Canon Lens question
Feb 13, 2012 21:31:19 #
DaveJS
Loc: Philadelphia, PA area
Forgive me if this has been gone over, but I havent found it. (BUT, I just saw one post that almost covers this, but would still like to get feedback.)
So my question is this, with trying to be as frugal as I can but still get the best quality, which is the better lens to get? Im shooting a Canon 50D, but want to move up to a full frame in the next year. Also I shoot mostly landscapes during the day but do some at night. Also Im always trying to get better at portraits. If hands down the best lens is the most expensive then so be it. Im trying to find the best balance between cost and quality. My current goto lens is a Tamron 18-270, 3.5-6.3. I took a pic of a barn with it set to 50mm and then I used a Canon 50mm, 1.4. When I zoom in the pic, I see a big difference with the 50 Canon being the much better lens. Im also more concerned about the quality of the glass than the speed.
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Price $980.00
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Price $1699.00
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM Price $1179.00
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Price $840
So my question is this, with trying to be as frugal as I can but still get the best quality, which is the better lens to get? Im shooting a Canon 50D, but want to move up to a full frame in the next year. Also I shoot mostly landscapes during the day but do some at night. Also Im always trying to get better at portraits. If hands down the best lens is the most expensive then so be it. Im trying to find the best balance between cost and quality. My current goto lens is a Tamron 18-270, 3.5-6.3. I took a pic of a barn with it set to 50mm and then I used a Canon 50mm, 1.4. When I zoom in the pic, I see a big difference with the 50 Canon being the much better lens. Im also more concerned about the quality of the glass than the speed.
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Price $980.00
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Price $1699.00
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM Price $1179.00
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Price $840
Feb 13, 2012 21:40:41 #
I shoot with a 50D and all of my lenses are L lenses just for the quality. I only recommend Canon lenses because I can't justify paying for lower quality glass.
I don't feel a need to go to a FF body with what I have.
I don't feel a need to go to a FF body with what I have.
Feb 13, 2012 22:24:08 #
DaveJSchumaker wrote:
Almost any prime is going to beat a superzoom at any particular focal length. What you gain in zoom, you lose in (some amount, varies) in IQ. This is not to say that zooms have poor IQ - many of them are quite good, and far better than many primes were 15 or 20 years ago. My current goto lens is a Tamron 18-270, 3.5-6.3. I took a pic of a barn with it set to 50mm and then I used a Canon 50mm, 1.4. When I zoom in the pic, I see a big difference with the 50 Canon being the much better lens.
If it were me, I'd grab the 17-40L in a heartbeat. Yeah yeah, it's not the gear its the photographer, yeah yeah Canon is overpriced, yeah yeah the big red ring is just a status symbol. Yeah yeah, yeah. So's the Mercedes-Benz star. So's the Flying Lady. So's the prancing horse. If they weren't good lenses, professionals wouldn't use them.
Feb 14, 2012 00:25:07 #
I'd go with either the 16-35 L or the 17-40 L... if you're looking for quality L glass is the way to go.
Feb 14, 2012 02:54:07 #
The 17-55 is pretty much an L lens. They couldn't (didn't want to) call it L because it's for crop sensor, but the quality of optics is similar to their high-end glass.
Feb 14, 2012 02:58:12 #
I have one Tamron lens, an 18-200 and I won't buy another. It has aberration and focus issues and I have to agree the sharpness just isn't there.
I also shoot Canon, an XS and a t1i. Both cameras give me excellent photos if I use the right lens. My goto lens is my Canon 28-200. It's fast, sharp and accurate probably
98% of the time. No it's not the most expensive but it does a very nice job for me... even when zoomed it's crisp and clean.
Good Luck
I also shoot Canon, an XS and a t1i. Both cameras give me excellent photos if I use the right lens. My goto lens is my Canon 28-200. It's fast, sharp and accurate probably
98% of the time. No it's not the most expensive but it does a very nice job for me... even when zoomed it's crisp and clean.
Good Luck
Feb 14, 2012 06:11:01 #
If your plan is to purchase full frame in the near future why would you consider an EF-S lens? Also I'm pretty certain the Sigma DC lens don't work on Canon full frame.
Feb 14, 2012 06:18:06 #
I would agree with that. I don't own any L lenses but from what I know they are indeed much higher quality glass and that will make a huge difference in your results.
Good Luck
Good Luck
Feb 14, 2012 06:19:46 #
17-40 is a great lens,i also have the 50 1.4 ,i plan to keep
my 7d,i would move to 5d if they make new model with the 7d speed
my 7d,i would move to 5d if they make new model with the 7d speed
Feb 14, 2012 07:02:47 #
I've gone from a 40D to a 50D to a 5D MkII. I kept the 50D as a backup and was able to use the lenses that I had purchased along the way; the 28-135mm and the 70-300mm were EF lenses, I kept a Sigma 17-50mm and use it on the 50D. I also had purchased a 17-40mm L for weddings, but didn't like it as well as I thought I would on the 5D; sold it and got the 24-105L with IS and love it! Long and short of it: if you're even thinking of going to a full frame, stay away from the EF-S lenses and check the off-brand lenses to make sure that they'll work with a full frame vs. an APS-C sensor. I'd stay with the Canon lenses.
Feb 14, 2012 07:15:01 #
Feb 14, 2012 08:11:02 #
DaveJSchumaker wrote:
Forgive me if this has been gone over, but I haven... (show quote)
Dave,
I am a Canon owner and a professional Fashion photographer. These are what I would recommend without any hesitation. The L (Legacy Lens) are the way to go, plain and simple, superb capability, but costly. These I think cover what you are looking for, 17 - 40 F1.4 L, 24 - 70 F2.8 L, 70 - 200 F2.8 L, IS if you have to but not necessary in my opinion.
These are lens that I personally own and use almost on a daily basis. The 24 - 70 almost lives on my 1Ds.
George
Feb 14, 2012 09:31:01 #
For landscape photos, consider the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS lens. It costs less than the f/2.8 version, and produces equal if not superior results. This lens also accepts the two Canon teleconvertors, to increase effective focal length.
Check it out at these Web sites:
Lens Review Web Sites
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.lenstip.com/
http://www.photozone.de/
Check it out at these Web sites:
Lens Review Web Sites
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.lenstip.com/
http://www.photozone.de/
Feb 14, 2012 11:50:53 #
True, but if he moves up to a FF body then this lens will not work. He's better off going with a non "S" lens if he's going to go with a FF body in the near future.
Have you considered the 24-105 f4/ IS L? I don't have one, but it was a tough decission between that and the 24-70mm f2.8L. I bought the 24-70mm because I had the 70-200 f2.8 IS L already so I cover the full range.
Have you considered the 24-105 f4/ IS L? I don't have one, but it was a tough decission between that and the 24-70mm f2.8L. I bought the 24-70mm because I had the 70-200 f2.8 IS L already so I cover the full range.
KG wrote:
The 17-55 is pretty much an L lens. They couldn't (didn't want to) call it L because it's for crop sensor, but the quality of optics is similar to their high-end glass.
Feb 14, 2012 16:29:04 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.