New Lens or New Body?

[jrapa86]

Hey thanks for reading my post. I have a Canon Rebel T2i and I want to upgrade, but I am not sure what would be the better option in the long run. Here is what I am torn between:


Replace the T2i (with stock lens) to a Canon 7D with the stock lens


Keep the T2i and buy a 18-200 f2.8 lens


So what I am really asking is, what is the smarter upgrade? I know its a tough answer, but I am looking for a better quality photo (yeah I know thats what they all say lol)

[JJphoto]

general speaking IMO, stick with your T2i if your main shots are not for fast moving objects(bird/wildlife/sports...)

[erno james]

Hey jrapa86, I am in agreement with JJphoto. Glass (lens) lasts forever and the image quality from the T2i should be great. Assuming you are willing to spend the cost of a 7D, that leaves a lot of room for shopping, so consider buying an L-series lens (most will cost more than the T2i). You won

[jrapa86]

Perfect. Thanks guys I really appreciate it. I

[Kayaker72]

I

[neuroanatomist]

buy a 18-200 f2.8 lens


I've not heard of an 18-200mm f/2.8 lens... Do you mean the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens? If so, although that has a broader focal range than the kit lens, optically it's only a small step up. But the cost of a 7D would get you excellent lenses in that range. For example, one combo might be the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (IMO, that's the best general purpose zoom for a crop body) and the EF 70-200mm f/4L.


EDIT: looks like Brant and I were posting the same thing at the same time...

[jrapa86]

My apologies on that: I got the lenses confused. I meant to say 18-200 f/3.5-5.6. My primary goal is to upgrade the IQ, my budget is ~$1,500 give or take a few hundred. Given I go lower than my projected budget I was going to put in the extra $$ into maybe a flash. Hands down, I want to get the best possible IQ out of my T2i. I

[erno james]

The confusion on lenses is universal when we all started out. So don

[neuroanatomist]

I look at the f/stop, assuming lower is better, and lower means better IQ, then I look at the focal range to assume how far or close I'll need to be to my subject, and then I look at the price and assume that the higher price the better IQ. I


In general, not a bad approach. A wider aperture doesn't always mean better IQ, since some lenses are not terribly sharp when shot wide open (e.g. the 50mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2). But a wider aperture (lower f-number) means more light gets in, and a thinner DoF, so that can add flexibility to your picture taking.



I'm going to look into the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS now that you had mentioned it or even the 15-85mm. However my other question is, what kind of difference do I see between 17-55mm vs. 15-85, I'm not sure how to compare.


The optical quality of those two lenses is similar - both excellent. The trade-off is that the 17-55mm has a wider aperture, so will be better for low light shooting and portraits, whereas the 15-85mm has a broader focal length range but a slower aperture (meaning you'll likely need a flash indoors). The broader zoom range also means a bit more barrel distortion at the wide end than the 17-55mm. So, like most lens choices, it comes down to what your needs are. If you'll mostly be shooting outdoors in good light, the 15-85mm may be the better choice; for indoor shots, the 17-55mm may be better.



II was also looking at Canon - 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Zoom Lens. What do you think?


When use on the same crop body, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 actually delivers slightly better optical quality than the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Also, the 17-55mm has image stabilization, which can be a big help for many situations (although not for moving subjects). The other consideration with the 24-70mm is that on a 1.6x crop body, 24mm isn't even wide angle, it's at the wide end of the 'normal' focal length range. To me, a general purpose zoom should cover wide angle to short telephoto. Honestly, I'd recommend the 17-55mm over the 24-70mm, unless you're planning to buy a FF body in the immediate future (even if you think you might get a FF body 'someday' you'd be better off with the 17-55mm now...).

[jrapa86]

Honestly, I'd recommend the 17-55mm over the 24-70mm, unless you're planning to buy a FF body in the immediate future (even if you think you might get a FF body 'someday' you'd be better off with the 17-55mm now...).


It definitely looks like I am going for the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. Based on my needs and the way it sounds this would be the better choice for me. I do plan on buying a FF maybe in a year to a year and a half from now. I'll be taking many photos in the meantime. Your advice is definitely solid so I'm going for it!


In the meantime I have one more question:


When looking at a lens sometimes they say "35mm equivalent". What exactly does that mean? Also what is the difference between an EF zoom lens vs. EF telephoto zoom lens?. I'm asking because I cannot seem to understand the difference between these two lenses other than the $1000 difference (I was originally going for one of these but realized that 70-200 is not smart for general purpose for obvious reasons):



<h3 id="name_1218182821141" class="name"]Canon - EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+EF+70-200mm+f/2.8L+Telephoto+Zoom+Lens+for+Most+Canon+Digital+SL R+Cameras/9839236.p?id=1218182821141&amp;skuId=9839236]Canon - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Telephoto Zoom Lens for Most Canon Digital SLR Cameras</h3>



<h3 id="name_1218057059470" class="name)</h3>










OFF TOPIC:


Neuroanatomist, I was looking at your bio on this website and checked out some of your pics. They are awesome! But also Im a physician assistant and a huge immunology buff, i'm looking to soon be giving medical immunology lectures aside from working internal medicine. Thats great stuff! I'm actually looking into getting into microscopy photo taking/creative medical photo taking, I believe that you can turn the medical world into art and there's not enough of it! I have a 400x microscope with a third eyepiece on the top; looking for an adaptor for it so I can attach my camera to it so I can take pictures of different slides.

[Kayaker72]

JraPA86,


A few questions: What do you typically shoot? What do you want to shoot? Do you just want to replace your general purpose lens or are you trying to cover ~18 mm to 200 mm with your $1,500 budget? For a quick example, if you want to shoot pictures around your house of kids, which move, the EFS 17-55 makes sense. If you want to take portraits/macro, you may want to think about a prime lens or two. If you want to take pictures of birds, the 100-400L. If you want absolutely the best IQ, you may want to look at some prime lenses. The more you tell us about what you want to shoot, the more we can help. But going with the focal range you mention and assuming you are shooting "normal" things, you may want to consider either the EFS 17-55 or the EFS 15-85 plus one of the 70-200 f4 L lenses (non-IS $625 or the IS, which has better IQ, $1,120). I could see covering from ~18 mm to ~200 mm range with a combination of two of those lenses really well.


And, you may already know this, but when buying lenses, you may also want to factor in the cost of UV filters, circular polarizer filters, etc, which can be expensive themselves. I am finding that many of the "cool" pictures that I like a lot where shot with the aide of a filter.

[Kayaker72]

It definitely looks like I am going for the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. Based on my needs and the way it sounds this would be the better choice for me. I do plan on buying a FF maybe in a year to a year and a half from now. I'll be taking many photos in the meantime. Your advice is definitely solid so I'm going for it!


In the meantime I have one more question:


When looking at a lens sometimes they say "35mm equivalent". What exactly does that mean? Also what is the difference between an EF zoom lens vs. EF telephoto zoom lens?. I'm asking because I cannot seem to understand the difference between these two lenses other than the $1000 difference (I was originally going for one of these but realized that 70-200 is not smart for general purpose for obvious reasons):



<h3 class="name" id="name_1218182821141"]Canon - EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+EF+70-200mm+f/2.8L+Telephoto+Zoom+Lens+for+Most+Canon+Digital+SL R+Cameras/9839236.p?id=1218182821141&amp;skuId=9839236]Canon - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Telephoto Zoom Lens for Most Canon Digital SLR Cameras</h3>



<h3 class="name" id="name_1218057059470)</h3>



You posted while I was composing my last message [:D]....there are a number of ways to describe "35 mm equivalent." In short, people try to normalize the field of view of all the different sensor sizes to "35 mm" or full frame (FF). So, your and my camerashave "1.6 crop" sensors, so simply multiple the focal length by 1.6 to get the "35 mm equivalent" focal length. For example, 15 mm on a 1.6 crop sensor gives you a field of view of ~83 degrees, the same FOV you have at 24 mm on a camera with a FF sensor (15 x 1.6 =24). So crop sensor cameras are best for telephoto use because the same lens always has more magnification. But, conversely, FF cameras tend to be better for landscapes because at equivalent focal lengths they see a "wider" angle. If you still have a question, there are several web resources including here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor).


Those are likely completely different lenses at best buy. Currently, you can buy three different 70-200 f/2.8 L lenses from Canon:the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L. Last time I checked, these lenses were going for ~$1,300, ~$1,800, and ~$2,200, respectively. BH, Adorama and Amazon do a good job of distinguishing between the lenses.


Brant

[neuroanatomist]

When looking at a lens sometimes they say "35mm equivalent". What exactly does that mean?


It allows comparison of lenses intended for different sensor formats. Different size sensors result in a different angle of view from a lens of a given focal length, so the term 'crop factor' applies as a result of the difference in sensor sizes. "Full frame" is the reference point, meaning a sensor the size of frame of 35mm film - 24x36mm. Smaller sensors have a narrower angle of view, in the case of your T2i by a factor of 1.6x, so a 50mm lens on your camera has the same angle of view that an 80mm lens would have on a full frame camera like the 5DII. Note that it's called "crop factor" because the some of the image circle of the lens is 'cropped away.' It's not correct to say that a crop sensor 'magnifies' the image - an object shot with the same lens on a 1.6x vs. FF camera at the same distance will cover the same physical area of the sensor, just more of the background will be cropped away with the smaller sensor.


Most people understand the effect of a smaller sensor on focal length, but there are two other effects. The first is on depth of field - to get the same framing of a shot with a crop body, you need to be further from the subject and that increases DoF by the same crop factor, so an f/2.8 lens on a crop body has the same effective DoF as f/4.5 on a FF camera. The other effect is on ISO noise - since a larger sensor gathers more light, there is 1.6x less noise at the same ISO setting. You can see both of these effects easily with point-and-shoot cameras - their much smaller sensors mean deep DoF (so you can't get that nice background blur that you get with a fast lens on a dSLR), an the images from P&amp;S cameras are much noisier.


Hope that makes sense...



I'm asking because I cannot seem to understand the difference between these two lenses other than the $1000 difference


The difference between them is that the $2500 one should be labeled the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens, and the $1500 should be labeled the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L lens. In this case, the extra $1K buys image stabilization and better optical quality, and also weather-sealing. The more expensive one is the Mark II version of that lens (an updated version of the original 70-200/2.8 IS) and was released earlier this year. The other one is an older design.


I should also point out that Best Buy is probably not the best place to shop for lenses. I figured out which lenses they actually are by searching the model numbers from the Best Buy site on the B&amp;H site. Note that on B&amp;H the same lenses are $200 - $400 cheaper (the 70-200 II dropped in price recently, and there's a rebate that Best Buy isn't showing).


I think you're right about getting the general purpose zoom first, then deciding what you want next - fast prime, telephoto zoom, macro, whatever you end up wanting to shoot!



Neuroanatomist, I was looking at your bio on this website and checked out some of your pics. They are awesome!


Thanks! [:$]


There are adapters to mount dSLRs on microscopes - here's one example ("http://www.meijitechno.com/camera_adapters.htm). I've haven't tried the linked ones, as we use dedicated cameras on ours, but a long time ago I adapted a Sony P&amp;S to a microscope eyepiece - it worked ok! Nikon runs a 'Small World ("http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/gallery)' contest each year - some great images there!

[jrapa86]

You posted while I was composing my last message /emoticons/emotion-2.gif....there are a number of ways to describe "35 mm equivalent." In short, people try to normalize the field of view of all the different sensor sizes to "35 mm" or full frame (FF). So, your and my camerashave "1.6 crop" sensors, so simply multiple the focal length by 1.6 to get the "35 mm equivalent" focal length. For example, 15 mm on a 1.6 crop sensor gives you a field of view of ~83 degrees, the same FOV you have at 24 mm on a camera with a FF sensor (15 x 1.6 =24). So crop sensor cameras are best for telephoto use because the same lens always has more magnification. But, conversely, FF cameras tend to be better for landscapes because at equivalent focal lengths they see a "wider" angle. If you still have a question, there are several web resources including here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor).


Those are likely completely different lenses at best buy. Currently, you can buy three different 70-200 f/2.8 L lenses from Canon:the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L. Last time I checked, these lenses were going for ~$1,300, ~$1,800, and ~$2,200, respectively. BH, Adorama and Amazon do a good job of distinguishing between the lenses.








Wow alright that makes a lot of sense. Thanks Brant for taking the time to reply and giving me all this information, it's all really helpful!!

[jrapa86]

What do you typically shoot?


I typically shoot portrait, scenery, and absolutely love macro.






Do you just want to replace your general purpose lens or are you trying to cover ~18 mm to 200 mm with your $1,500 budget?


Basically I'm looking for a general purpose lens right now with a $1500 budget. When I get a lens I want it to be top notch and stick to f/2.8, therefore I'd rather spend a lot on one lens, rather than spend less on more than one lens. Prime lenses seem amazing, but the focal range seems a little too slim for general purpose since that is all I will be able to afford.






And, you may already know this, but when buying lenses, you may also want to factor in the cost of UV filters, circular polarizer filters, etc, which can be expensive themselves. I am finding that many of the "cool" pictures that I like a lot where shot with the aide of a filter.


So I'm not too sure about the difference. I always took it that UV filters really played a more important role in protecting the lens rather than actually being "a filter of UV". When you say "cool" are you talking about sweet looking, or are you talking about the color temperature "cool"?

[jrapa86]

It allows comparison of lenses intended for different sensor formats. Different size sensors result in a different angle of view from a lens of a given focal length, so the term 'crop factor' applies as a result of the difference in sensor sizes. "Full frame" is the reference point, meaning a sensor the size of frame of 35mm film - 24x36mm. Smaller sensors have a narrower angle of view, in the case of your T2i by a factor of 1.6x, so a 50mm lens on your camera has the same angle of view that an 80mm lens would have on a full frame camera like the 5DII. Note that it's called "crop factor" because the some of the image circle of the lens is 'cropped away.' It's not correct to say that a crop sensor 'magnifies' the image - an object shot with the same lens on a 1.6x vs. FF camera at the same distance will cover the same physical area of the sensor, just more of the background will be cropped away with the smaller sensor.


Most people understand the effect of a smaller sensor on focal length, but there are two other effects. The first is on depth of field - to get the same framing of a shot with a crop body, you need to be further from the subject and that increases DoF by the same crop factor, so an f/2.8 lens on a crop body has the same effective DoF as f/4.5 on a FF camera. The other effect is on ISO noise - since a larger sensor gathers more light, there is 1.6x less noise at the same ISO setting. You can see both of these effects easily with point-and-shoot cameras - their much smaller sensors mean deep DoF (so you can't get that nice background blur that you get with a fast lens on a dSLR), an the images from P&amp;S cameras are much noisier.


Hope that makes sense...



The difference between them is that the $2500 one should be labeled the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens, and the $1500 should be labeled the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L lens. In this case, the extra $1K buys image stabilization and better optical quality, and also weather-sealing. The more expensive one is the Mark II version of that lens (an updated version of the original 70-200/2.8 IS) and was released earlier this year. The other one is an older design.


Perfect! That totally makes sense.



I should also point out that Best Buy is probably not the best place to shop for lenses. I figured out which lenses they actually are by searching the model numbers from the Best Buy site on the B&amp;H site. Note that on B&amp;H the same lenses are $200 - $400 cheaper (the 70-200 II dropped in price recently, and there's a rebate that Best Buy isn't showing).


Hm I didn't even think of that. I guess I was just stuck on Best Buy because of the financing available for the lenses. I'm going to check out B&amp;H.



There are adapters to mount dSLRs on microscopes - here's one example ("http://www.meijitechno.com/camera_adapters.htm). I've haven't tried the linked ones, as we use dedicated cameras on ours, but a long time ago I adapted a Sony P&amp;S to a microscope eyepiece - it worked ok! Nikon runs a 'Small World ("http://www.nikonsmallworld.com/gallery)' contest each year - some great images there!


Sweet! I had no idea there was a website like Small World. I guess I found my next infatuation of a website lol. You must get some really sick pictures from the dedicated cameras. I love that stuff! PS I really liked that pic you took of the head MRI!


Again thanks for all of the advice, this has truly helped me a lot! I actually am inquiring all of this because I was a Nikon D60 user with a Nikkor 60mm micro prime lens and it was truly amazing. I'm hoping I can get somewhere close with these other lenses, however I do take into account it was a prime lens and it wouldn't be fair to compare to a zoom. I also had a Sigma 18-200f/3.5-6.3 but I was not at all impressed. For some reason I woke up one morning and said "i really want to be a Canon owner instead". After selling the Nikon D60, the sigma and the prime lens I'll be using that money PLUS some financing for the difference to hook up the T2i.

[Kayaker72]

Basically I'm looking for a general purpose lens right now with a $1500 budget. When I get a lens I want it to be top notch and stick to f/2.8, therefore I'd rather spend a lot on one lens, rather than spend less on more than one lens.


Then I think you are on the right track with theEFS 17-55 f/2.8.



I always took it that UV filters really played a more important role in protecting the lens rather than actually being "a filter of UV".


That is my understanding as well. I'd rather be cleaning a replaceable $60 item than my $700-$1,600 lens.



When you say "cool" are you talking about sweet looking, or are you talking about the color temperature "cool"?


[:D] Sweet looking "cool." The latest example is Jonathan Huyer's shot with a "solid"ND filter (http://community.the-digital-picture.com/image_presentation1/f/15/t/5370.aspx ("http://community.the-digital-picture.com/image_presentation1/f/15/t/5370.aspx) posted 12/21 at 11:44 am). I am assuming a "solid" ND filter is ~10 stop. A circular polarizer filter typically reduces the light by ~1.7 stopsand reallyhelps cut glare/etc. I currently only have a polarizer filter but am thinking of adding a 10 stop or other ND filter.


Several things I have learned about filters on this forum since I bought mine:

Arecent thread talked about step up and step down rings. I don't have any yet, but these seem like an inexpensive way tousea 77 mm polarizer filter (for example)on severaldifferent lenses.
B+W makes "kaesemann" that are supposed to be a little better in construction if not also optically better. BTW, if possible, look for B+W MRC filters http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/B-W-UV-Filter.aspx ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/B-W-UV-Filter.aspx).
B+W makes "slim" UV(XS Pro) and polarizer filters so that you are less likely to have vignetting caused by stacking the filters on your lens when shooting at wide angles.
For the UV filter, especially, just make sure it has threads so you can "stack" another filter



One last thing, but, when buying your gear, if you access B&amp;H, Adorama or Amazon through this website by clicking on one of the icons, your purchase will help support the website.

[jrapa86]

B+W makes "kaesemann" that are supposed to be a little better in construction if not also optically better. BTW, if possible, look for B+W MRC filters


I'm going to go for the UV filter, and go by what you said + the review. You're right, it's worth it. I would definitely buy the other filters but I need to win the lottery first! lol



One last thing, but, when buying your gear, if you access B&amp;H, Adorama or Amazon through this website by clicking on one of the icons, your purchase will help support the website.


I had no idea! Okay so I'm going to make sure to do that because this website helped out much more than I had thought. Thanks again