Need Advice: Which Canon lens(es)?

[Rockporters]

This has been discussed before, and I've read all of the threads, but I'm driving myself crazy trying to choose my next lens :scratch.

I have a Canon 40D, and right now my only lens is a Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS. All along my plan has been to add a 17-55mm IS, or a 24-70mm L, for a walk-about. After reading about the dust problem with the 17-55mm, I was positive the 24-70mm was the best choice. Then the 24-105mm L popped back into the running. (thanks Scott :D ) To complicate matters further, I'm now thinking that maybe I don't really need any of those, and should add a 10-22mm, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm macro f/2.8 :crazy .

Before upgrading to the 40D I used a 75-300mm, 28-80mm, and 17-40mm L, though it was very rare for me to use the 28-80. Then I went to a 28-135mm kit lens, which was my only lens until Christmas. As an only lens it was awkward to use.. never quite wide or long enough.

My number one concern is that whatever lens I add has excellent image quality. Would love to hear suggestions, opinions, anything that might help me figure out which lens to get!

Thank you!

[claudermilk]

I can only really talk about what I use, which has worked very, very well for me. My lineup is a three lens kit: Tokina 12-24/4, Canon 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L. Universally excellent lenses which I have no complaints about. By nearly pure coincidence they fall to a seamless 12-200mm range; each lens was purchased to a specific task that being grand vista-type landscapes, small venue events/general walkaround, and large venue events respectively.

The 24-70 and 24-105 are different beasts. The 24-70 being the low light tool with its fast f2.8; the 24-105 is a more general walkaround with the extended range, and IS to compensate for the slower f4 aperture. At least that's how I see them. To me, while the 17-55 probably deserves all the accolades I see it given, it's too wide overall for a walkaround--but again that's just my own preference.

On the wide end, you can find uncounted debates between 10-22 and 12-24 owners. In the end both lenses fill the same role and both are good choices, run a search to get lots of reading material hashing over the relative merits--no need to walk that path yet again here.

I also have a 50/1.8 that I started out with. It's always good to have one of those around & mine still gets occasional use.

[swintonphoto]

I could not survive without wider fields of view than could be provided with the 24-70mm. It works well with full frame sensors, but when you add the crop factor of the 40D sensor I think you would be wise to go with one like the 17-55 IS. I have used one and think it is a FANTASTIC lens (this is coming from a guy who practically has ZUIKO tattooed on his forehead).

[Elaine]

The sometimes mentioned "dust issue" of the 17-55 concerned me a bit too, before I got it anyway. I've only had mine for a month and I'm very happy with it! Very happy! The widest I had on my other crop camera (pre-40D) was 28. Having the 17 now feels so much better.

I'm having the opposite issue as you...I'd now like a 70-200!

[dgrinjackson]

I agree with claud... , but that was thinking about how I shoot with my 5D and not considering the smaller sensor on the 40D. My walk around is the 24-70 2.8L, but on the 40D that would be more like a 40-100 (not exact math, just my guess).

In any case, I think claud hit the nail on the head...I think you have to ask yourself what is your subject, how do you need to shoot it and what are the results you want to see. Then pick the best tool that fit the criteria.

[Cameron]

I have a 30D and my two favorite lenses are my 17-55 f2.8 IS and 70-200 f4 L IS. You'll find few zooms that give you better quality than those two lenses. When I bought my 17-55 f2.8 IS lens I debated between that and the 24-105 f4 L IS lens. In the end, the wide-angle usage won. In practice, I find that I frequently use the 17mm end of my 17-55 and, when the 55mm is not enough, I throw on the 70-200 and never miss the gap between 50 an 70mm. Those two lenses will cover a LOT of ground with outstanding image quality.

For my shooting style, the 17-55 is more useful than the 24-105. I've used the 24-105 quite a bit (father-in-law owns it) and performs admirably as well. The build quality of the 24-105 seems better to me as well.

That said, if you really want wide, the 10-22 is a fantastic lens. I own one and, while I love it, the times I use it are more specialized - if I'm packing light I often leave it behind. As for the 100mm macro, I couldn't live without it. I love macro photography and it is an excellent lens. It can also double as a long portrait lens too - very very sharp.

Not sure if that was helpful or confused you more. :wink In the end, you're choosing between excellent lenses and will likely enjoy whichever one you choose.

[Tee Why]

All those lenses you mentioned are nice lenses and if used properly, will give excellent results. You have to decide what you want your lens to do though.

While the 24-70 and the 24105 are nice lenses, for a 40D, it's not wide enough. The 17-55 mimics the field of view that a 24-70 would have on a full frame and for a general purpose zoom, would be a better range, unless you don't shoot wide at all. It's been noted that dust can be sucked behind the front element but other than a cosmetic issue, it will not affect the image or optics, so I wouldn't let dust stop you from getting that lens.

The 10-22 is an ultrawide and a different beast altogether. It would be great for landscapes and tight quarters shooting.

Figure out what you want to do and get the lens that will best allow you to do that.

[Rockporters]

I was afraid you guys would ask me what I want to do with the lens :dunno ! Well... I photograph landscapes, seascapes, whales, kids, kid sports, dogs, family, vacation stuff, all the typical things I guess.

Let me ask this... Is there a quality difference, at all, between the 17-55mm IS and 24-70mm L? My number one priority is image quality. My second priority, at least right now, is to have a good, sensible, arsenal of lenses to take on our trip to Peru in April.

In looking back at photos from our trip to Hawaii last year , many shots taken with the 17-40mm L were actually shot at 17mm. In places like the Pearl Harbor memorial there wasn't much room to back up in order to get a shot, not to mention a lot of people, so the 17mm wasn't alway quite wide enough. But, my photography is changing, and not all photos I take require a wide angle.

After thinking about this more today, I'm seriously considering these two setups:

17-55mm IS + my 70-200mm f4 L IS
or
10-22mm + 24-70mm L + my 70-200mm f4 L IS


I feel like the second gives nice coverage, but now again I'm hearing so many good things about the 17-55... maybe I'm overthinking this and should just order the 17-55 and call it good!

[Elaine]

I'm rather picky when it comes to lens sharpness and it bugs me when lenses aren't sharp wide open. I've been very pleased with the 17-55 at 2.8. Just FYI.

[Tee Why]

From my experience, the ultrawide, 10-22, is a nice lens for grand wide vistas, while a 17-55 serves as a better typical "walking around" lens than a 24-70 on a cropped body. A 70-200 is a nice range.

So if it was me, I'd go with a 10-22, 17-55, and a 70-200. The optics of 17-55 is similar to the 24-70 in that it's very good to excellent. The build quality isn't upto the L level though.

[Scott_Quier]

17-55 dust issues - my experience has shown that this problem is over-stated. I've had mine for more than a year now and I do have a few dust specks inside the objective element. Do they impact on the image quality. Nope! Or, at least not that I can see in the images. I'm sure that if the lens were mounted on an optical bench, the difference could be noted.

The 17-55 is a very good lens wide open. It is great when stopped down as little as 1/2 stop.

If I were to drop mine and totally destroy it, I would be on the WWW ordering another one as soon as the insurance money was in-hand.

Outside or where light is not an issue, the 24-105 is stunning. I'm so glad I bought this one.

The 10-22 is a very specialized lens but can be a lot of fun.

IQ - all three of these are simply stunning performers. You can't go wrong with any of them.

[Rockporters]

Over the last couple of days the 17-55mm has gone out of stock at a lot of places. I wonder if it's because the rebate was ending (though now it's extended), or are there new lenses coming out?

I appreciate everyone's feedback on the 17-55's IQ, it is extremely helpful! My concern had stemmed from comparing photos from the 17-55mm and 24-70mm on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-images/B000EW8074/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all#gallery) and PhotoSig (http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browsecategories?typeId=7), it seemed like a lot of the 17-55mm were soft. Dh says he's going to hide my computer, so I quit driving myself crazy over every decision :rofl .

Anyhow it seems that the 17-55 may be the way to go. Now, if these places would just get them back in stock :cry . Thank you so much for sharing your experiences, it has been tremendously helpful!

[Foochar]

Over the last couple of days the 17-55mm has gone out of stock at a lot of places. I wonder if it's because the rebate was ending (though now it's extended), or are there new lenses coming out?


I think it is just the rebate winding down, increasing demand on what is already a very popular lens. Just to give you some idea of the availability situation, I made the decision to go ahead and pull the trigger on this lens instead of renting it for 2-3 months a year a few weeks ago. When I was debating making the order it was in stock (all stock comments relate to B&H) when I went to order it was out of stock, signed up for the e-mail. Got an email a few days later that it had come back in stock, made the order and have received the lens, so there were and probably still are lenses moving through the pipeline.

[claudermilk]

I see I dind't mention the body I use in my previous post. So to prove it all boils down to what works for each of us, I use that lineup on a 20D. I completely disagree with all the comments that the 24-70 is not wide enough on a crop--I find it just about right in most cases. The few where it is too long, well, that's what I added the 12-24 for. But again, each lens was selected for a specific purpose and the 24-70 happened to be the perfect range for the small venue I frequently shoot at (a coffee shop hosting a weekly dance show)--it gives me a full-body shot at 24mm to head & shoulders at 70mm. Anyway, that's root of my constantly arguing the knee-jerk "the 25-70 is too long on a crop" comments are a bunch of hooey--it may be so for the person making the comment, but is not necessarily true for anyone else. This is part of why some of these lens recommendations are so hard to make & why there is a wide variety of lenses suggested.

[Tee Why]

Here is a link to my buddy Jojo's tests of various lenses in the Canon mount, including two on the Canon 17-55 IIRC.

He has good controlled test methodology and gives you another lens to comare the tested lens with, so things are in context.

You may want to look and see how the Canon performs. It's quiet good in my view. It's expensive though.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

[Rockporters]

I see I dind't mention the body I use in my previous post. So to prove it all boils down to what works for each of us, I use that lineup on a 20D. I completely disagree with all the comments that the 24-70 is not wide enough on a crop--I find it just about right in most cases. The few where it is too long, well, that's what I added the 12-24 for. But again, each lens was selected for a specific purpose and the 24-70 happened to be the perfect range for the small venue I frequently shoot at (a coffee shop hosting a weekly dance show)--it gives me a full-body shot at 24mm to head & shoulders at 70mm. Anyway, that's root of my constantly arguing the knee-jerk "the 25-70 is too long on a crop" comments are a bunch of hooey--it may be so for the person making the comment, but is not necessarily true for anyone else. This is part of why some of these lens recommendations are so hard to make & why there is a wide variety of lenses suggested.

In talking with Dh over the weekend, I've come to realize that I'm not really a one lens kind of girl anyhow. It is extremely rare for me to take my dslr with just one lens. I probably shouldn't admit this, but if I want to travel 'light' for the day, I leave the dslr behind and take my p & s :huh. Disney is a good example, it's a huge pain to ride with the dslr gear so I'll dig out the p&s instead.

With that in mind, it doesn't sound like I'll go wrong with any of the lenses. I've ordered the ef-s 10-22mm, it should arrive on Monday :barb . We'll see if I really like it then go from there!

[Rockporters]

Here is a link to my buddy Jojo's tests of various lenses in the Canon mount, including two on the Canon 17-55 IIRC.

He has good controlled test methodology and gives you another lens to comare the tested lens with, so things are in context.

You may want to look and see how the Canon performs. It's quiet good in my view. It's expensive though.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests


Hi Tee Why, thank you for posting the link, I did take time to check out his site. Frankly in many tests neither lens was incredibly sharp, and both were outperformed several times by non-Canon lens. (i.e. the 24-70mm against the Sigma) Interestingly when the tester felt the 17-55 performed better in several photos, I thought the 24-70 actually appeared sharper :dunno , though the 17-55's coloring might have been slightly more vibrant. I'm going to visit a couple of camera stores today, in hopes of getting to try out the lenses in person.

If anyone has photos from either lens they could share, that would be helpful, too!

Thanks again for the help!

[Tee Why]

Hi Tee Why, thank you for posting the link, I did take time to check out his site. Frankly in many tests neither lens was incredibly sharp, and both were outperformed several times by non-Canon lens. (i.e. the 24-70mm against the Sigma) Interestingly when the tester felt the 17-55 performed better in several photos, I thought the 24-70 actually appeared sharper :dunno , though the 17-55's coloring might have been slightly more vibrant. I'm going to visit a couple of camera stores today, in hopes of getting to try out the lenses in person.

If anyone has photos from either lens they could share, that would be helpful, too!

Thanks again for the help!

He does not sharpen the shots, so they are how they come out of the camera without any processing, except for some levels to adjust for exposure IIRC. Adding contrast and sharpening makes an image much more sharp. So you have to take that into account. I think you noticed the main points of his real world comparisons, that there is generally a small difference when you view the pics at 100% crop and that generally, comparable lenses perform similarly (optically speaking), and that sometimes third party lenses do better.

Keep the small optical difference in the image quality of lenses in perspective. Most difference in your shots will come from lighting, composition, timing, and your post processing skills. Not wheter the lens is 2 pixels sharper at 100% crop.

[claudermilk]

In talking with Dh over the weekend, I've come to realize that I'm not really a one lens kind of girl anyhow. It is extremely rare for me to take my dslr with just one lens. I probably shouldn't admit this, but if I want to travel 'light' for the day, I leave the dslr behind and take my p & s :huh. Disney is a good example, it's a huge pain to ride with the dslr gear so I'll dig out the p&s instead.

With that in mind, it doesn't sound like I'll go wrong with any of the lenses. I've ordered the ef-s 10-22mm, it should arrive on Monday :barb . We'll see if I really like it then go from there!

:rofl I guess I'm a bit twisted. My idea of "light" for Disney (close enough to be one of those evil annual pass holders at the Anaheim park) is the 20D and 24-70 in a Lowerpro OffTrail2. Just small enough to be accomodated on all the rides, and it generally gives enough range to get the majority of shots I want. :photo

[Photoskipper]

Consider the cropping factors. the 17-55 is good for most application.

I used to have the Sigma 18-200 on 300D (rebel) as walkabout lens. It is good enough for most non-photo trips. Added a Tamron 11-18 for the landscape and fireworks.

Once I hooked up to the 5D, I have the 24-105 on the body all the time and added the 70-200 F2.8 IS as extra. Unfortunately such set up may be too heavy to walk about.

22442

[z_28]

Frankly in many tests neither lens was incredibly sharp, and both were outperformed several times by non-Canon lens. (i.e. the 24-70mm against the Sigma) Interestingly when the tester felt the 17-55 performed better in several photos, I thought the 24-70 actually appeared sharper :dunno , though the 17-55's coloring might have been slightly more vibrant. I'm going to visit a couple of camera stores today, in hopes of getting to try out the lenses in person.


Hmmmm...
Since few years Canon's lenses aren't that compatible as before
with Canon bodies right out of the box - so you can't compare other people bodies and lenses !!!

You must find your own pair by yourself !
I know it's manufacturers scam - but we must live that way :dunno

[Moogle Pepper]

I see I dind't mention the body I use in my previous post. So to prove it all boils down to what works for each of us, I use that lineup on a 20D. I completely disagree with all the comments that the 24-70 is not wide enough on a crop--I find it just about right in most cases. The few where it is too long, well, that's what I added the 12-24 for. But again, each lens was selected for a specific purpose and the 24-70 happened to be the perfect range for the small venue I frequently shoot at (a coffee shop hosting a weekly dance show)--it gives me a full-body shot at 24mm to head & shoulders at 70mm. Anyway, that's root of my constantly arguing the knee-jerk "the 25-70 is too long on a crop" comments are a bunch of hooey--it may be so for the person making the comment, but is not necessarily true for anyone else. This is part of why some of these lens recommendations are so hard to make & why there is a wide variety of lenses suggested.

When you say 12-24, are you talking about the Tokina 12-24?

[Rockporters]

He does not sharpen the shots, so they are how they come out of the camera without any processing, except for some levels to adjust for exposure IIRC. Adding contrast and sharpening makes an image much more sharp. So you have to take that into account. I think you noticed the main points of his real world comparisons, that there is generally a small difference when you view the pics at 100% crop and that generally, comparable lenses perform similarly (optically speaking), and that sometimes third party lenses do better.

Keep the small optical difference in the image quality of lenses in perspective. Most difference in your shots will come from lighting, composition, timing, and your post processing skills. Not wheter the lens is 2 pixels sharper at 100% crop.

Lens testing is very difficult for me, I tend to have a detail oriented personality, and nitpick :rolleyes . It's not an exact science for sure, and lenses can even produce different results on different camera bodies.

I'm sure both lenses are capable of fantastic photos. Now if I could just make up my mind!

[Rockporters]

Hmmmm...
Since few years Canon's lenses aren't that compatible as before
with Canon bodies right out of the box - so you can't compare other people bodies and lenses !!!

You must find your own pair by yourself !
I know it's manufacturers scam - but we must live that way :dunno

True. Performance varies even between different bodies of the same model.

[claudermilk]

Lots to reply to.

Moogle Pepper: Yes, I meant the Tokina 12-24/4 ATX. For me it's plenty wide enough 99.99% of the time, that last 0.01% is not worth it to swap to the Canon 10-22. But that's just me.

Beth: Yep, the OffTrail has stuck around because of it's utility in those minimalist situations. I can even cram a long-sleeve t-shirt in one of the included lens pouches for when evening comes around. Again, I'm twisted in that I consider the 24-70 brick to be a suitable walk-around lens; it's big and heavy, but produces excellent images, so I'm happy. The 24-105/4 IS is another excellent choice; to me it is more of a generalized walkaround with the wider zoom range, but gives up the outright speed of the f2.8--partly compensated for with IS. It's amatter of picking your priorities--more range & lighter weight vs fast aperture.

On the UWAs, keep in mind they will all show some distortion at the wide end. This is essentially what used to be solely fisheye territory, and these can probably be considered rectilinear fisheyes at the wide end. Even the Tokina shows some distortion at the edges--IMHO it's a bit less extreme than the Canon, but that's party because it isn't quite as wide. Of course part of the fun of these really wide lenses is playing with perspective distortion on occasion (recall the classic dog with the enormous nose sniffing the camera shot).

On lens testing, my simple method is take it out and take real-world shots. If the images look good & the lens shows no signs of problems, then call it good. I don't spend time taking pictures of brick walls & test charts so I can pixel-peep fishing for a problem that won't be visible on prints & web-sized images anyway. IMHO there's too many people getting way too hung up on pixel peeping and creating mountains out of molehills. I don't recall the kind of scrutiny we see today before digital & the net.



I don't think the fact that Canon gives us the choice of three crop factors a scam, that was a poor choice of terms. It allows us to select the correct tool for the job. If you feel you really need the same 24x36mm size sensor as we became accustomed to (or just cannot adjust to the crops), there's bodies available. If you need the cost savings, quicker response, or extra "reach" of a crop sensor you've got the 1.6 bodies. And if a compromise is needed, well you have that, too. Yeah it takes a little more time to educate yourself to pick the right one, but that's the price of a complete product line--and honestly most people are perfectly happy with the 1.6 crop bodies and really can't tell the difference anyway. It's certainly not a case of Canon trying to screw you.

OK, I've rambled long enough now.

[bigsnowdog]

I have read this thread with interest. I am looking at a 40D, having had a Canon T90 (film) that I have used for many years.

The local camera store has a kit with, I believe, a 17-85 image stabilized lens. They also had what I think was a 24 to something over 100, better glass series, and more money.

My needs are partly commercial and partly recreation. I want to be able to take detailed images of things as small as your cell phone, to entire vehicles, with everything in between.

A recommendation was the 17-85 and a 100mm macro. Someday a zoom telephoto woudl be nice, but I can't afford that now. I consider passing on the macro now, too.

So, bad as I am in recalling this, what would the better glass lens have been? I think it was from the category that could be used on film cameras. A Canon lens from a box in the rows of Canon lenses on their shelves.

The 17-85 was better at the wide end, but there was little difference on the zoomed end, it seemed. The sales person said that the kit, with lens, offered a much better value, and the body with the other lens would be a lot more.

Thoughts on this?

How are people using something like the 100mm macro?

I can't afford a 5D.... :-(

[Foochar]

I believe, a 17-85 image stabilized lens. They also had what I think was a 24 to something over 100, better glass series, and more money.

A recommendation was the 17-85 and a 100mm macro. Someday a zoom telephoto woudl be nice, but I can't afford that now. I consider passing on the macro now, too.

So, bad as I am in recalling this, what would the better glass lens have been? I think it was from the category that could be used on film cameras. A Canon lens from a box in the rows of Canon lenses on their shelves.

The 17-85 was better at the wide end, but there was little difference on the zoomed end, it seemed. The sales person said that the kit, with lens, offered a much better value, and the body with the other lens would be a lot more.

Thoughts on this?

How are people using something like the 100mm macro?

I can't afford a 5D.... :-(

The first lens sounds like it was probably the EF-S 17-85 F/4-5.6 IS, and the second lens sounds like it was probably the EF 24-105 F/4L IS. The 17-85 is wider at the wide end, but the 24-105 is longer at the long end. The 24-105 is worth substantially more than the 17-85. The 17-85 is sold as part of kit with the 40D by Canon, and often times the lenses in the Canon kits are offered at a substantial discount. While the majority of Canon's lenses will work on either their crop frame or full frame cameras, the EF-S lenses like the 17-85 will only work on the crop frame camera such as the Digital Rebel and 20/30/40D series camera.

[bigsnowdog]

The first lens sounds like it was probably the EF-S 17-85 F/4-5.6 IS, and the second lens sounds like it was probably the EF 24-105 F/4L IS. The 17-85 is wider at the wide end, but the 24-105 is longer at the long end. The 24-105 is worth substantially more than the 17-85. The 17-85 is sold as part of kit with the 40D by Canon, and often times the lenses in the Canon kits are offered at a substantial discount. While the majority of Canon's lenses will work on either their crop frame or full frame cameras, the EF-S lenses like the 17-85 will only work on the crop frame camera such as the Digital Rebel and 20/30/40D series camera.
Thinking out loud, I wonder if the possibility of buying a full frame sensor camera later suggests that the 24-105 would be better.

This will reveal how little I know about this, but.... why can't you use the 17-85 on the full frame cameras? I gather that crop frame means sensors smaller than full size?

You say the 24-105 is worth substantially more, you are meaning it costs substantially more? Do you think it is worth the money?

[eyusuf]

what happens to the kit lens 18-55 f/3.5-5.6? it is a very decent lens and it is cheap as chips.
doesnt make sense to spring a grand if you dont have a slightest clue about those high-end (read: expensive) lenses.

[bigsnowdog]

what happens to the kit lens 18-55 f/3.5-5.6? it is a very decent lens and it is cheap as chips.
doesnt make sense to spring a grand if you dont have a slightest clue about those high-end (read: expensive) lenses.

There is another kit lens, sold by Best Buy. It tops out at 135.

How does one get a clue, if not by asking questions and reading discussion?

Offer some clues....

[eyusuf]

There is another kit lens, sold by Best Buy. It tops out at 135.

How does one get a clue, if not by asking questions and reading discussion?

Offer some clues....

from my experience, it is not very fruitful just to read discussions, articles and ask questions. you need to pick up a lens and start shooting..:)

i started my dslr journey from 300D + 18-55 lens. i used it for months. then i felt that that lens was not adequate to take pics in low light. i asked myself why...i started reading discussions in forums. and i found out that people saying that the 18-55 is not fast enough. i said to myself "what does that mean: not fast enought???" that's how i learned about exposure, speed, aperture, and all the photography jargons. so my next purchase was a fast lens, canon 50mm f/1.8 (also cheap, like 80 bucks back then). turns out that it was very nice in low light and i understood aperture..:)

my philosophy is this: dont spend a lot if you dont know much. start with something cheap and work your way up. plenty of time to get the more expensive lens..:)

[bigsnowdog]

from my experience, it is not very fruitful just to read discussions, articles and ask questions. you need to pick up a lens and start shooting..:)

i started my dslr journey from 300D + 18-55 lens. i used it for months. then i felt that that lens was not adequate to take pics in low light. i asked myself why...i started reading discussions in forums. and i found out that people saying that the 18-55 is not fast enough. i said to myself "what does that mean: not fast enought???" that's how i learned about exposure, speed, aperture, and all the photography jargons. so my next purchase was a fast lens, canon 50mm f/1.8 (also cheap, like 80 bucks back then). turns out that it was very nice in low light and i understood aperture..:)

my philosophy is this: dont spend a lot if you dont know much. start with something cheap and work your way up. plenty of time to get the more expensive lens..:)
I have been a long time enthusiast of film photography. I learned photography with a sheet film, press camera and a hand held meter. We developed the film and made the prints. That was 44 years ago.

My first experience with SLR cameras [subsequent to the Speed Graphic] was with a Zeiss Ikon, a beautiful machine. Later I purchased a cheap Pentax, then a Canon A1, then a Canon T90, which I still have. It works as well as it ever worked. I have had a range of fixed focal length and zoom lenses, wide angle and telephoto zooms. I have a Rollei twin lens.

I understand available light shooting, the use of hand held meters, spot metering, depth of field, the significance of film speeds and maximum apertures of lenses. I understand composition and the difficult aspects of back lighted subjects.

A first digital camera I bought was not satisfactory on a consistent basis. It is a Canon G5, a point and shoot kind of device, not an SLR. If I did not mind making five exposures, so I could pick a good one, it was OK. Focusing is where it fell down.

I want to move to a digital SLR that focuses reliably and rapidly. Currently I am considering the Canon 40D that can fit my budget and tendency to buy as much quality as I can, so that it lasts. Consider my experience with the T90.

I am amazed to see the small aperture range of many of these digital lenses. I have not owned an auto focus SLR of any sort. I can only imagine image stabilization. I am still somewhat suspicious of cameras that do things for you, make decisions for you. But I am open, as I see the results and how beautifully they go to print and web.

So, back to the question, why is the one lens so much better than the other?

[Elaine]

...
So, back to the question, why is the one lens so much better than the other?

I'm not the best person to chime in here, as I've just switched to Canon (40D), but here's a link about Canon L glass that you might find helpful in determining why the 24-105 L would be a higher quality lens than the 17-85 kit lens.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-L-Lens-Series.aspx

[Glenn NK]

Thinking out loud, I wonder if the possibility of buying a full frame sensor camera later suggests that the 24-105 would be better.

This will reveal how little I know about this, but.... why can't you use the 17-85 on the full frame cameras? I gather that crop frame means sensors smaller than full size?

You say the 24-105 is worth substantially more, you are meaning it costs substantially more? Do you think it is worth the money?

1. The 24/105 is often sold with the 5D as a "kit" lens. On a FF body, it acts like it would on a 35 mm film camera - in other words it's range is 24 mm to 105 mm.

2. Any of the lenses designated as EF-S cannot be used on the full frame cameras (5D, 1DS series and the non FF 1D series) for two reasons; (a) the mirror on the FF bodies will strike the back of the lens causing mirror damage, and (b) they often will vignette on the FF bodies.

3. Yes, the 10/20/30/40/300/350/400D series have a smaller sensor by a linear factor of 1.60.

4. The 24/105 costs more, and it is worth more - I'm not saying it's worth the premium cost (this can be subjective and is often debated), but when I "play" with my lenses, I can tell the difference in smoothness and quality betweeen the 24/105 and the others which are not L lenses. The L lenses are (generally) weather sealed.

Some last comments on "L" series lenses: they are better built (I believe that is not arguable), and often they provide better image quality and better image colour. But, that is not a rule - the 17/55 is an extremely sharp lens, and I've found that in order to tell the images apart between the 24/105L and 17/55 EFS, I have to look at the EXIF data. Furthermore in terms of MTF charts, "photozone" has tested both lenses, and the 17/55 beats the 24/105 on the MTF charts.

There is one particular "L" zoom lens that seems to have some IQ "variations" (photozone had to test four samles to find one in spec), so the quality argument has some weaknesses too. But in general "L" lenses are better in all respects.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

[Foochar]

Thinking out loud, I wonder if the possibility of buying a full frame sensor camera later suggests that the 24-105 would be better.

This will reveal how little I know about this, but.... why can't you use the 17-85 on the full frame cameras? I gather that crop frame means sensors smaller than full size?

You say the 24-105 is worth substantially more, you are meaning it costs substantially more? Do you think it is worth the money?

Just to add my two cents to this, I am strong believer in the mentality that you will hear around here of "buy the gear that is right for you now, not the gear for the camera that you will possibly buy." That is not to say that you shouldn't buy gear that allows you some room to grow, just that the concern that you might someday buy a camera that your lens won't work on shouldn't stop you from buying a lens if it the right one for your current situation. Even if you buy a full frame camera in the the future you may hold onto your crop frame camera for various reasons, so you can still use the lens on that camera, and if you do decide to get rid of the camera, lenses tend to hold their value much better than cameras if they have been well taken care of.

The EF-S 17-85 and other EF-S lenses (as compared to EF lenses) can only be used on a crop sensor camera for several reasons. As has already been mentioned the mirror of a full frame camera would hit the lens if you managed to mount this lens to a full frame camera (the mirror in a crop frame camera is smaller than that of a full frame camera). In order to prevent this Canon has modified the mount of these lenses so that they can not be mounted to full frame cameras, only to crop frame cameras. The reason that the mirror will hit the lens is that the rear element of these lenses extends farther back into the camera than a standard EF lens. The crop cameras' sensor is smaller than the standard 35mm film frame so the imaging circle created by the lens on the sensor can be smaller and still cover the whole sensor. These two factors (smaller imaging circle and rear element closer to the sensor) mean that for a lens with similar characteristics (focal length, zoom range, aperture) an EF-S lens can be smaller, lighter, and less expensive than an EF lens with the same characteristics.

With regard to the "worth" of the 24-105 vs. the 17-85, I will first off say that things are "worth" whatever someone is willing to pay for them. When I look at my current lineup of lenses the 17-85 does not really fit into what I am trying to move towards, so probably wouldn't be interested in that lens even if the price were cut in half. That is not to say that it is a bad lens, just that it doesn't fit into where I see my lens collection going. On the other hand the 24-105 is on the list lenses that I would like to purchase when I can afford them. So to me 24-105 is obviously worth far more than the 17-85. The question you should be asking is in your particular situation do the results you can get from the 24-105 as compared to the 17-85 make it worth the added cost?

I know you have commented that you are coming from the film world, keep in mind that on a crop sensor camera there is a "crop factor" that affects the apparent focal length of the lens. A lens that is marked 24-105mm would have the same field of view on a full frame camera that it would on a film camera, that is to say if you mounted the 24-105 on a 35mm film camera and set it to 24, you would see the same thing as the 24-105 set to 24 mounted on a full frame digital camera . On a crop frame camera such as the 40D you have to multiply the the focal length by 1.6 to get the "apparent focal length" of the lens. So with a 24-105 on the 40D you have an apparent focal length of 38-168. This means that if you mounted a 24-105 on a film camera and set the focal length to 38, you would see the same thing as if you mounted it to a crop frame sensor camera and set it to 24. I bring this up because on a crop frame camera a lens with a 24mm wide end is not very wide, and you may find it rather limiting if you frequently work in cramped spaces.

[eyusuf]

So, back to the question, why is the one lens so much better than the other?

to answer your question:
24-105 f/4 = constant f/4 throughout the whole range
17-85 f/4-5.6 = f/4 only at 17mm and becomes f/5.6 at 85mm

you must know that it is more difficult, physically, to make a lens with a constant aperture throughout the focal range. that is one point why 24-105 is (probably) better than 17-85

another thing is IQ, which is sometimes measured with MTF. basically tells you how the IQ degrades with increasing focal range and aperture. i believe 24-105 is more consistent in this aspect than the 17-85.

other persons will also argue that 24-105 is L lens which means build quality is superior than normal lens (although we shouldn't whine about build quality since we all take care of our equipment more delicately than we do for a newborn baby..:D)

[Foochar]

other persons will also argue that 24-105 is L lens which means build quality is superior than normal lens (although we shouldn't whine about build quality since we all take care of our equipment more delicately than we do for a newborn baby..:D)

Build quality also includes things like weather sealing, smoothness of the motion of the zoom and focus rings, etc. Regardless of how well you treat your gear these things can make a difference.

[eyusuf]

Build quality also includes things like weather sealing, smoothness of the motion of the zoom and focus rings, etc. Regardless of how well you treat your gear these things can make a difference.

ow come on...how many of us (that is amateurs) shoot during rain or other extreme conditions?

the build quality of 50mm f1.8 is more than enough for guys like us. we are not shooting in the amazon rainforest or african desert, are we? :D

[Rockporters]

There is another kit lens, sold by Best Buy. It tops out at 135.

How does one get a clue, if not by asking questions and reading discussion?

Offer some clues....

Asking, reading, and trying out lenses when possible, is a good way to 'get a clue'!

I originally purchased the 40D with kit lens (28-135mm IS). It really wasn't a bad way to start out, and I was able to turn around and sell the lens for $300 when ready to upgrade. Image quality is ok, not spectacular, but ok. Photos were rarely sharp at full size, where images taken with the 70-200mm f4 IS L are sharp as can be straight out of the camera. Still, it isn't a bad way to go, especially if you are on a budget, or want time to decide which lens to purchase. It just takes a little more finessing.

Here are a few photos taken with the 28-135, and you can see more here (http://photography.marybethglasmann.com/Places/400125):

[claudermilk]

Regarding the value of the L, it's in the physical build with higher-quality, tougher materials, all have the USM top-of-the-line AF motors, most have specialty optics (Fluorite or UD glass elements), full-time manual focus, included lens hoods, many do have weather sealing. Basically Canon throws their best engineering and manufacturing at these lenses. It shows in the images produced and handling of the lenses.

While as eyusuf said, build quality shouldn't matter as far as the gear surviving day-to-day waer, it does make a difference in how the gear handles. It's a pleasure to use a well-engineered and well-built lens, while using a cheap, more slapped-together one with many compromises built in is less so.

It's up to each of us to decide if the cost of all that is worth it. To me it is; I'd rather save up for a while longer and buy a lens once knowing it will produce the best possible images and there's no nagging "but what if" in the back of my head. Any bad images get blamed on the computer 6" behind the viewfinder. :D

[Rockporters]

Beth: Yep, the OffTrail has stuck around because of it's utility in those minimalist situations. I can even cram a long-sleeve t-shirt in one of the included lens pouches for when evening comes around. Again, I'm twisted in that I consider the 24-70 brick to be a suitable walk-around lens; it's big and heavy, but produces excellent images, so I'm happy. The 24-105/4 IS is another excellent choice; to me it is more of a generalized walkaround with the wider zoom range, but gives up the outright speed of the f2.8--partly compensated for with IS. It's amatter of picking your priorities--more range & lighter weight vs fast aperture.

On the UWAs, keep in mind they will all show some distortion at the wide end. This is essentially what used to be solely fisheye territory, and these can probably be considered rectilinear fisheyes at the wide end. Even the Tokina shows some distortion at the edges--IMHO it's a bit less extreme than the Canon, but that's party because it isn't quite as wide. Of course part of the fun of these really wide lenses is playing with perspective distortion on occasion (recall the classic dog with the enormous nose sniffing the camera shot).

On lens testing, my simple method is take it out and take real-world shots. If the images look good & the lens shows no signs of problems, then call it good. I don't spend time taking pictures of brick walls & test charts so I can pixel-peep fishing for a problem that won't be visible on prints & web-sized images anyway. IMHO there's too many people getting way too hung up on pixel peeping and creating mountains out of molehills. I don't recall the kind of scrutiny we see today before digital & the net.

I don't think the fact that Canon gives us the choice of three crop factors a scam, that was a poor choice of terms. It allows us to select the correct tool for the job. If you feel you really need the same 24x36mm size sensor as we became accustomed to (or just cannot adjust to the crops), there's bodies available. If you need the cost savings, quicker response, or extra "reach" of a crop sensor you've got the 1.6 bodies. And if a compromise is needed, well you have that, too. Yeah it takes a little more time to educate yourself to pick the right one, but that's the price of a complete product line--and honestly most people are perfectly happy with the 1.6 crop bodies and really can't tell the difference anyway. It's certainly not a case of Canon trying to screw you.

OK, I've rambled long enough now.


The internet can be a dangerous thing, especially for those of us with perfectionist tendencies! There's a happy middle spot in the information available, it's just a matter of finding it and what works for you personally.

I'll check into the 12-24mm further, it seems like a good compromise. As far as the 17-55 or 24-70, I still don't know. Think I'll try to find someone with one that I can play with. (my photography group meets this week)

It's been so helpful to read about how others shoot, and why they've chosen a particular lens. While my needs may be different, when making a $1000+ decision it's good to feel prepared and informed!

[Glenn NK]

ow come on...how many of us (that is amateurs) shoot during rain or other extreme conditions?

the build quality of 50mm f1.8 is more than enough for guys like us. we are not shooting in the amazon rainforest or african desert, are we? :D

There is no question that I am an amateur (in all senses of the word), however I live in the Pacific Northwest - the rainy season starts in early November and continues until February at least, and it's not uncommon to have rain four or five days a week.

A week ago it looked like a good day, and when I was a 20 minute walk from my car, it started to rain. It was a bit awkward carrying the camera under my coat while lugging the tripod. Weather sealed would have been nice. With the 24-105, I would only really have to protect the body as the lens would likely take care of itself.

BTW, the best flower photography is done in the rain because of colour saturation (natural polarization) and the interest that natural raindrops add to an image.

[eyusuf]

There is no question that I am an amateur (in all senses of the word), however I live in the Pacific Northwest - the rainy season starts in early November and continues until February at least, and it's not uncommon to have rain four or five days a week.

A week ago it looked like a good day, and when I was a 20 minute walk from my car, it started to rain. It was a bit awkward carrying the camera under my coat while lugging the tripod. Weather sealed would have been nice. With the 24-105, I would only really have to protect the body as the lens would likely take care of itself.

BTW, the best flower photography is done in the rain because of colour saturation (natural polarization) and the interest that natural raindrops add to an image.

do you have a weather sealed camera as well?

[ziggy53]

do you have a weather sealed camera as well?

I now have several. Did you have a specific question?

[bigsnowdog]

Are we seeing, or will we see, a trend toward more full frame sensor cameras, and fewer crop frame sensor models?

[Foochar]

Are we seeing, or will we see, a trend toward more full frame sensor cameras, and fewer crop frame sensor models?

No one outside of Canon (or the manufacturer of your choice) can be sure of this, but in my opinion I think both formats have a long life ahead of them. Canon is putting too much effort into producing quality glass like the EF-S 10-22mm and EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS that will only work on the crop sensor cameras to abandon the crop sensor user base. Additionaly so long as one manufacturer is making crop frame cameras I think the other manufacturers will be obligated to do so to remain competive at the entry level price point. At the same time there are some purposes for which larger full frame sensors with higher resolutions or lower noise at the same resolution will be prefered.

I will also say that in the last year Canon has released both a crop frame camera (the 40D) and a full frame camera (The 1Ds Mark III), so currently there is not visible trend towards a phase out of either format.

[Rockporters]

Just wanted to follow up, and thank everyone again for the suggestions and advice.

I just ordered the Canon 17-55mm from Amazon. Hate that Amazon fluctuates their prices so frequently, it was $60 more than the last time they were in stock... but I can't wait to get the lens! :barb

For a while the 24-70mm L was lead contender, strictly because in photos on the internet it usually blew away the 24-105mm and the 17-55mm. People are passionate about both lenses, and there isn't much negative floating around about either. After trying out the lenses at a store, it was clear that either one would be a good choice ,but if buying the 24-70 I would want the 10-22 to cover the wider end. For now I'd prefer my third lens to be a portrait or macro lens, so I can explore more areas of photography. Canon lenses have good resell value so I don't feel locked in, should I change my mind, or shooting habits, down the road.

Anyhow thought I'd follow up and share what I decided to do. Thanks again, I really appreciated everyone's help.