Which lens? [Archive] - The-Digital-Picture.com Community

View Full Version : Which lens?

wimpy

06-08-2009, 02:44 AM

G'Day,

I recently bought a 500D/T1I with the standard 18-55mm lens, then later purchased a 50mm f/1.8. I'm very happy with both of these purchases, Although i find that the kit lens now spends a lot of time in my bag.

I'm now looking to buy a 3rd lens and im finding it very difficult to decide what to spend my money on. I have tentatively narrowed it down to three lenses, the 24-105mm L, the 17-55mm f/2.8 or the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I Realise the Macro option may seem odd in comparrison, but if i was going to buy either of the other 2 lenses i would also by some extenders to give me some degree of macro capability.

The question is, Would the 24-105mm or the 17-55mm prove to be vastly more useful than the 18-55mm kit lens? I think i would appreciate the extra reach of the 24-105 but is it worth the substantial amount of money considering the lenses i already own? Would i be better off saving my money and going for the macro lens and perhaps looking at a telephoto in the future?

As i am new to digital photography i hope to try as many different styles as i can. Macro, Nature, Portrait, Landscape and Action photography all interest me.

I realize the answer to these questions will vary from person to person but as i have never used any of these lenses and many of you have, I would greatly appreciate your views.

Cheers, Al

Daniel Browning

06-08-2009, 03:06 AM

I recently bought a 500D/T1I with the standard 18-55mm lens, then later purchased a 50mm f/1.8. I'm very happy with both of these purchases, Although i find that the kit lens now spends a lot of time in my bag.

Excellent!

if i was going to buy either of the other 2 lenses i would also by some extenders to give me some degree of macro capability.

Since it sounds like you will get a lot of use out of macro, and you're comfortable using prime lenses, so I suggest you go for a dedicated macro lens. I prefer the EF-S 60mm f/2.8, which is more inexpensive, but the 100 is excellent.

The question is, Would the 24-105mm or the 17-55mm prove to be vastly more useful than the 18-55mm kit lens?

The 24-105 is in a whole different category than the kit lens, because on your camera it's a "normal to full telephoto" zoom, whereas the kit lens and 17-55 are "wide angle to short telephoto" zooms. For me, the 17-55 is a more useful range, but some don't ever shoot wide angle.

The 17-55 has the advantage of a fast f/2.8 f-number: that is very different from the f/4 on the 24-105, but it's worlds apart from the f/5.6 on the kit lens. Furthermore, the image quality is fantastic, especially for a zoom. be Not to mention the fact that in the range where they overlap (24-55), the 17-55 has far superior image quality (almost as good as the 50mm f/1.8, and even better in some ways). But even with all that, I can't say if either lens will be vastly more useful than your kit lens, because it just might not be the focal length you want to shoot.

Personally, I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, because the I.S. and other features of the Canon 17-55 was not important enough to me to spend the extra $600, and the Tamron is every bit as sharp.

Would i be better off saving my money and going for the macro lens and perhaps looking at a telephoto in the future?

Most folks use a "normal" zoom like the 17-55 or 18-55 for a lot of their photography, but everyone is different, and so far your kit lens has stayed in the bag. A telephoto lens is pretty important for me, personally, so I would want to have something, even if it was more inexpensive to use while I'm saving up. The Sigma 70-300 APO MACRO is the cheapest option, but the Canon 70-300 IS makes a great value if you can afford it.

I realize the answer to these questions will vary from person to person but as i have never used any of these lenses and many of you have, I would greatly appreciate your views.

Something you might consider is to rent a lens for a week and try it out. I used to get rentals from the local photography place for hundreds of dollars, but now I do lensrentals.com for less than a third of the price. Great way to try things out without committing to a purchase.

Have fun with your new gear!

wimpy

06-08-2009, 04:46 AM

Thanks Daniel, very helpful advice. So in your opinion having a dedicated macro lens is a better option than having a set of extenders and a possibly more versatile lens such as either of the 70-300mm telephotos mentioned? I guess rather than stretching to afford the 24-105 i might be better off with a mid range macro and telephoto, each being roughly half the 24-105's price, and covering a larger combined focal length.

Renting lenses is something i have considered, but I'm yet to try. It's a shame I'm not in the US because that link your provided looks very good.

Cheers, Al

clemmb

06-08-2009, 09:41 AM

Daniel Browning said "the 17-55 has far superior image quality " I disagree. Check Brayan's ISO 12233 Chart 100% Crop Comparison. The 24-105 is much sharper than the 17-55.
<div class="ForumPostButtons"]http://community.the-digital-picture.com/Themes/hawaii/images/icon_post_show.gif ("http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/1385/9773.aspx#9773) wimpy ("http://community.the-digital-picture.com/members/wimpy/default.aspx)Said "Macro, Nature, Portrait, Landscape and Action photography all interest me." The 24-105 would be better for Macro, Nature and portrait than the 17-55. The 17-55 would be better for Landscape and possibly action allthough I have used the 24-105 for indoor basketball with good results. The only time I have run into the 24 not being wide enough on a crop body was indoors in a small room but I do not shoot much wide angle. If you need wide angle then the 17-55 is for you.</div>
<div class="ForumPostButtons"]</div>
<div class="ForumPostButtons"]Mark</div>

wimpy

06-08-2009, 10:31 AM

More good advice, thanks clemb. I'm thinking of getting a set of kenko extenders tomorrow and seeing how they go for macro with my 50mm f/1.8. Then maybe getting into a camera shop on the weekend to take a look at a 24-105mm and hopefully the other lenses to see if im really willing to spend so much money on glass.

ShutterbugJohan

06-08-2009, 01:17 PM

I have tentatively narrowed it down to three lenses, the 24-105mm L, the 17-55mm f/2.8 or the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I Realise the Macro option may seem odd in comparrison, but if i was going to buy either of the other 2 lenses i would also by some extenders to give me some degree of macro capability.

If you shoot in low light fairly frequently, I would recommend buying the Tamron 17-50/2.8 Di-II and the Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro. Together, these two lenses cost about the same as the 24-105L or EF-S 17-55/2.8IS. If you shoot in good lighting conditions, and the kit lens is fine for you, buy the 70-300IS instead of the Tamron 17-50.

The question is, Would the 24-105mm or the 17-55mm prove to be vastly more useful than the 18-55mm kit lens?

Depends. The 24-105 is probably less useful, becuase although you gain some telephoto, you lose some wide-angle (it is easier to crop than to reverse-crop). If you shoot in low light, the EF-S 17-55/2.8IS would be better. Of course, both of these lenses have better IQ than the kit lens.

I think i would appreciate the extra reach of the
24-105 but is it worth the substantial amount of money considering the
lenses i already own?

I would say no, because you lose some wide-angle. If you buy the 100/2.8 Macro, you'll have a wider range than the 24-105 anyway, although not in one lens.

Would i be better off saving my money and going for
the macro lens and perhaps looking at a telephoto in the future?

Probably.

I suggest you go for a dedicated macro lens. I prefer the EF-S 60mm f/2.8, which is more inexpensive, but the 100 is excellent.

I disagree. For macro work with live critters, the longer reach of the 100mm is essential, plus the 100mm has a focus limiter switch so the AF doesn't hunt much when not shooting macro.

Daniel Browning

06-09-2009, 12:19 AM

I guess rather than stretching to afford the
24-105 i might be better off with a mid range macro and telephoto, each
being roughly half the 24-105's price, and covering a larger combined
focal length.

Yes, IMHO. Particularly since the quality/ease of use will be better than a 24-105 with tubes.

Daniel Browning said "the 17-55
has far superior image quality " I disagree. Check Brayan's ISO
12233 Chart 100% Crop Comparison. The 24-105 is much sharper than the
17-55.

Different bodies
cannot be compared, just as it says in the instructions:

Lenses should be compared to each other only with test data from the same camera body.

That's from this page: About ISO 12233 Chart Data and Sample Images ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx)

There are too many differences between bodies: entirely
different spatial frequencies, the framing is different, and even the chart itself may be different.

clemmb

06-09-2009, 01:00 PM

clemmb

06-09-2009, 01:10 PM

Please accept my apologies if I sound argumentative. I do not intend to.

Mark

Daniel Browning

06-09-2009, 03:16 PM

No need to apologize, Mark, you're doing great.

Both are tested on an 8 MP camera (the 350D) at Photozone:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/188-canon-ef-24-105mm-f4-usm-l-is-lab-test-report--review?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1

For resolution/contrast on a 8 MP camera, they are similar:

1728 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 24-105 at 24mm f/4 border

1758 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 17-55 at 24mm f/4 border

1972 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 24-105 at 24mm f/4 center

2134 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 17-55 at 24mm f/4 center

(I think the difference would be more pronounced on a 15 MP body, but I haven't seen any direct comparisons yet.)

For chromatic aberration:

1.55 for 24-105 at 24mm f/4 border

0.73 for the 17-55 at 24mm f/4 border

Vignetting:

0.37 for the 24-105 at 24mm f/4 (first win for the 24-105)

0.43 for the 17-55 at 24mm f/4

Distortion:

0.32% for the 17-55 at 24mm

0.61% for the 24-105 at 24mm

Keith B

06-09-2009, 03:53 PM

I have never owned the 17-55, but I will vouch for the claims of distortion and CA on the wide end of the 24-105.

Please disregard this comment if you are interested in or bidding on my 24-105 on eBay.

I was thoroughly impressed with it on the normal to telephoto side though.

Colin

06-09-2009, 03:57 PM

You know, if I was going for a walk around on a 1.6x body, and I had no full frame compatability requirements, I would probably go for the 17-55 too....

However, the tests you're referencing, just to be a pain, knowing only what you're referencing, seem a bit unfair.

They're all done at 24mm focal length, which is the absolute edge of the zoom range of the 24-105. Why not at 35 or 55mm?? My guess is that the 24-105 would do significantly better compared to it's 24mm performancein these ranges. That's not to say that the 24mm tests are irrelevant, but they seem like a worst case scenario. I like having the 24mm range on the 24-105, though if I needed a really high quality 24mm shot, I wouldn't be using that lens. I'd go with my 16-35mm zoom, or eventhe 24-70 would do better, or if I was lucky enough to have one a 24mm f/1.4 LUSM (or II like yourself).

Anyway, nits picked.... [:P]

Keith B

06-09-2009, 04:08 PM

Colin

06-09-2009, 04:11 PM

I know it is the difference between a fixed and zoom, but my 24 1.4L mkI blows the doors of my 16-35 mkII at matching apertures. Thus making it very difficult for me to sell the 24. I've never tried to compare flare. I can only imagine how spectacular the 24 mkII is.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Similarly, my 35mm f/1.4L blows my 16-35mm f/2.8L (non mkII) out of the water at 35mm...

But I don't have a 24mm f/1.4L [:(]...

Keith B

06-09-2009, 04:20 PM

Similarly, my 35mm f/1.4L blows my 16-35mm f/2.8L (non mkII) out of the water at 35mm...

But I don't have a 24mm f/1.4L /emoticons/emotion-6.gif...

We could trade![:D]

Colin

06-09-2009, 04:42 PM

Similarly, my 35mm f/1.4L blows my 16-35mm f/2.8L (non mkII) out of the water at 35mm...

But I don't have a 24mm f/1.4L /emoticons/emotion-6.gif...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

We could trade!/emoticons/emotion-2.gif
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

*scratches head*

I'm bound by my fear of making a mistake. I can't imagine not missing my 35... At least I've never had a 24...

How about you just give me yours? [:P]

Keith B

06-09-2009, 04:51 PM

Similarly, my 35mm f/1.4L blows my 16-35mm f/2.8L (non mkII) out of the water at 35mm...

But I don't have a 24mm f/1.4L /emoticons/emotion-6.gif...
<div style="CLEAR:both;"]</div>

We could trade!/emoticons/emotion-2.gif
<div style="CLEAR:both;"]</div>

*scratches head*

I'm bound by my fear of making a mistake. I can't imagine not missing my 35... At least I've never had a 24...

How about you just give me yours? /emoticons/emotion-4.gif

*scratches head*

I don't think I make out to well on that.

Tough thing for me is, I bought the 24 when my only body was a 40D and I loved the focal length (38.4) on the crop and now my 24 just isn't my sweet spot on my 5DII. I'm sure I'll miss the 24 if I sell or trade it. I think I'm going to start saving my pennies for the rumored 35 1.4 mkII. Or maybe I'll come to my senses and just be happy with my 16-35mkII.

Daniel Browning

06-09-2009, 05:00 PM

They're all done at 24mm focal length, which is the absolute edge of the zoom range of the 24-105.

When used on a crop body as a walkaround, I would think that 24mm would be one of the most widely used focal lengths, especially because it can't go anywhere near as wide as 17mm.

Why not at 35 or 55mm??

Only because photozone didn't test any of the same focal lengths in that range. If you're OK with comparing different focal lengths, how about the extreme of the 17-55 (55mm) vs mid-range on the 24-105 (70mm)?

For resolution/contrast on a 8 MP camera, the results are pretty similar to 24mm:

1661 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 24-105 at 70mm f/4 border

1712 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 17-55 at 55mm f/4 border

1840 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 24-105 at 70mm f/4 center

2088 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 17-55 at 55mm f/4 center

Looks like the same difference as at 24mm.

For chromatic aberration:

0.51 for 24-105 at 70mm f/4 border

0.44 for the 17-55 at 55mm f/4 border

Vignetting:

0.31 for the 24-105 at 70mm f/4

0.37 for the 17-55 at 55mm f/4

Distortion:

0.64% for the 24-105 at 70mm

1.15% for the 17-55 at 55mm

It's really should be no surprise that a $1030 3.2X kit lens that covers only a *small* image circle can beat a $1090 4.4X professional kit lens that must cover a *large* image circle.

Please disregard this comment if you are interested in or bidding on my 24-105 on eBay.

Ha! Awesome.

Colin

06-09-2009, 05:22 PM

It's really should be no surprise that a $1030 3.2X kit lens that covers only a *small* image circle can beat a $1090 4.4X professional kit lens that must cover a *large* image circle.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I wasn't trying to argue that point for a 1.6x body... [:)]

But thanks for making sure that I didn't get any silly ideas!

Daniel Browning

06-09-2009, 05:30 PM

I wasn't trying to argue that point for a 1.6x body... /emoticons/emotion-1.gif

But thanks for making sure that I didn't get any silly ideas!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

My inner pedant says "you're welcome!" :)

clemmb

06-09-2009, 09:16 PM

wimpy

06-10-2009, 04:43 AM

To be honest you lost me after about the 5th reply. Feel free to thank me for initiating such a stimulating conversation though. [:P]

I ordered a kenko extention tube set off ebay and will probably wait until i have had a play with them before buying my next lens. If i think i can get some decent macro shots with them and my 50mm f/1.8 i will rule out buying a dedicated macro for the moment and try to decide on my third lens. I've been thinking about the argument that i might miss the wide angle if i was to go for the 24-105mm. Wouldnt my kit lens (18-55mm) be up to the job?

Mark Elberson

06-10-2009, 09:46 AM

I've been thinking about the argument that i might miss the wide angle if i was to go for the 24-105mm. Wouldnt my kit lens (18-55mm) be up to the job?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

How much do you use the wide end? Some people don't use it much at all while others swear by it. If you can't answer that question then next time you are shooting pay attention to what focal length gets used the most on your kit lens. Try to not let it get under 24mm. Does it hurt your style? Do you find it limiting? If not, then the 24-105 might be a great option for you. Unless I am shooting landscapes or the like I rarely go too wide (because I'm shooting tight crops of my baby boy) but I used to have the 24-105 and sold it to buy the 17-55 f/2.8 and have never looked back. I don't miss the telephoto end of the lens because when shooting indoors I can always move a few feet closer and when I need the wide angle of view 17mm is a lifetime away from 24mm on a 1.6X FOVCF camera. I know a lot has been thrown at you already but I hope this is of some help since I have owned both of the two utility lenses that you're considering :)

Wouldnt my kit lens (18-55mm) be up to the job?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Do you really want to switch lenses every time you want to use 18mm-23mm???

jasbsar

06-10-2009, 10:08 AM

To get the best from the 500D you need good lenses. So out of those you have listed the one to go for is the 24-105mm IS F4 L. I have one and it is really good.

But the first lens I got to partner the 18-55mm kit lens when I use to have the 400D was the 70-200mm 4L (fine for outdoor action in good light, I used it for horse events) which is a stunning bit of kit. Each time I used it the shots were out standing, I would say better than the 24-105mm IS 4L. It is the cheapest L class lens you can buy. So you could look at that one for now and then get the 24-105mm IS 4L later on.

Best thing with lenses is spend wisely, then they will serve you well in many camera upgrades.