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?
...
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.
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.
"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey". John Ruskin 1819 - 1900
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.
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)
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.
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?
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:
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.
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!
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?
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.
"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey". John Ruskin 1819 - 1900
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.
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.
Follow Up
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!
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.
Comments
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?
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
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
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
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.
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)
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?
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:
Nikon D300
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D
[SIZE=-3]Mary Beth Glasmann Photography[/SIZE]
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.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
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!
Nikon D300
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D
[SIZE=-3]Mary Beth Glasmann Photography[/SIZE]
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?
I now have several. Did you have a specific question?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
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.
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!
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.
Nikon D300
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D
[SIZE=-3]Mary Beth Glasmann Photography[/SIZE]