Need Advice: Which Canon lens(es)?

Rockporters · January 10, 2008

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

) 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 · January 10, 2008

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 · January 10, 2008

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 · January 10, 2008

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 · January 10, 2008

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 · January 10, 2008

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.

In the end, you're choosing between excellent lenses and will likely enjoy whichever one you choose.

Tee Why · January 10, 2008

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 · January 10, 2008

I was afraid you guys would ask me what I want to do with the lens

! 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 · January 10, 2008

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 · January 11, 2008

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 · January 11, 2008

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 · January 11, 2008

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 and PhotoSig, 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

.

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 · January 11, 2008

Rockporters wrote:

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 · January 11, 2008

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 · January 11, 2008

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 · January 13, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

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

. 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

. We'll see if I really like it then go from there!

Rockporters · January 13, 2008

Tee Why wrote:

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

, 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 · January 13, 2008

Rockporters wrote:

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 , 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 · January 14, 2008

Rockporters wrote:

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 . 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 . We'll see if I really like it then go from there!

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 · January 15, 2008

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.

Sunset.jpg

z_28 · January 15, 2008

Rockporters wrote:

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 , 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

Moogle Pepper · January 15, 2008

claudermilk wrote:

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 · January 15, 2008

Tee Why wrote:

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

. 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 · January 15, 2008

z_28 wrote:

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

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

claudermilk · January 15, 2008

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 · January 16, 2008

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 · January 16, 2008

bigsnowdog wrote:

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 · January 16, 2008

Foochar wrote:

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 · January 16, 2008

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 · January 16, 2008

eyusuf wrote:

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 · January 17, 2008

bigsnowdog wrote:

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..:)

Need Advice: Which Canon lens(es)?

Comments