Lens questions

PolynesianMedic

PolynesianMedic

Global Moderator
Ok, so there has been some discussion on some of the threads that I have been reading about different lenses. I currently have the ones that I got with the camera when I bought it as a package. I have an 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses. I am looking into getting some of the IS lenses that canon makes. What I am wondering is this, of the following lenses which 2 are good to have as mid level type of lenses? I am trying to slowly learn more and I feel as though I need to improve on the lenses. Ok, here they are:
1. EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
2. EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
3. EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
4. EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
5. EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

I am sure that this seems like a simple question to most of you, but I am not even really sure what all of these letters mean, let alone the different numbers behind the f/. Thanks for the help, maybe one day I can repay it. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
if you can afford it, go for #2, HANDS DOWN. razor sharp, built like a tank, great contrast and color rendering. if not, then #3 is a more than capable alternative.
although others here love them, i would stay away from any ef-s lenses because if you ever wanted to get into the land of the 5d or 1d series, the ef-s lenses are not compatible. #5 is probably the best of the #4/#5 choices. hope this helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The numbers after the f/ stand for the maximum aperture. If they vary, like 4-5.6, that means that the maximum aperture is f/4 at the widest part of the zoom, and 5.6 at the longest end of the zoom. If there is only one number, the maximum aperture is the same at all focal lengths.

L is Canon's luxury, their creme de la creme of lenses, the red ring club....higher build quality, most are weather sealed, have either low-dispersion or flourite glass.

IS is image stablizer - it has a built in gyroscope that floats one element against movement to stabilize the image. Since it is done optically, you can see the effects in your viewfinder, along with feeling the gyroscope kick in (more if you are using a telephoto)

DO: Diffractive optics: Canon to my knowledge is the only one doing this, and they only have two. To save weight and length they use another method to bend light (using diffraction) to produce an image. A drawback is a haloing effect that can be controlled partially, but the cost to me outweighs the benefits of the weight, and maybe image quality.



Honestly if you want to try IS, try the new 55-200 IS they are releasing. It should be cheaper & lighter than the 70-300, but if you ever upgrade to a 1D or 5D series, it won't work - but it will work on the 40D. They are also releasing another IS in the EF-S line.

But the best lens in your list is the 24-105 f/4L.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Tim" said:
if you can afford it, go for #2, HANDS DOWN. razor sharp, built like a tank, great contrast and color rendering. if not, then #3 is a more than capable alternative.
although others here love them, i would stay away from any ef-s lenses because if you ever wanted to get into the land of the 5d or 1d series, the ef-s lenses are not compatible. #5 is probably the best of the #4/#5 choices. hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Before I would spend $1.1k on #5, I would look at the 70-200 f/4L (non IS) - the IS version costs the same as the DO 70-300. I see Canon hasn't released the price of the 55-200 IS one yet, but they did make an 18-55 IS, a new one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am amazed at the cost of these. I am really going to have to start saving my pennies to get at least one of these before going on my cruise in April. It would be nice to have an IS lens for the ship. Is there something equal to or better then #2 that doesn't have the IS and is a little less expensive. Is the IS necessary on a wide angle lens? I am sure that it makes a difference on the telephoto end, but I am curious as to whether it is worth it on a wide angle lens. I can find that lens for $699 online, but it is still a bit more then I am sure my wife will let me spend at this point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"PolynesianMedic" said:
Is the IS necessary on a wide angle lens?
Click to expand...
shhhhhhhhh. Not so loud. That's thread war talk on other forums. Honestly more no than yes, it depends on what you will be shooting.

For normal stuff, no. But if you can't bring a tripod, and you are taking pictures in low light of static objects, you will love having the IS. Being able to handhold 1/4 to 1/15 sec with no noticable shake in the photo is awesome.

I can find that lens for $699 online, but it is still a bit more then I am sure my wife will let me spend at this point.
Click to expand...
For #2? If it is cheaper than bhphoto.com or Adorama.com it's probably a scam of some kind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the general rule of thumb for shutter speed is 1/x where x = focal length in mm.
so, if you are using a 17-40 at wide angle, you only need 1/15 - 1/20 sec to be in the range. thus, IS is probably not necessary for that situation unless you are in almost complete darkness.

that being said, at 105 or 135 mm, when the sun goes down IS becomes very handy when your shutter speed starts to drop and you don't want to crank the ISO or open the aperture. remember, however, IS only stabilizes the camera at slower shutter speeds. IT DOESN'T HELP TO STOP ACTION. (common misconception)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i'm going to insert my .02 here, i don't totally agree with staying away from ef-s mounts, true they are not compatible with 5d/ff models, but, if the crop factor does it for you, then consider them, i think the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great lens, combined with the smaller, lighter crop bodies, in my case an xti, that made a great combo for europe, and walking around, granted it is a $1000 lens, but if you have a crop body, and plan on using it for 4-5 years, why not have a couple ef-s mounts
i swear by IS, that and the 2.8 aperture are what got me the church and show photos from my med cruise
 
Ok, here is another question. I would love to go and spend the money on the 24-105L however, it is not in the cards at this time. So, I am looking at two solutions at this point, and wanted some feedback on them. I have narrowed my search down to 2 lenses, and what I am looking for is a good "walkaround" lens. I want something that will, for now, take the place of both of the lenses that I have, the 18-55mm and the 70-300mm. I know that there are negatives to this, but as I am still in the learning process of this whole thing, I want to have something that will give me the best of both worlds, at least the best that they can. So here are my thoughts. I am looking into the:

Canon 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM EF Lens
or the
Sigma Zoom 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS Lens

They both are Image sabilized, one has a greater range, then the other. I get that much. What I am wondering though is this. Which will have better glass? How much of a difference am I really talking about in capability? Is it worth spending a little more on the third party, if the glass quality is a little less then the Canon lens just to gain the greater range? I know some of these questions are user dependant, but I am looking for opinions on what you would all do in this situation. The Canon lens is a do-able price. I have found it for $229 on the net. The Sigma is a bit more but still in range at $464 also on the net. Another question is this, would these be available somewhere to rent? That way I can test them and see what I thought. Thanks for the help guys, I REALLY appreciate it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
www.lensrentals.com

i've dealt with them a couple of times, others on the list have been satisfied as recent as 2 weeks ago with their rental service
you could rent for your cruise, maybe get 2 rentals to have a comparison, see which lens you end up using and liking the most, this way you can make a better informed purchase decision, plus they have a 2/2 policy, give them 2 weeks notice on a 2 week reservation and if they need to they will go purchase the lens to make sure it is available for you
rent the 24-105 for the cruise, and maybe the 17-55 2.8, both have is, you can try before making the buy
 
The 28-135 is one of Canon's oldest IS lenses that has not been replaced yet. Personally, even though I normally don't recommend it - give Sigma a try, and like Gary said, rent it first. You'll get a wide angle on one side and more zoom on the other. And you can't worse than the rotating external focusing from the 28-135.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, if you are just looking to "learn" a lens, presumably to develop your skills, are you sure you want to go with telephotos ? It's definately premium pricing for those. What about just getting an uber-useful 50mm f/1.4 (or even the 'nifty-fifty" f/1.8 50mm). These are terrific low light lenses that give you an extremely useful focal length, and work great for shooting indoor events as well as portraits.

Of the rest of the lenses, I was sold early by a photog friend of mine that you should spend as much as you can possibly afford on glass, and should plan for the future, by acquiring lenses that would work with both EF and EF-S mounts. It's a huge stretch sometimes, but all I know is that when I bought a well-reviewed Tamron lens (the 28-75), I almost instantly regretted it. After comparing the results from it with my 70-200 f/4 L (bought at the same time), the pictures just looked "dead". I rarely used the Tamron, and just sold it. I would look for a used L series lens before looking to save $300 or 400 by going with a Sigma or Tamron ... but that's just me. There are plenty of people out there who seem to be very happy with it.

As for good all around lenses, I've got a Canon 50mm f/1.4, a Canon 25-105 L f/4 IS, a Canon 70-200 L f/4 and a new Canon 17-40 f/4 L. I really don't see me adding any more lenses to my collection. Though they all bring something to the table, if I could only pick two, I'd without doubt go first with the 24-105 f/4 L IS. Next, I'd probably keep the 50 f/1.4 - just for low light work. The 24-105 is a lens I use about 80 % of the time, and it's just fabulous. The price definately hurts ... but I can't imagine a better walkaround lens. Well, unless they come out with a f/2.8 version :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top