Advice sought on Canon lenses (and related matters) (Page 2): THANKS, will try to do so v. soon. They'll have to be from the archive, because it is reluctant to let me take any...

Lingen Loc: Grenada, Caribbean

THANKS, will try to do so v. soon. They'll have to be from the archive, because it is reluctant to let me take any pictures at the moment. Am a bit busy tomorrow - will try Tues.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Lingen wrote:

THANKS, will try to do so v. soon. They'll have to be from the archive, because it is reluctant to let me take any pictures at the moment. Am a bit busy tomorrow - will try Tues.

No worries, when you can.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Suggest checking Dxomark tests for various make and model lens performance on your particular model. Always a good place to start. Good hunting.

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

Lingen wrote:

Dear All,

My current 'establishment' consists of a Canon 60D with 50mm 1.8; EFS 55-250; EFS 18-135; Sigma 17-50 2.8; and also an Olympus OMD E M5 II with 14-150; and an Olympus TG5.

I live in the Caribbean, (= humidity, Sahara dust, sand, salt!), so zooms makes better sense than constant lens-changing. I am miles, and flight hours, from the nearest camera shop or service agent.

My lenses are stored in boxes with silica gel, and are free of dust and fungus. Only the Sigma is reasonably new: do lenses deteriorate with age or in the heat? I do not leave them in hot cars.

With the Canon, I only get reasonably sharp pictures with the 50mm, which I seldom use. The 18-135 is so reliably UN-sharp that I have given up using it, though it is exactly the focal range that I most use. The TG5 takes sharper pictures! Two years ago I went to the UK and had the Canon serviced in the hope that it would become sharper: minimal improvement. Both Olympuses outshine all the Canon lenses in sharpness. And now the Canon has developed an intermittent 'Error 20', which renders it effectively useless. I know other happy Canon users here and in England, and it seems that I have been 'unlucky'.

I need another camera, and was undecided between a Canon 90D, a Panasonic G9 or another Olympus. Since I have no intention of travelling, for obvious reasons, I shall have to have the camera and lens(es?) shipped from the USA.

Having read good reports about B&H on UH, I asked their advice. They were swift and sensible. In essence, they said that I should go for the 90D, and consider a sharper lens to go with it.

An arsenal of prime lenses would break my bank, and invite dust etc. damage. There is too much informtion on the internet for me to make a decision. I would not want a lens to cost substantially more than the camera body. B&H said I should look at the Canon L range, or Sigma Art. I have considered the 17-40 L f4, the 24-70 by both Canon and Sigma; but I have heard that the more recent 18-135's are better than my old one. Or should I ignore B&H's advice and abandon Canon altogether? I am reluctant to do that because of existing lenses.

I would be profoundly grateful if you could help me decide.

Dear All, br br My current 'establishment' consi... (show quote)

I won't advise you on what lens to purchase since you did not state what type of photography you are interested in. However, here a couple of considerations. First, you stated you didn't want your lens to cost more than your body. But the lens is at least as important - if not more - than the body when it comes to IQ. You can take great photos with a good lens and a cheap body - but not the other way around. The second thing - you stated that primes were out of the question because of where you live. I have spent much time taking photographs in Arizona (dust), Florida (humidity), at sea and on the beach (salt and sand), and never had an issue with changing lenses. A little caution and common sense is all it takes. So I would advise purchasing the best lens you can afford that suits your purposes. I would do that before you purchase a new body (it may solve the problem with your current body). I also use a Canon and most of my lenses are "L" series, though I do have a Tamron 150-600 (Can't afford a Canon 600).

rdemarco52 Loc: Wantagh, NY

jayluber wrote:

CHG_CANON - He always give GREAT advice and feedback and spends so much time responding to questions in such great depth here. It's great we have him.

Paul is one of the best on this site and freely gives his good advice.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

First, I admit I’m an Oly fan. Given your climate issues, I’d go with Olympus m5 III, which I own along with the m5 II. Pick up the 12-40 pro. ( I used to be a Nikon person.) The 3 has proCapture which starts shooting as Soon as you press the shutter halfway.

monroephoto

When I first began my journey into a more serious brand of photography, (amateur to enthusiast, I believe was the term), a very good photographer told me, “if you are debating getting a new camera body vs. a new camera lens, invest your hard-earned money in an ungraded lens. What great advice! I bit the bullet and purchased Canon’s L-series 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. (f/4 is considerably less expensive if you don’t need the additional stop). This lens was weather sealed and built like a tank....plus the change in the sharpness and overall quality of my photographs was remarkable! Since then, Canon released an upgraded version iii. This means, the version ii, (and I now own both) is considerably less expensive. Go to the B&H site and search for this lens. If you can get over the hump, and try what such a quality lens can bring to the table, I am fairly certain, you will not be sorry. Good luck!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Lingen wrote:

Dear All,

My current 'establishment' consists of a Canon 60D with 50mm 1.8; EFS 55-250; EFS 18-135; Sigma 17-50 2.8; and also an Olympus OMD E M5 II with 14-150; and an Olympus TG5.

I live in the Caribbean, (= humidity, Sahara dust, sand, salt!), so zooms makes better sense than constant lens-changing. I am miles, and flight hours, from the nearest camera shop or service agent.

My lenses are stored in boxes with silica gel, and are free of dust and fungus. Only the Sigma is reasonably new: do lenses deteriorate with age or in the heat? I do not leave them in hot cars.

With the Canon, I only get reasonably sharp pictures with the 50mm, which I seldom use. The 18-135 is so reliably UN-sharp that I have given up using it, though it is exactly the focal range that I most use. The TG5 takes sharper pictures! Two years ago I went to the UK and had the Canon serviced in the hope that it would become sharper: minimal improvement. Both Olympuses outshine all the Canon lenses in sharpness. And now the Canon has developed an intermittent 'Error 20', which renders it effectively useless. I know other happy Canon users here and in England, and it seems that I have been 'unlucky'.

I need another camera, and was undecided between a Canon 90D, a Panasonic G9 or another Olympus. Since I have no intention of travelling, for obvious reasons, I shall have to have the camera and lens(es?) shipped from the USA.

Having read good reports about B&H on UH, I asked their advice. They were swift and sensible. In essence, they said that I should go for the 90D, and consider a sharper lens to go with it.

An arsenal of prime lenses would break my bank, and invite dust etc. damage. There is too much informtion on the internet for me to make a decision. I would not want a lens to cost substantially more than the camera body. B&H said I should look at the Canon L range, or Sigma Art. I have considered the 17-40 L f4, the 24-70 by both Canon and Sigma; but I have heard that the more recent 18-135's are better than my old one. Or should I ignore B&H's advice and abandon Canon altogether? I am reluctant to do that because of existing lenses.

I would be profoundly grateful if you could help me decide.

Dear All, br br My current 'establishment' consi... (show quote)

The Fuji mirrorless cameras are excellent, but that would require a complete line up of new lenses. Right now I believe that you can get a pretty good deal on the Canon R with a RF 24-105 f/4L lens. The R is a little quirky but the canon lenses you already have other than the 50/1.8 are really not high performing lenses, they are all EFS so moving to full frame might be an obstacle for you if you want to keep your old lenses. The 18-135 should actually be the best of the lot of your Canon EFS lenses but you said it is not. The Sigma should also be a pretty good lens however I have no personal experience with it. The R is basically the same as the Canon 5D Mark IV but only mirrorless which does bring some advantages and unfortunately a few disadvantages. If you are into fast action, motor sports or birds in flight etc. forget about the R because it is simply not up to it but otherwise the R is an excellent value and in my opinion boosts creativity because of exposure preview in the EVF. Any mirrorless camera will open you up to a world of old vintage lenses many of which are actually very good, all manual use however but with the electronic view finder that should not be such a big deal, it just takes a bit more time to focus and set aperture.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I’m surprised nobody has suggested checking the focus. I’m not a Canon guy and don’t know anything about the 60D or 90D, but I would try manual focus and see what you get compared to AF. You could possibly compare to live view. As for the investing in a new body vs new glass, while all for investing in good glass, there can be many benefits to upgrading the body. Improved focus modules is a big one.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Lingen wrote:

Dear All,

My current 'establishment' consists of a Canon 60D with 50mm 1.8; EFS 55-250; EFS 18-135; Sigma 17-50 2.8; and also an Olympus OMD E M5 II with 14-150; and an Olympus TG5.

I live in the Caribbean, (= humidity, Sahara dust, sand, salt!), so zooms makes better sense than constant lens-changing. I am miles, and flight hours, from the nearest camera shop or service agent.

My lenses are stored in boxes with silica gel, and are free of dust and fungus. Only the Sigma is reasonably new: do lenses deteriorate with age or in the heat? I do not leave them in hot cars.

With the Canon, I only get reasonably sharp pictures with the 50mm, which I seldom use. The 18-135 is so reliably UN-sharp that I have given up using it, though it is exactly the focal range that I most use. The TG5 takes sharper pictures! Two years ago I went to the UK and had the Canon serviced in the hope that it would become sharper: minimal improvement. Both Olympuses outshine all the Canon lenses in sharpness. And now the Canon has developed an intermittent 'Error 20', which renders it effectively useless. I know other happy Canon users here and in England, and it seems that I have been 'unlucky'.

I need another camera, and was undecided between a Canon 90D, a Panasonic G9 or another Olympus. Since I have no intention of travelling, for obvious reasons, I shall have to have the camera and lens(es?) shipped from the USA.

Having read good reports about B&H on UH, I asked their advice. They were swift and sensible. In essence, they said that I should go for the 90D, and consider a sharper lens to go with it.

An arsenal of prime lenses would break my bank, and invite dust etc. damage. There is too much informtion on the internet for me to make a decision. I would not want a lens to cost substantially more than the camera body. B&H said I should look at the Canon L range, or Sigma Art. I have considered the 17-40 L f4, the 24-70 by both Canon and Sigma; but I have heard that the more recent 18-135's are better than my old one. Or should I ignore B&H's advice and abandon Canon altogether? I am reluctant to do that because of existing lenses.

I would be profoundly grateful if you could help me decide.

Dear All, br br My current 'establishment' consi... (show quote)

I think perhaps its time to look at the Panasonic G9! Over 90 lens to pick from

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

"With the Canon, I only get reasonably sharp pictures with the 50mm, which I seldom use."

Seems to me that you have summed it up right here. I'd be looking into adding a lens/lenses to my Olympus body/bodies. I use cameras from three systems, SONY, Canon and Panasonic. SONY suits my macro needs best, Canon everything else, Panasonic FZ200 for lightweight travel needs. Experience has shown me that thoroughly mastering ONE camera body gives the best and most consistent result. So where I had been doing everything with each I now have resorted to those categories mentioned with many more "keepers." I personally have to keep it simple these days. GAS attacks will lead me astray!

GySgt Loc: Florida

Stay away fro the 18-135, as they are still have issues. As far as the camera the 90 D has a ASP sensor, ( not Full Frame) The every day lens I use is the Canon L series 24-105. It's built like a tank,and cover a wide range. A lot of people like the 24-70, when you have the 24-105 yo have that covered and then some. the cameras that I use are the Canon D 70 & canon D 5 Mark IV. and the pictures are crystal clear. And canon stands behind their products. But it what ever you feel comfortable with.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Go with "CHG CANON" he will give you good advice.

I put my 2cents in only so I can stay updated on you and CHG CANON.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I’m surprised nobody has suggested checking the focus. I’m not a Canon guy and don’t know anything about the 60D or 90D, but I would try manual focus and see what you get compared to AF. You could possibly compare to live view. As for the investing in a new body vs new glass, while all for investing in good glass, there can be many benefits to upgrading the body. Improved focus modules is a big one.

I was thinking that also, but I’m waiting to see the actual images - it could be any number of issues. If any of the lenses have AF issues, then it will need service because there is no MFA on the 60D.

User ID

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I’m surprised nobody has suggested checking the focus. I’m not a Canon guy and don’t know anything about the 60D or 90D, but I would try manual focus and see what you get compared to AF. You could possibly compare to live view. As for the investing in a new body vs new glass, while all for investing in good glass, there can be many benefits to upgrading the body. Improved focus modules is a big one.

So true. The uhh mantra that a great lens on an average body is vastly superior to vice versa is nonsense. If your lenses are about as good as the ordinary average modern lens, upgrading to outstanding lenses will not improve your pictures ... except that in a rather careful A-B comparison of average vs outstanding, a few details will be more clear on close inspection. Take away the A-B comparison and you have no improvement.

An outstanding body with an average lens will outperform the vice versa in real world photography. A truly better camera has features to better assist and enable the user. Top shelf lenses do not assist the user. On the contrary, it’s the user’s job to provide the situations in which a lens can show its stuff. If the shooting situation is compromised, there will be no evidence of the superiority of the top tier lens over an ordinary lens.

A higher performance body will have better IS, more accurate focus, and a better image processor. The first two enhance the user’s efforts, the third enhances the lens’s potential. Applying these three to an average lens is better than use of of top tier lens without these three enhancements. Without them, the best lens is hobbled. With them, ordinary lenses do their best ... and the best result from an ordinary modern lens is terrific.

So if you combine an “enabler body” with the very best lens, is the result the best of all ? For sure ! But when the budget can only upgrade EITHER the body or the lens, it’s a waste to favor the lens.