Lens info

choudhrysaab · August 26, 2011

My question is regarding Canon lenses. Does anyone know if they only use two different type of "glass" - one for EF and other for EF-S or do they have various blends of glass for their lenses. Obviously I know they wouldn't put professional quality glass in an EF-S lens but is it possible that some of their EF-S lens contain better quality glass than others? I'm asking this because I'm thinking of purchasing an EF-S lens (since I took Matt's advice and sold my EF lens 24-105mm) and wondering if the glass used in 15-85mm lens is better than the 18-200mm lens (that comes with 60D kit).

Thanx in advance.

ThatCanonGuy · August 26, 2011

Some EF-S lenses are better than others. The best are the 17-55, 10-22, and 60 macro. The 15-85 is up there, but not quite as good IQ-wise as the 17-55. The 55-250 "thrifty 2 fifty" is okay, with good IQ considering the price, but by no means a "professional" lens (though I'm sure many pros, and even non-pros, could get professional-looking images out of it

). All the others are not as good quality, and not worth owning IMHO.

Also, the 17-55 is often considered a "professional" lens. For crop sensors, many people get it instead of the 24-70 (17-55 is about 24-70 in 35mm terms). The build quality of the 17-55 isn't "L", but the image quality could easily be considered "L."

borrowlenses.com · August 26, 2011

Canon has special types of glass (fluorite, UD) and special coatings that it applies to the high-end lenses.

choudhrysaab · August 27, 2011

ThatCanonGuy - 17-55mm lens is REALLY expensive in Canada. Even though it's not the "L" series lens but it costs just as much. WHAT GIVES??? Just because its f/2.5??? For Landscape photography should I invest in a lens that's f/2.5 because I thought low aperture is better suited for Portrait/Indoor photography.

Please correct me if this is a misconception.

ziggy53 · August 27, 2011

choudhrysaab wrote: »

ThatCanonGuy - 17-55mm lens is REALLY expensive in Canada. Even though it's not the "L" series lens but it costs just as much. WHAT GIVES??? Just because its f/2.5??? For Landscape photography should I invest in a lens that's f/2.5 because I thought low aperture is better suited for Portrait/Indoor photography.

Please correct me if this is a misconception.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is a "constant-aperture" lens and it is fairly well controlled for distortion at the wide end. It's also very sharp at maximum aperture at all focal lengths. All of this adds up to considerable extra "control" over DOF as well as the ability to use the lens throughout it's range without concern for quality.

The f2.8 maximum aperture also activates the high-precision capabilities of most Canon cameras for the center AF. This means that AF will be better even if you stop down.

The optical formula of the lens is very "L" like, meaning that Canon has no better optical formula for that particular range of focal lengths in a zoom lens. Color aberrations are extremely well controlled.

The only real potential downside of the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8IS is that it cannot mount on a full-frame (FF) camera body (5D series, 1Ds series). For Canon crop 1.6x camera bodies there is simply no better lens at that focal length range available.

I have one and it is one lens that I rely on and would replace immediately if anything happened to it.

For landscapes I highly recommend a 3-4 lens lineup. For Canon crop 1.6x bodies I recommend:

1) A "super-wide" zoom lens in the 10-20mm-ish range for "vista" landscapes.
2) A Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM as the "standard" zoom, capable of wide-angle through moderate telephoto.
3) A Canon 70-200mm, the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM for maximum portability with extremely high quality, or a Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM II for the advantages of the larger aperture. (Better DOF control, lower light efficiency and activating the high-precision sensor of the AF.)

Optional 4) a genuine macro prime lens of 90mm to 180mm. This can be used for extremely high resolution landscapes as well as close-focus and macro applications. (Flowers, bugs, etc.)

I often also bring a 500mm for landscapes to allow distance compression where appropriate.

Throw in a lightweight tripod and a panoramic head and a flash, and you are set for almost any opportunity in a landscape expedition.

Start with the super-wide and the standard zoom lenses and you can cover 70-80 percent of what you need for landscape situations. (Vista landscapes through standard-angle landscapes.)

If you think that the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8IS is expensive, wait 'till you check out the Nikon Nikkor 17-55mm, f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX. It is also a "crop" lens (Nikon calls those lenses "DX" lenses) and it does not have IS, but it's even more expensive than the Canon equivalent.

Of course it is an extremely nice lens to use and it has a better build quality than the Canon.

Brett1000 · August 28, 2011

choudhrysaab wrote: »

My question is regarding Canon lenses. Does anyone know if they only use two different type of "glass" - one for EF and other for EF-S or do they have various blends of glass for their lenses. Obviously I know they wouldn't put professional quality glass in an EF-S lens but is it possible that some of their EF-S lens contain better quality glass than others? I'm asking this because I'm thinking of purchasing an EF-S lens (since I took Matt's advice and sold my EF lens 24-105mm) and wondering if the glass used in 15-85mm lens is better than the 18-200mm lens (that comes with 60D kit).

Thanx in advance.

EF-S type lens like the Sigma 17-50 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon 17-55 2.8, etc. are specially designed for the smaller crop sensors and (surprisingly) have better image resolution than many of the comparable lens designed for older full frame models

travischance · August 28, 2011

choudhrysaab wrote: »

ThatCanonGuy - 17-55mm lens is REALLY expensive in Canada. Even though it's not the "L" series lens but it costs just as much. WHAT GIVES??? Just because its f/2.5??? For Landscape photography should I invest in a lens that's f/2.5 because I thought low aperture is better suited for Portrait/Indoor photography.

Please correct me if this is a misconception.

The 17-55 is an excellent EF-S lens. The constant 2.8 aperture combined with a really good zoom range, is a perfect "all-in-one" lens for Canon shooters. If you have any interest, I have one listed for sale here for a friend.

choudhrysaab · August 28, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

If you think that the Canon 17-55mm, f2.8IS is expensive, wait 'till you check out the Nikon Nikkor 17-55mm, f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX. It is also a "crop" lens (Nikon calls those lenses "DX" lenses) and it does not have IS, but it's even more expensive than the Canon equivalent.

Thank you very much ziggy for the detailed answer. I guess I'll be saving up for this lens now.

choudhrysaab · August 28, 2011

Brett1000 wrote: »

EF-S type lens like the Sigma 17-50 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon 17-55 2.8, etc. are specially designed for the smaller crop sensors and (surprisingly) have better image resolution than many of the comparable lens designed for older full frame models

I just searched the prices of the three and there's a big difference between Canon and Tamron's price.
I wonder if the quality of the glass in Tamron lens is as good as Canon, looking at the price.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens - $1,269.00
Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens for Canon - $879.95
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC ASL IF Lens for Canon - $579.95

choudhrysaab · August 28, 2011

travischance wrote: »

The 17-55 is an excellent EF-S lens. The constant 2.8 aperture combined with a really good zoom range, is a perfect "all-in-one" lens for Canon shooters. If you have any interest, I have one listed for sale here for a friend.

I'm Canadian "eh"!

ThatCanonGuy · August 28, 2011

The 17-55 is so good, I think if it weren't for the build quality and the crop-only mount they'd put a red ring on it. They'd charge a lot more, and it'd probably sell. Anyway, I've used the Tammy. It has good image quality but slow AF. Although I haven't used the Canon, I can say that it's likely much faster given the USM. The IS is probably better as well, though I haven't used both so I can't say.

Matthew Saville · August 28, 2011

I wouldn't boil it down to "the glass used", but simply to the engineering and overall quality that has gone into a lens. And, as far as standards go, the 15-85 EF-S is one of the best. The sharpness is superb, and the build quality is about as good as any "prosumer" lens on the market.

Bottom line- as long as you take good care of it, and as long as your shooting needs don't require boat-loads of shallow depth, then this lens will be the best all-around lens on the market. Especially for backpacking, or vacation / travel, the 15-85 is the best option where weight, size, and price are concerned. And yes, that means I'd recommend it over the 17-55 EF-S too. Sure, you could do well with the 17-55 2.8 if you were mostly a portrait / photojournalism photographer, or better yet a full-frame camera and something like a 24-105 L, or a 24-70 2.8....but you'd be adding a pound or three, a couple / few thousand bucks depending on the body you use, and not really gaining THAT much extra image quality as far as general nature / travel / adventure photography is concerned.

You did mention that you're considering use for outdoor / landscape etc. type of photography, and that is why I'm gonna go ahead and say that the 15-85 is by far your best choice.

Of course, keep in mind that it's still classified as a "walk-around lens". In your pursuit of hardcore photography, you'll probably eventually be adding other gear to your bag. However, even so I don't consider the 15-85 to be a "stepping stone" or a waste of money. Even if I had all the expensive lenses and bodies I could want, I'd still hold onto a lens as awesome as the 15-85; coupled with a camera like a 60D it simply makes the best lightweight travel camera on the market today.

=Matt=

choudhrysaab · August 29, 2011

15-85mm is a few hundred dollars less than 17-50mm.
I'm gonna see if there's anyone selling their used 15-85mm lens or maybe try out Sigma/Tamron lens in that range.

Usually every year in mid October Henry's photography store puts together a show where all the major Camera companies come together to display their latest and greatest so I'll be going there to try out some of these lenses.

codrus · August 30, 2011

I have the 17-55 and while I love the images it makes I don't use it all that often. I'm using a 50D, but for whatever reason I find that the 17-24 range just isn't interesting for the photos I shoot, and I get a lot more use out of focal lengths > 55 than < 24. As such, my camera spends a lot more time with the 24-105 attached than the 17-55.

--Ian

Matthew Saville · September 1, 2011

choudhrysaab wrote: »

15-85mm is a few hundred dollars less than 17-50mm.
I'm gonna see if there's anyone selling their used 15-85mm lens or maybe try out Sigma/Tamron lens in that range.

Usually every year in mid October Henry's photography store puts together a show where all the major Camera companies come together to display their latest and greatest so I'll be going there to try out some of these lenses.

Don't bother with the Sigma / Tamron / Tokina lenses that compare (on paper) to the Canon 15-85. Like the Nikon 16-85, it really has no third-party equal when it comes to sharpness. Canon and Nikon simply put a LOT of effort into those "kit" zooms, and they're just amazing. Of course YES, if sharpness is not the absolute most important factor to you, then a Sigma 17-70 or something similar could definitely serve you well. But personally, the Canon 15-85 is my *only* recommendation for the type of "adventure / travel / landscape" photography that you find yourself doing...

=Matt=

Lens info

Comments