decided for wide angle where I see no alternative to Canon EFS 10-22.

However I am still in doubt about the following.

First of all, for available light photography I suppose a good prime would do best but I find 50mm a bit too narrow, 30mm is good but f2 does not excite me while 35mm L version costs a fortune. I looked at 28mm f1.8, hopefully this can be good for low light, but I am not sure if I am on the right way. I am not shooting portraits for which probably I would take 85mm. What would you say in my case?

Secondly, this is a standard zoom lens. It is believed that 17-55 is the best fast EFS standard zoom, but it costs twice as much as 17-40L. 17-55 is faster and has IS, but for low light 2.8 would give me a bit shallow background so to achieve greater depth of field it looks like I will have to bump up f number. I also see the IS feature will work only for steady hands 3 stops which is what in case F4-5? 17-40L is surely L glass but is slower constant f4 & no IS, it might be perfect for day light photo but then low light would mean slow shutter and tripoid a must (not always you want it on tripoid). Some people however say for 17-55 you need tripoid for night photo as well as at 2.8 picture will be soft.

Now about tele lens in third place I am thinking about what F2.8 is going to give me, once again it is about depth of field. So I am split between EF 70-200L F4 IS and F2.8IS, and EF70-300 IS DO (I put DO in order to remove pricing question from our discussion keeping in mind quality is the same as of no-DO). 70-300IS is not an L lens but this gives you a greater reach vs. 200mm and some say it rocks in terms of sharpness which they say is a hidden Canon L glass. 70-300IS is more compact (even non-DO version is fairly compact). I am not familiar with use of telephoto besides knowing this is a greater reach. Is there anything else I must care for tele this case? Is there different IS functioning on these lenses or is it the same? I mean panning... I also heard some say 70-200F4 is sharper than 70-200F2.8, is it true or BS?

I was not thinking about macro still, actually know little about macro lens and zooms that enable you good macro. Reviewers say 60mm EFS lens is very fine but I do not need macro lens now.

So if you do not mind me asking on the weekend what would be your thoughts and ideas.

[D Thompson]

I can only tell you what I have and use as it works for me. I usually use a tripod for everything except the candids chasing my grandson around. Also I almost always shooting ISO100. For what I shoot the IS lenses aren't a priority. Your needs may be different.

Canon efs10-22 f3.5-4.5 - IMO there is not a better lens in this range. An L lens in disguise. I love this lens and the focal length it gives me when shooting landscapes. Image quality is tops and it spends quite a bit of time on the 20D.

Canon ef24-70 f2.8 L - This is my workhorse lens and again, IMO it's damn hard to beat. Fantastic build and quality. It spends the most time on the 20D. I use it for landscapes when the 10-22 is a little too wide. This is usually my portrait lens, whether in studio or location. When chasing the grandson with it is when I have to bump the ISO up and using available light.

Canon ef85 f1.8 - I use this lens occasionally for portraits and it's another great lens. Build is nice. Gets used some for low-light stuff that I can't use a tripod for.

Canon ef50 f1.8 - for the $ I couldn't pass it up. Build is crap, but nice images. I pull it out once in a while for existing light with the grandson. A very light lens, hardly even notice it, especially if I use it right after the 24-70 :eek:.

Canon efs18-55 f3.5-5.6 - kit lens and a decent lens capable of getting some very nice shots. I like the range and it still gets very limited use - shooting in conditions where I'm not gonna use the 24-70 because of weather, etc.

In a few years when my grandson gets old enough to play sports I'll probably get one of the 70-200's. Of course, by then there may be something else available.

Good luck in whatever you decide.

[Nickcanada]

The only group of lenses I know anything about would be the primes you talked about. When I did research for my 35mm L, I picked it because I didn't want to worry about focusing issues which all the other lenses in that class seem to have. The 35mm is my main lens so I didn't mind shelling out the dough for it but If I were looking for a lens to use occasionally I would pick the Sigma 30mm 1.4. There are reports of it front focusing but that can be fixed and I think the cost vs risk is well worth the chance. Many people consider it to be just as sharp or sharper as the 35mm L, maybe not as good in the colour/contrast department but then we are comparing lenses in completely different price ranges and "bang for buck" the Sigma takes the cake imo.

Honestly, after using the 85mm 1.8 I'm convinced that you can get great lenses for relatively little money. The 85mm 1.8 is a fantastic lens. My only major complaint with it is it's purple fringing. This has been my only issue with this lens and in my real world shooting the 85mm 1.8 is very close to the same image quality as the 35mm 1.4.

[ander75it]

After long testing and many lens swaps, my setup (on the 5D) is:

24-105 L for general use, 85L and 135L for portraits (my main artistic interest)

2x and tubes to mount on the 135 for the occasional long range and macro shots

For you, I'd recommend 10-22 for wide, 35 L or 24-105L for general use, 70-300 IS for tele.

Bye

[Speed2]

Quality vs. Cost: That is the question for sure. My self i have to look at quality and with that comes cost. Living in canada lenses are pricey. I choose to do the e-bay thing. Canon's quality control leaves a lot to be desired, i don't have the option of testing a hand full of lenses for front or rear focus and such. So i look and wait till i find a seller who has done that for me and so far i have bin lucky.
Buying used sometimes is better that getting a lens and having to send it to canon for repairs (2 months later). So i try to spend my money once. The 10-22 is for sure the next lens on the list. These are my 3 main lenses.

EF 24-105/4.0 L IS
EF 50 1.4
EF 70-200/4.0L

[Rooz]

my thoughts are simple really. you are hooked on photography from what i can see. so this is a deceptive question. what do i mean by that ?

you need to take into account the cost of trading/ selling your cheap lens' when you get the shits with their limitations and upgrade your glass. i made a few mistakes early on where i bought cheaper glass cos i thought..."i'm not spending $xxx on a lens." i won;t make the same mistake again.

eg: i should have bought the sigma 150mm macro and the 70-200mm f2.8 first but i wasted time on other lens' cos i didn't want to fork out the money. i did eventually though.

i think you need to spend some time thinking about what you want out of the lens and making sure your lens fits the purpose. if that means waiting a little longer to save for it to get the best reasonable option for what you need, then imo, you are better off saving and wait. it will cost you less in the long run.

[DonSchap]

To say that the Canon 10-22 is the least distorted UWA Zoom available.

That is all.

[coldrain]

Well, after experiencing the distortion of the various UWAs on APS-C sensor camera bodies ... I, personally, am convinced the best and probably only way to go W-I-D-E is with a FULL SENSOR camera body.

Hey, look, I don't want to get into a big hoorah about it ... but distortion is not your friend in these shots, unless is specifically what you are looking for. A full sensor offers a distortion free solution ... with the regular 20mm and 24mm lenses. Even the 14mm f/2.8L is kick-butt on this type of body.

So you can struggle and squirm all you want about UWA performance on a APS-C camera ... but, you know the real answer. Go big or go home.

Oh ... back to your regularly scheduled mental programming. :cool:
"various UWAs on APS-C"?
As far as I know you only tried the Tamron 11-18mm?
That is not really various :eek:

I do not know what distortion you are talking about. If you are talking about the more extreme perspective, that is no distortion of the lens... just of the wider view angle. And then it makes NO difference whether you use APS-C or 135 film format full frame.

And if you are talking about barrel distortion?

Lets seriously look at barrel distortion figures then?

Tamron 18-250mm (lens you are familiar with) at 18mm on 1.6x crop:
-3.95% (that is a LOT)

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (another lens you are familiar with) at 17mm on 1.6x crop:
-2.51% (still a lot)

Canon 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM:
-4.02 ( wayyyy too much for such a lens)

Now for some APS-C UWA lenses....

Tokina 12-24mm f4:
-1.4% (Uhmmm... that is a LOT less than above "standard zoom lenses")

Tamron 11-18mm f4.5-5.6:
-2.68% (quite a lot... but compared to above standard zoom lenses at 18mm... it is good!)

Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5:
-1.25% (wow.... and compare that to the standard zooms at 17/18 mm?)

Sony 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 (on 1.5x crop):
-2.79% (even more than above Tamron on Canon figure, which should be expected at the larger crop factor)

So... it does not seem that UWAs on APS-C have a lot of distortion... at all.

And what about full frame ultra wides then?
Ok... lets check them out on the same APS-C 1.6x crop, because the site that did the measurements did not test with full frame, and barrel distortion will not get less, when testing on full frame.

Canon 17-40 f4 L:
-2.47% (hmmm... not better than the APS-C UWAs... actually worse, if you do not count the Tamron)

Canon 16-35 f2.8 L:
-2.37% (again.... not better, but worse)

Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5:
-2.31% (this one also... Quite a bit worse than the Tokina and Canon APS-C UWA)

Nikon 17-35 f2.8 on 1.5x crop:
-2.31% (as you can see... all full frame UWAs seem to give the same amount of distortion, more than the APS-C UWAs)

Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 on 1.5x crop:
-2.71% (again... worse.)

So Don, what you wrote is false.... if you want to shoot ultra wide, the best road is to go APS-C (Canon, not Sony... the Tamron/Sony 11-18 has the most distortion of the APS-C UWAs), and NOT full frame.

[DonSchap]

Correction made. Purchase at will.

Good catch, Coldrain. I still would rather use a Full Frame for UWA activity. Sorry. I'm not very impressed with what's out there at the cost for APS-C. All that is available for the SONY is the SONY (except maybe the TAMRON, also), the SIGMA 12-24mm f/4-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM and the SIGMA 10-20mm f/4-5.6EX DC HSM. Go figure. The Tamron 11-18 and the SONY 11-18 are pretty much, one in the same, except that the TAMRON has that fabulous 6-year warranty.

But again, my biggest contention with Full Frame was using fixed PRIMES, not zooms. A 20mm f/2.8 and perhaps a 24mm f/1.4L. These are the true lenses to use ... not sliders. You know ... for that distortion free looking shot:

30694
Shot through a "raw" aspherical lens


You may think this a falsehood, but I suggest you run right down to "Ye Old Lens Store" and slap both the 20mm and the 24mm on an EOS 5D (and not the cheap ones, either. Use the good stuff) ... and snap a few ... then shoot the same shot through your Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 UWA on your XT. Measure closely and don't get bent out of shape.

[Gintaras]

thanks everyone.

Don, agree with your every word here. This is really not easy since learning means understanding more and this changes your preferences from month to month. I fully agree, better save on a great lens than go for cheapo. I made my mistakes, so no reason to repeat them. Since I get the idea about what range I need now I am trying to grasp what speed I need. Thinking in the beginning about fast lens I did not realize that gives usually shallower depth of field. Now I am scratching my head thinking if I really need that and on which lens, is it standard zoom or tele I want to be fast enough?

Anyway, thanks for your answers.

Btw, if anyone has experience, how would you rate 16-35L vs. 24-70L?

[coldrain]

But again, my biggest contention with Full Frame was using fixed PRIMES, not zooms. A 20mm f/2.8 and perhaps a 24mm f/1.4L. These are the true lenses to use ... not sliders. You know ... for that distortion free looking shot:

You may think this a falsehood, but I suggest you run right down to "Ye Old Lens Store" and slap both the 20mm and the 24mm on an EOS 5D (and not the cheap ones, either. Use the good stuff) ... and snap a few ... then shoot the same shot through your Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 UWA on your XT. Measure closely and don't get bent out of shape.

Measure what exactly?
Lets compare the EF-S 10-22mm USM with the 20mm f2.8 and 24mm f1.4 L then?
20mm / 1.6 = 12.6 mm
24mm / 1.6 = 15mm

So, lets take the 10-22mm lens at 14mm (closest to both of them from the test figures), because the 14mm on 1.6x crop will be close to the 20 and 24mm on full frame.
And again, we look at the lens results tested on 1.6x crop. The lenses will not perform better at full frame... if edges get worse at 1.6x crop, they will not improve on full frame.

Distortion:
10-22mm @14mm
0.0405% (Virtually NO distortion!!!!)

24mm f1.4 L
-0.74% (good... but worse than the APS-C zoom)

20mm f2.8
-1.55% (hey, that is some visible barrel distortion)

Winner: 10-22mm

Vignetting (f5.6/f8):
10-22mm @14mm
0.51/0.42 (very acceptable, even respectable levels)

24mm f1.4 L
0.22/no data (very good on APS-C, but on full frame this gets a LOT worse than on the APS-C 10-22)

20mm f2.8
0.29/0.29 (very good on APS-C, but on full frame this gets a LOT worse than on the APS-C 10-22)

Winner: 10-22mm

Resolution (f5.6/f8):
10-22mm @14mm
center: 1999/1894
edge: 1664/1705

24mm f1.4 L
center: 2124/2041.5
edge: 1719.5/1742

20mm f2.8
center: 2058/1984.5
edge: 1703.5/1726.5

So the primes in center resolution score higher. The edges already show a loss of resolution on 1.6x crop... they will get worse than the 10-22, when measured in full frame.

Winner: 10-22mm

The test data taken from www.photozone.de .

Conclusion. The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM will most probably deliver better results on an APS-C Canon EOS DSLR than the 24mm f1.4 L and 20mm f2.8 primes will on a full frame Canon EOS DSLR, with less vignetting, less distortion, and sharper edges.
Note however, the sharpness data is measured shooting a single plane. This can mean that if the focus plane of the lens is curved, the test results will be worse than real life results.

[Gintaras]

Coldy, there was no question about 10-22 as i said in the beginning.:confused:

[DonSchap]

Full Frame ... it is the only way. Wish SONY had theirs out, but that probably won't be until April, 2008 ... as things are looking.

Okay .. the game is afoot. Wide on a FF or Wide "slider" on an APS-C? The lab says "Good to go with a Canon 10-22"

Why fight the obvious? Still, the Full Frames won't make much use of this particular lens, due to its EF-S mount, so moving up to an FF knocks this one out. Similarly, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is a "goner" when you get you 5D or whatever upgrade. That's about $1500 in glass expense ... "poof." You could've had the 5D for that. Okay ... without other lenses. :)

This is a struggle only your wallet should decide, for the future investment ... as they are seriously close. Personally, I look forward to next year's FF cameras. If I spend big bucks on a lens ... it'll be for one that works on the FF-body, also.

It's all based on intent ... so ask yourself, "What do I intend to do?" Go big ... or stay at home ... practicing with my APS-C?

[Gintaras]

Full Frame ... it is the only way. Wish SONY had theirs out, but that probably won't be until April, 2008 ... as things are looking.

Okay .. the game is afoot. Wide on a FF or Wide "slider" on an APS-C? The lab says "Good to go with a Canon 10-22"

Why fight the obvious? Still, the Full Frames won't make much use of this particular lens, due to its EF-S mount, so moving up to an FF knocks this one out. Similarly, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is a "goner" when you get you 5D or whatever upgrade. That's about $1500 in glass expense ... "poof." You could've had the 5D for that. Okay ... without other lenses. :)

This is a struggle only your wallet should decide, for the future investment ... as they are seriously close. Personally, I look forward to next year's FF cameras. If I spend big bucks on a lens ... it'll be for one that works on the FF-body, also.

It's all based on intent ... so ask yourself, "What do I intend to do?" Go big ... or stay at home ... practicing with my APS-C?

Don, as winter approaches i take my time. However you raised a good issue. I recently popped into a shop and put my hands on brand new 40D alongside with 5D. Frankly speaking 40D felt better and faster to me. 5D is about similar but I had hesitation and not sure how much advantage 5D would give me in case I willing to swap into FF. Weird question, is not this? This is rather hypothetical one but I sense Canon may pull 6D out soon and then 5D may become cheaper.

[aparmley]

Its been my experience that a person who finds themselves in a situation where they call upon others to help them in their lens purchasing decisions it is because they themselves don't know what they really want. I hear you all thinking - "right, andy, thats the point here isn't it." No, its not, well, my point anyway. My point is, we can't advice you on a direction to take until you decide on what is more important to you - a good price or an expensive lens?

I can be lumped into this group as well. But, what I know now is that I made the foolish mistake of thinking a 17-55 IS would make me a better photographer - even though I told myself I didn't think that, deep down, I expected my photographs to improve with the lens. They didn't.

So my advice don't purchase a lens based on the perception that it will improve your photographs; it won't. Buy a lens based on how you intend to use it.

If you are an available light kinda guy and find yourself often requiring the use of high ISO and wide open fast lenses to take photographes I tell you, there is a whole world out there and you are limiting yourself and your photos to "just the right time" at "just the right place" that gives you "just the right light." When you can control every environment you enter so that every time is the right time to make this right place lit just how you want it. You follow?

Maybe this my personal preferrence speaking and maybe its just a phase I'm going through, I can't say, but, I'd take a kit lens + 1 flash any day over a 24-70 f/2.8. A year ago I'd have called myself insane to make that remark. But, a year ago I didn't know what I know now - its not about the lens its about the photographer and his ability to control the relationship between the subject and light.

I know this doesn't sound like an answer, I apologize about that. But, I think its in your best interest to become a better photographer instead of focusing on aquiring better gear. Thats really all I'm saying. best of luck.

[DonSchap]

Don, as winter approaches i take my time. However you raised a good issue. I recently popped into a shop and put my hands on brand new 40D alongside with 5D. Frankly speaking 40D felt better and faster to me. 5D is about similar but I had hesitation and not sure how much advantage 5D would give me in case I willing to swap into FF. Weird question, is not this? This is rather hypothetical one but I sense Canon may pull 6D out soon and then 5D may become cheaper.


My approach is to simply wait until next year, before you make a FF decision, but when you are buying lenses ... just consider that future purchase. EF-S simply don't mount.

The EOS 40D is the current (or at the very least - last season's) technology. The EOS 5D is three years older. It is based on technology that the EOS 40D is two-generations further along with. Of course, it has to be a better and more capable design. But, it still is only an APS-C sensor ... no matter how good it is.

Regardless, that side-by-side you did is a testiment to the quality camera the EOS 5D is. And it should hold up for a few more years to come, producing excellent 12MP images. But, next season is the Nikon D3, the SONY A900 and the Canon 5D Mk II. The EOS 5D has to yield, pricewise, and if you're purchasing your first DSLR camera ... it would be a fine unit to use ... at $1000 used (considering it was $2500 for the longest time). There will be many sold off when the second generation arrives, to be sure.

[michaelb]

Great reply Andy.

I too struggled with the 5D/40D issue. I ended up with the 40D and I am very happy with it. I know there are a few people on POTN that have both and actually prefer the 40D. I feel that the real world/in-print IQ differences between the 5D and 40D are very small.

May I suggest something that I myself plan to do soon. Rent a couple of lenses. I plan on renting a 17-55 and a 24-105 for a few days or a week to see which lens I prefer. I think this is a reasonble strategy that most people never consider. Even better is to borrow one if you have a nice friend. :D

I disagee with Don about FF and EF-S lenses. You can buy a used 17-55 IS right now on POTN or FM for about $850. You will likely be able to sell it for very little loss in a year, if you decide to go FF. Crop sensors will be here for a long time to come.

[DonSchap]

Bearing in mind that you could probably do quite well using the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 (for a good deal less) and not be out the major cash.

Look, I am not objecting to an APS-C sensor camera ... all I am saying is consider carefully your investment is glass if you are considering the move to Full Frame.

IS is a nice feature in a lens ... but, it is also a $500 add-on to a lens that does the same focal length and returns nearly the same quality. If cash is not an issue, then everything we've discussed is a wash. :rolleyes: Admittedly, there are IS-equipped cameras that can reduce your overall temporary investment in APS-C sensors. Nothing to get shook-up about.

[Nickcanada]

Very nice Andy. :)

A little off topic but I had a humbling experience the other week. Someone had looked at a bunch of my concert photos and I showed mostly my 35mm 1.4 shots but the shot that made them go wow was a 50mm 1.8 shot. Not saying I regret the 35mm purchase but I seriously wonder if the sigma 30mm 1.4 would do the job, but if I got the 30mm to start with I would always wonder about the 35mm. I guess it's about the journey eh?

[michaelb]

Very nice Andy. :)

A little off topic but I had a humbling experience the other week. Someone had looked at a bunch of my concert photos and I showed mostly my 35mm 1.4 shots but the shot that made them go wow was a 50mm 1.8 shot. Not saying I regret the 35mm purchase but I seriously wonder if the sigma 30mm 1.4 would do the job, but if I got the 30mm to start with I would always wonder about the 35mm. I guess it's about the journey eh?
One big advantage of nice Canon glass, especially L glass, is that it keeps its value very well. Nick, you could turn around and sell your 35L in a year a two for a minimal loss; I need to remind my wife of this fact! ;)

[Nickcanada]

I've been thinking about it that is for sure. ;)

I was sure to mention the good resale value of L lenses to my wife before I bought it. lol

[Gintaras]

Guys, do not get me wrong, I am not asking you to tell me what exact lens or appealing to you over cost. Actually I prefer paying more for getting more, yet paying more for getting less and paying less for getting little is stupid.

I came here with this question to you just to have exchange of ideas, views, etc. So far every response counts and might become an eye opener for me.

So I agree when speaking about good quality glass I assume it won’t be cheap.

So I know that expensive lens per se will not improve images but a combination of gear and photographer may.

So I am mostly into landscape and cityscape for which wide angle comes indispensable.

So I would love to find something good for available light as I feel limited often with slow kit lens, but bear in mind this is mostly about outdoor shots, not museums or concerts.

So I thought faster lens would yield clear low light shots at ISO 100, probably not very true as I figure, for depth of field you have to use higher F number.

So I want to add a telephoto as often I missed some moments because of not having this.

So I am still not sure if I really need F2.8 for a tele lens because I am not a portrait shooter and not going to use it in dim light (as I think now).

I am still struggling to understand if I really need fast prime lens or not, know little to nothing on the issue.

So I am still very happy I re-discovered kit lens which becomes my main lens for the time being and I am experimenting with it as I found kit lens to be a great learning tool. IMO Canon did right by giving this lens to newbies like me so that we can learn and grow into understanding what we really would need.

And thanks for all your replies, I read them with great interest, because this is your experience which counts, not lens recommendation.

[michaelb]

What I would get?

- 10-22 (your already sold on this)
- 17-55 f/2.8 IS - great range, IS, f/2.8, very sharp. If you favor longer lenses or you might upgrade to FF soon then you might consider the 24-105 f/4 IS instead, but I think the 17-55 is a better lens optically.
- 50mm f/1.8 - great, cheap lens for low light if subject not moving.
- 85mm f/1.8 - very sharp, USM, great bokeh - wonderful portrait/"artistic" lens.
- 70-200 f/4 IS. If you need a long lens (which you seem to think you do) I would vote for this. The f/2.8 version is much bigger and heavier - it would be too big and heavy for me to lug around - I wouldn't end up using it much becacuse of the size and weight, which is why I would vote for the f/4 IS; scary sharp, according to most users.
- ?60mm macro. You say you don't need macro, but the 60mm macro is a great lens. I use it for portraits, landscape, "artistic" photos, walk-around and of course for close ups and macros. Its small, light, has USM, wonderful build quality and is extremely sharp. Its my favorite lens and its inexpensive. You could go with this instead of the 85mm f/1.8; probably not as good as the 85mm for portraits, but its more versatile.

Keep in mind: If you don't like any of these lenses you can sell them on POTN or FM for a minimal loss. If you buy "lesser" lenses they may be more difficult to unload.

[JTL]

Personally, I'd ask Razr what he thinks. He is the resident variable aperture zoom lens expert! ;):D

Lots of good info here:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34951

[drama]

So I went back to the distant initial post & had a look at your question

1 UWA you have it covered

2 Standard Zoom
Noticed that you prefer Canon options
If you want 2.8 & IS, you only have one choice but read the low light prime section

3 Low light prime
The obvious cheap option is the 50 1.8 but I dont reccomend this
a) AF sucks: wont lock on, is rather inaccurate
b) build quality is rather poor
c) no FTM
My alternative would be a Sigma 30 1.4 or a Canon 351.4L
The 30 opens up new vistas in available light photography, the 30 is much more handholdable than the 50, nearly a stop there plus the aperture gives you another, so in effect a two stop IS over the 50

I am talking available light photography in dimly illuminated rooms, outdoors etc
Plus it is a much more useful focal length on a crop camera

4) Now if you already had a low light solution
You could forego the IS on your standard zoom & consider the excellent Tamron/ Sigma 2.8 zooms or the extremely well built, relatively cheap 17 40 f4

I highly reccomend not purchasing a Macro lens at this point, take the time to enjoy & learn each lens you purchase :D

[Gintaras]

Personally, I'd ask Razr what he thinks. He is the resident variable aperture zoom lens expert! ;):D

Lots of good info here:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34951

thanks, I know what constant apperture means and at least I had Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5. what I do not know if big apperture really helps me with low light outdoors and how far. i understand that for greater DOP i will need to go for smaller apperture like 4-6, which then brings the question about usability of F2.8 or faster in such situation. i also read it that for anything farer than 5m you need to close apperture on 50mm 1.4 which means you going to end up probably at F4 at last. right??? then if my low light focus is mostly shooting outdoors at a distance what use of fast apperture i can expect if no crisp DOP?

assuming fast apperture lens costs a lot i am not sure i have to pony godzillions on a fast lens without being sure i will need it the most. now i hope that clarifies my issue.

NB: by the way, i sold Sigma exactly because this was not constant apperture so i had the use of 2.8 only in museum when wide, in outdoor its use was questionable because of shallower DOP at 2.8 wide open. still i liked 2.8 a lot when shooting in museum of crystal glass.

[Gintaras]

ok, I see, RAZR is probably a joker... hilarious, how can he assume the apperture would stay constant on a variable apperture zoom lens? probably in his wet dreams but not in real world would flexible apperture become a fixed one.

if what RAZR said would be true THEN I would short stocks of all lens producers the other day and made a killing to buy myself the entire Canon lens line up.:p:D

huh, the more i read that apperture thread the more i understand that was created for pure entertainment reason.:D

[Gintaras]

i am still through that apperture forum, LOL what can i say? i think David Letterman can close his late show and move on to employ RAZR. I never saw such amount of crap on a single board. Probably RAZR posts out of some mad house in the absence of his nurse.:D:D:D

pity the forum became closed. can we reopen it??? i would be reading this every day.:D

finished reading... AMUZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RAZR, come back please, tell your nurse we love you!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gintaras]

now seriously speaking, thanks for all your replies, i think i get more information than i need. the only issue is that for outdoors as it looks i cannot get away with 2.8 because at distance this will give shallow DOP which i do not want. Probably makes sense save $ and take 70-200/4 IS or 70-300/IS. For fast prime probably Drama is right about Sigma 30/1.4.

Anyway, thanks for intellectual inputs and i am not rushing, will take time. if only i could rent a lens to try this out, but then in my place rent a lens for a day costs some improper money (17-55 single day 60E=robbery).

[michaelb]

If your planning on shooting landscapes without a tripod then I don't think you can beat the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This lens will allow you to shoot at a smaller aperature (greater depth of field) at low shutter speeds due to the IS. Of course, this is only good for stationary objects.

[Gintaras]

THX Michael, will keep this in mind.

[aparmley]

You'll have to excuse me I'm a little slow - What drives the motivation to have a 2.8 zoom and some fast primes? This answer is very important and the answer isn't low light photographry - rather what do you plan to take photos of?

[Gintaras]

You'll have to excuse me I'm a little slow - What drives the motivation to have a 2.8 zoom and some fast primes? This answer is very important and the answer isn't low light photographry - rather what do you plan to take photos of?

landscape/cityscape in dim light, sometimes indoors, less so portrait.

[coldrain]

Andy's point is, one does not shoot landscapes/cityscapes normally with big apertures, because the depth of field will get shallow.

So, rather look at support for longer exposure times, or IS like in the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM (this may be enough for lower light, but at night IS will not cut it).

So, that is why Andy wonders why you are thinking of a fast prime for that work...

[aparmley]

Andy's point is, one does not shoot landscapes/cityscapes normally with big apertures, because the depth of field will get shallow.

So, rather look at support for longer exposure times, or IS like in the 17-55 f2.8 IS USM (this may be enough for lower light, but at night IS will not cut it).

So, that is why Andy wonders why you are thinking of a fast prime for that work...

Yes, this is exactly what I was after. . . Thanks Coldrain.

I think a tripod and a shutter release cable are in order for the imagery you're after add to that a 17-40L and you'll be just fine.

[aparmley]

landscape/cityscape in dim light, sometimes indoors, less so portrait.

So - something like this: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=748933736&size=o

What does "Sometimes inside" mean? What would be your subject matter inside?

[FLiPMaRC]

Personally, I'd ask Razr what he thinks. He is the resident variable aperture zoom lens expert! ;):D

Lots of good info here:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34951

:eek: LMAO!!!! :D

[drama]

The low light prime is nice, for indoor handheld, low light shots & street candids but not for landscapes not wide enough

[Gintaras]

So - something like this: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=748933736&size=o

What does "Sometimes inside" mean? What would be your subject matter inside?

THAT S IT WHAT I WANT!

[Gintaras]

like i said, i have little knowledge of using primes so sorry for amateur questions.

i just read it all over how great are primes for available light photogrpahy... but then reading more i came to the issue of DOP and then understood primes might not cut it for me. hence asked here. however tell me what primes can do for me except for great bokeh and portraits?

[aparmley]

like i said, i have little knowledge of using primes so sorry for amateur questions.

i just read it all over how great are primes for available light photogrpahy... but then reading more i came to the issue of DOP and then understood primes might not cut it for me. hence asked here. however tell me what primes can do for me except for great bokeh and portraits?

Gin - really, its no big deal - it takes more character to ask the question you perceive the audience you're approaching will consider "amateur" or "silly" questions than to not ask it. But, we've all been there and we've all asked them (most of us anyway).

Primes, historically, offered superb image quality when compared to zoom lenses. However, this gap is becoming more narrow with each generation of zoom lenses. Take for example, the EF-S 17-55 IS - this thing gives a prime at any focal lenght a run for its money in sharpness.

For the most versatility, the 17-55 F/2.8 Is + a tripod (and cable release) are going to be hard to beat for the types of photos your looking to make. The 17-40 will only slightly be less versatile in that from time to time when you need the 2.8 and/or IS for some candid shots. Other than that you're going to be shooting at aperture from f8-f11 typically for landscape and city scape shots - You'll want low ISO for these as well - so you'll be forced to make exposures at lenghts in the seconds+ range so a tripod is absolutely a necessity here.

[Gintaras]

thanks aparmley, thanks everyone. i am learning a lot with this forum and i am not hesitating to ask. it is always better be humble and learning than pretend as if you know everything.

[michaelb]

..... Take for example, the EF-S 17-55 IS - this thing gives a prime at any focal lenght a run for its money in sharpness....

....For the most versatility, the 17-55 F/2.8 Is + a tripod (and cable release) are going to be hard to beat for the types of photos your looking to make. The 17-40 will only slightly be less versatile in that from time to time when you need the 2.8 and/or IS for some candid shots. ...

I sort of agree with Andy here. With the 17-55 f/2.8 IS you can shoot hand held at very low shutter speeds (low light) and if the light is really low then you can use a tripod; so you have the best of both worlds.

Ideally you should shoot all landscapes with a tripod, but it takes alot of time and effort to take all of your landscape shots with a tripod. I don't know what your life is like but mine is crazy busy and I often happen upon the perfect shot while I'm driving somewhere or hiking with my wife and I just don't have time to set up the tripod; this is where IS will come in really handy; I know b/c I've missed many shots not having it!!! I'm trying to decide between the 17-55 IS and the 24-105 IS myself right now.

Another benefit of the 17-55 IS is that because of the maximum aperature of f/2.8 it will blur backgrounds nicely wide open and make for a decent portrait lens.

The 17-40 f/4L is a great lens, but the max aperature is f/4, there is no IS and you can only zoom out to 40mm. Unless you are planning to upgrade to a full frame camera soon I would get the 17-55 IS instead.


....i just read it all over how great are primes for available light photogrpahy... but then reading more i came to the issue of DOP and then understood primes might not cut it for me. hence asked here. however tell me what primes can do for me except for great bokeh and portraits?


Your missing a key point here about depth of field (DOF).

Lets say I use a 50mm f/1.8 lens to shoot a landscape. If I shoot wide open (at f/1.8) then I wouldn't have enough DOF, but I can always stop the lens down to say f/8 for f/10 to get everything in focus. You can always stop a lens down more. The primary problem with using primes for landscapes is that most of them aren't wide enough for general use. I often use my 60mm macro for certain landscape images, but 60mm is very limiting. You want something like 17/20mm-40/55mm for a good general purpose landscape lens.

Hope this helps!

[Gintaras]

Ideally you should shoot all landscapes with a tripod

Michael ... aha... and the other day my wife files for divorce? come on, she will be screaming. so tripoid only for rare cases.

on primes, thanks, i grasp the concept.

[TheWengler]

Sorry, I'm walking into this a little late...

I do have a question though, what are the major benefits of a full frame DSLR over a cropped one? If you put a 135mm f/2 on a cropped camera you'd get something close to 215mm f/2. To get something similar on a full frame camera you'd be stuck with something a stop slower, right? So is the benefit of full frame DSLR just superior image quality and lower noise levels?

For the OP, I think the best cost v. quality set up would be 17-40 and 70-200 f/4 but of course this is pretty general set up and you need to fit what you get to your needs. To me it seems silly to pay for fast zooms then turn around and get fast primes. I would get the 10-22 and the 24-105 then fill in the gaps with the fast primes where you feel you need it most.

[coldrain]

TheWrengler, there are a number of advantages to full frame.

The biggest one is for people that for many many years have worked with 35mm film SLRs. They live and breathe 135 format focal lengths, and with full frame DSLRs they do not have to calculate a lot to understand what they will need to use in focal length and aperture for the desired effects.

Another one is noise. The bigger a photodiode, the more accurate the photon count will be. More accurate means less error, means less noise.

Then there is the higher resolution, a huge advantage over smaller sensors... they can use higher resolutions because their photo diodes can remain big enough. 2 years ago the Canon EOS 5D already offered 12.7 mp, where the rest was still around 6-8mp, and it still offered much better results in noise and dynamic feel of the photos. And the new Canon 1Ds mk III offers 21mp... a huge resolution advantage, with still very good results.

The Nikon D300 with 12mp seems to not quite reach the quality of the 10mp 40D. So still, after 2+ years, the 5D has a big lead over the D300, mostly due to the bigger sensor.
You can see the huge difference between image quality at higher ISO too between the Nikon D3 and the Nikon D300... the D3 wipes the floor with the D300, because of the sensor size (and partly the sensor design).

And then there is the depth of field. The same aperture with the same (converted) focal length with an APS-C sensor size camera and a full frame camera will yield a more shallow depth of field with a full frame camera.
So you have more creative freedom and control with full frame in that respect.

There are also some plus sides to APS-C of course. With APS-C wide angle lenses, they offer better IQ lens wise (easier to make a wide angle lens with smaller optical elements). They also will show less light fall-off towards the edges.
With APS-C you get more tele reach.
And with APS-C you can have lighter more compact lenses.

So... both have their advantages, and it is up to the user or photographer to choose which system they prefer.

[Gintaras]

Coldy, in my humble opinion APS-C offers one big advantage to FF, this is cost-quality relation. Compare the all new 40D with 5D, a huge difference in cost, not so much in functionality and quality (i put my hands on both and liked 40D more). Do you think a casual DSLR user like me would notice a big difference in image quality of FF? Or do you think FF automatically would mean better images? No. Ok, NOISE, may be a tad better on 5D but is this worth about 1K when I am a causal photographer only? I do not think so.

The issue here is that a casual user like me would get rather same results with a cheaper APS-C as with a cutting edge FF. May be not entirely to the point, but I have seen newbies buying L lenses straight away and then complaining on various forums about poor quality of L glass. Weird, is not this? So they actually thought L glass automatically means excellent images! HUHO… So does it makes sense to hand an expensive gear to an amateur and ask him to shoot the party for money? No.

For this reason APS-C comes in very handy for people like me who want learning and are not prepared to pony godzillions on equipment without having a slightest idea. Today I cannot see how FF can improve my skills, neither I am willing to pay this kind of money without knowing what I am doing. And as I am not on commercial assignment I see no reason why rave about FF. Rather I pay a bit more for the lens when I know my needs.

Speaking of lenses, 17-40L is so tempting because of quality, range and price. 17-55IS is excellent, fast, not L but good, but lacks hood and comes at about 400E more. Does it make sense paying 400E for IS and 2.8 vs. 4.0 and no IS? This is the question the buyer can answer himself only. So this is a question for me now.

And at the end, excuse me for saying this but let us speak about Canon gear and not about what Nikon can or cannot. I think one has to be fair on Nikon and its users. I have seen many excellent images taken with Nikon posted on this site which are the best proof that Nikon is another excellent camera on the block. And as you know, the best proof of pudding is in having and eating it.:D

[coldrain]

It was not a post directed to you, Gintaras, but to thewrengler.
So your personal preference does not matter in relation to advantages of full frame.

[Gintaras]

Coldy, I thought this was open debate so I ventured my opinion on FF from a newbie standpoint. Sorry, if this annoyed you.

As concerns the last remark, I really find it weird why in your posts you would hit Nikon when this is of no relevance for the discussion? Besides I have seen very clean night images from Nikon DSLR, hence my comment. :rolleyes:

[coldrain]

Hit Nikon? What are you talking about?

You best just read my post again, I think.

And of course it is "an open discussion". TheWrengler asked one specific question:
" I do have a question though, what are the major benefits of a full frame DSLR over a cropped one?"

So, that is what my post was about. Your reaction to my post was NOT about that. Did I give my personal likes and dislikes? No. Just the differences between APS-C and full frame, giving some examples (which apparently you have a big issue with, hence your "Nikon hit" remark :confused:).

You talk about whether you find full frame worthwhile to YOU. And that is not what TheWrengler was asking about. Nor did he ask whether Canon has made some changes to or advances with their DSLRs over the last 2 years (5D vs 40D).

Price is also not relevant when one talks about advantages of the size of the sensor.

So yes, of course an open discussion. And I still do not see how your post is about TheWrengler's question. I still see it as like you totally misunderstood the reason and contents of my post.

[Ray Schnoor]

Hit Nikon? What are you talking about?

You best just read my post again, I think.

And of course it is "an open discussion". TheWrengler asked one specific question:
" I do have a question though, what are the major benefits of a full frame DSLR over a cropped one?"

So, that is what my post was about. Your reaction to my post was NOT about that. Did I give my personal likes and dislikes? No. Just the differences between APS-C and full frame, giving some examples (which apparently you have a big issue with, hence your "Nikon hit" remark :confused:).

You talk about whether you find full frame worthwhile to YOU. And that is not what TheWrengler was asking about. Nor did he ask whether Canon has made some changes to or advances with their DSLRs over the last 2 years (5D vs 40D).

Price is also not relevant when one talks about advantages of the size of the sensor.

So yes, of course an open discussion. And I still do not see how your post is about TheWrengler's question. I still see it as like you totally misunderstood the reason and contents of my post.
Even though the D300 has not exactly hit the streets yet and there have been no hands on reviews of production models or comparisons between the D300 and 40D, it does seem that your statement of "The Nikon D300 with 12mp seems to not quite reach the quality of the 10mp 40D." is a hit on Nikon. Whether or not your statement turns out to be true is yet to be seen.

1 sensor costing less than another is an advantage to many people.

Ray.

[coldrain]

Even though the D300 has not exactly hit the streets yet and there have been no hands on reviews of production models or comparisons between the D300 and 40D, it does seem that your statement of "The Nikon D300 with 12mp seems to not quite reach the quality of the 10mp 40D." is a hit on Nikon. Whether or not your statement turns out to be true is yet to be seen.

1 sensor costing less than another is an advantage to many people.

Ray.
There have been MANY shots available of the 40D and D300, and people comparing the noise results.
So, if the D300 does not quite reach the 40D, the 12.7mp 5D and the D300 which also is 12mp, is a good example when talking about advantages for full frame. And the D3 also is a nikon, also is a 12mp model and also is full frame, and also I used that to illustrate my writings. I guess that also is a "hit on Nikon"? :rolleyes:

TheWrengler has not asked about what is cheapest, not which camera handles best, nor which camera has the nicest buttons or what not. He asked about the full frame format.
So what is all this blahblah about price? Fine if someone finds that a certain camera does not suit their budget. The question, and my answer, never was about that. And a 5D is a lot cheaper than a D2Xs. So still, price has little to do with what are advantages of a bigger sensor.

[DonSchap]

The EOS 5D is about to take the plunge, anyway. The first four months of next year will be very revealing for Full Frame, as was the last part of this Summer, for APS-C.

If Canon cuts loose with their newest FullFrame ... you will probably see the EOS 5D for less than $1500, easily. Everyone is going to want the new one, instead. There's a three year technology shift involved here. A EOS 5D might be a good starter camera, at that point.

It's going to be fun to see just what Canon throws at the new release, also. I might even be interested. LOL :eek: Hey, stranger things have happened, lately.

[Ray Schnoor]

There have been MANY shots available of the 40D and D300, and people comparing the noise results.
You are correct, and few, if any, have said or implied that the D300 "seems to not quite reach the quality of the 40D."
And the D3 also is a nikon, also is a 12mp model and also is full frame, and also I used that to illustrate my writings. I guess that also is a "hit on Nikon"? :rolleyes:
I made no such accusation.
TheWrengler has not asked about what is cheapest, not which camera handles best, nor which camera has the nicest buttons or what not. He asked about the full frame format.
So what is all this blahblah about price? Fine if someone finds that a certain camera does not suit their budget. The question, and my answer, never was about that. And a 5D is a lot cheaper than a D2Xs. So still, price has little to do with what are advantages of a bigger sensor.
Actually, he asked about "benefits of a full frame dSLR over a cropped one", and currently cost IS an advantage/disadvantage between the 2 forms.

Ray.

[coldrain]

Darn Don, don't say that, now that you have sold you've 70-200 f2.8 IS :eek:

The strangest thing still has to happen.... a Sony full frame camera with in-lens IS? :eek::eek::eek:

[DonSchap]

Darn Don, don't say that, now that you have sold you've 70-200 f2.8 IS :eek:

The strangest thing still has to happen.... a Sony full frame camera with in-lens IS? :eek::eek::eek:


Oh stop ... that would be a true reversal of fortune. :D

Next year ... when it gets here. It'll be telling enough ... maybe @ PMA? We all should go. Hey, maybe Jeff could get us a group rate deal. That'd be awesome.

[michaelb]

On FF vs Crop sensors:

I know of Ken Rockwell's reputation, but I think this is an interesting comparison of images from a FF sensor vs a crop sensor; FF truly has an advantage when viewed at 100%; how much this will show up in most prints in debatable however....

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

[TheWengler]

CR, thank you for your detailed response. Thank you to the rest of you as well.

[Gintaras]

Coldy, Ok, I am sorry, I did not want to get you, now please calm down. We are not in the court room so no need to have all these jury briefings.

as for APS-C vs. FF my major issue was cost vs. skills may be. So I told about this. This was not questioning your point because for any seasoned photographer FF is the answer. However I cannot see a newbie throwing on Mark II or III unless this newbie is Gates or Buffet or Abramovich.

Now lets cut it here, otherwise this thread gets off the mark. We can launch a new thread like FF vs. APS-C if you want. :D