Canon lens for digital camera or full frame?

mpmcleod

My wife mom gave my wife a EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon lens for her Digital Rebel camera. The thing that concerns us is that it is "digital only" lens which means that when we upgrade to the 5D it is worthless.

Questions:
* Is there an equivalent full frame lens?
I saw the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM but that doesn’t appear to have IS

Is there something in the 35mm which will have the same features? Or is this lens as close as we can expect to get?

* Is this something I should worry about?

* Does anyone know if bhphotovideo would exchange them for us or are we stuck?


Thanks,
Mike

jdryan3

Trying to find an apples to apples is kinda hard. If you HAVE to have the f/2.8 and you want 5D compatibility, then it seems the 16-35 f/2.8 L is the way to go ($1350 after rebate)

If you don't need the full f-stop, the 17-40 f/4 L may be the way to go. Much lighter than the other and only $645 from B& H after rebate.

I mention these because the lens you got is about $1000.

The FF equivalent of the lens you have is 27 - 88. Both of those I mentioned drop back to being ultra-wide to wide angle on the 5D. IF you don't mind the 24-70 f/2.8 L being effectively 38-112 on your current camera, I can tell you it is a great lens (but heavy compared to the EF-S 17-55). Another in that category is the 24-105 f/4 L which does have IS. These are both $1K to $1100 after rebates

Even thought the 24-70 is heavier than the others, I have not felt the need for the IS (which I love on the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS). It is very handholdable for me. Your wife may disagree, so try it out.

On the B&H return issue, my experience is if you follow their RMA policy on packaging, condition of lens, etc. they are very accomodating, especially if you are getting a store credit to be used on another lens. Been there, done that.

TristanP

mpmcleod wrote:

My wife mom gave my wife a EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon lens for her Digital Rebel camera. The thing that concerns us is that it is "digital only" lens which means that when we upgrade to the 5D it is worthless.

Questions:
* Is there an equivalent full frame lens?
I saw the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM but that doesn’t appear to have IS

Is there something in the 35mm which will have the same features? Or is this lens as close as we can expect to get?

* Is this something I should worry about?

* Does anyone know if bhphotovideo would exchange them for us or are we stuck?


Thanks,
Mike

Closest full frame are either the 24-70L or 24-105L. You can have either f/2.8 or IS, but not both. When the time comes that you can't use the lens anymore, sell it - there will be waiting customers. In the mean time, use it and enjoy it. Stop worrying and go take some pictures.

LiquidAir

The EF-S lenses have their inner element closer to the film plane than is possible on a full frame body because the full frame body needs extra clearance for a larger mirror. What that means is that wide angle EF-S lenses will can peform better than their full frame counter parts. Unless you have a short term plan to upgrade to full frame, I'd suggest using EF-S lenses to cover the wide angles on your Rebel.

mpmcleod

Thanks for the information.

We have decided that if bh will give us full credit we will get the 24-70/2.8 but will enjoy this lens if they don't.

Two more questions:
1) Do you think that as the full frame cameras become cheaper Canon and others will stop selling and supporting the SLR APS-C cameras in the near future?

2) I have never bought or sold a used lens, What is the usual depreciation on a lens? (e.g. what percentage of new cost could I expect to get when we resell)

Thanks!

Andy

mpmcleod wrote:

Thanks for the information.

We have decided that if bh will give us full credit we will get the 24-70/2.8 but will enjoy this lens if they don't.

I encourage you to look hard at the 24-105L. Many posts here on Dgrin about it, including a review ("Reviews" in the Dgrin Nav bar).

2) I have never bought or sold a used lens, What is the usual depreciation on a lens? (e.g. what percentage of new cost could I expect to get when we resell)

Thanks!

Well-cared for Canon L glass like this should sell in our Flea Market for 85% to 90% of the current pricing.

mpmcleod

Andy wrote:

I encourage you to look hard at the 24-105L. Many posts here on Dgrin about it, including a review ("Reviews" in the Dgrin Nav bar).


Well-cared for Canon L glass like this should sell in our Flea Market for 85% to 90% of the current pricing.

Wow. Another lens to consider that I hadn't even thought about.

mpmcleod

Our biggest use (75%) is indoors (e.g. shots of the kids (ours and others) and as secondary wedding shooters (no flash and/or getting stuff the pros don't take)).

All:
Based on that would you still recommend the 24-105Lf/4 IS or the 24-70 f/2.8?

Thanks,
Mike

Andy

mpmcleod wrote:

Our biggest use (75%) is indoors (e.g. shots of the kids (ours and others) and as secondary wedding shooters (no flash and/or getting stuff the pros don't take)).

All:
Based on that would you still recommend the 24-105Lf/4 IS or the 24-70 f/2.8?

Thanks,
Mike

With the supreme ISO perfomance of Canon at 1600 I find the 24-105L very useful indoors, low light.

It's a big tradeoff, you must decide for yourself

Poseidon

I have both the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-105 4.0, both are excellent lenses. Taking the range and F-stop out of the comparison for a moment, I find the 24-70 2.8 focuses significantly faster on my 1D2N then the 24-105 does. I am sure that it is because of the 2.8 being a larger aperture to use for focusing.

You mentioned indoors, and KIDS, well when I do that combination, focusing speed comes into play! For that situation, I would choose the 24-70, as the IS is of no help when it comes to a moving subject. (How often are kids sitting still for more then 30 seconds?)

I have not used the 17-55 2.8 IS, but I did consider it for my wifes 20D, I ended up with the 24-105 instead though, as it is a better range for Wedding work. (For what we do anyway.)

Regardless, you have a nice lens now, and like another mentioned, if you have no plans for a 5D soon, use what you have!

jdryan3

mpmcleod wrote:

All:
Based on that would you still recommend the 24-105Lf/4 IS or the 24-70 f/2.8?

Oh-Oh, not that fight again! :duel
Actually, if you do a search on the forums on this topic there are at least 2 threads with postings in the last 60 days that talk about this. And there are many other good photo web sites that have the same debate.

Both are great, and you have to look at what you are trying to shoot. As said , in my oriingal psot above, I went for the 24-70 because I had the 70-200 (yeah a little overlap would have been nice) and decided after soul searching (and a lot of reading) I wanted the speed of 2.8 over the IS.

mpmcleod

Thanks for everyone's help. We decided that it may be at least a year before we go to FF so in the meantime we will enjoy the 17-55 EF-S lens and sell it when the time comes.

Thanks again for all the advice. Now off to start a new thread about shutter sticking....

claudermilk

mpmcleod wrote:

Our biggest use (75%) is indoors (e.g. shots of the kids (ours and others) and as secondary wedding shooters (no flash and/or getting stuff the pros don't take)).

All:
Based on that would you still recommend the 24-105Lf/4 IS or the 24-70 f/2.8?

Thanks,
Mike

That's some of the tkind of use that iselected the 24-70 for. OK, so the 24-105 hadn't quite hit they market yet. However, I would still have the same lens in my bag today anyway. Yep, the IS is nice, however, that f2.8 IMHO is a bigger help--birghter viewfinder in the low light environment, improved AF (remember the bodies take advantage of the extra light f2.8 & wider lenses allow), faster shutter to freeze moving subjects better (IS can't help there).

To me the 24-70 is still the king mid-range low-light zoom. The 24-105 is more of a general walk-around with IS to help with occasional hand-held low-light use.

Switching between my 24-70/2.8 and Tokina 12-24/4 over the holidays, I was really struck by the difference it made. I kept having to brace more with the wide lens & bump the ISO another step to compensate--and eventually in the evening stick with the 24-70 once it needed max ISO.