EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM - too much lens for T2i?

Greetings All,


I'm new to the forum.


I have decided to buy a Canon T2i as my first dSLR (have not shot my film SLR for over 20 years). I have selected the EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM for my walk around lens. It is pretty costly for my budget but I am willing to go for it. However, I'm wondering if it is too high quality for the consumer grade T2i. Should I go for the EF 28-105mm f/3.5 II USM (non IS), instead? Not sure if the weather resistance is that helpful because I don't know if the T2i body is weather resistant.


Similary, when I get the funds, should I go with 70-200 f/4 L in IS or non IS? A big difference in cost, but the IS feature seems pretty useful to me for a mid range zoom. Mostly, I plan on doing nature shots for landscapes & gelogy features, some wild life (low light), and maybe toy with some macro. With my HP-R717 (old) point & shoot I tend to do landscapes at 3X in vertical shots, then stitch the photos together to make a panorama.

Hi, and welcome to the TDP Forums!


First off, I firmly believe that there's no such thing as 'too much lens'. The quality of the lens has a much bigger impact on image quality than the camera body. Consider - the CMOS sensor in the T2i is the same as the sensor in the 60D, which costs a few hundred dollars more, and it's the same as the sensor in the 7D, which costs twice as much as the T2i.


However, one thing to consider about the 24-105mm lens is that it might not be wide enough for your needs, especially since you mention landscapes. Because of the 1.6x FOVCF (aka 'crop factor'), lenses on the T2i provide an equivalent field of view as 1.6x greater on full frame, like the film SLR you previously used. Good for the telephoto end, bad for the wide angle end - the 24-105mm gives the angle of view of 38mm on FF, which isn't even wide angle, and the tradeoff is a 168mm long end.


The weather resistance won't help you, as the T2i is not weather-sealed (the 7D is, and I use mine with a 24-105mm f/4L IS in the rain on a regular basis).


IMO, the best general purpose zoom for a 1.6x crop body is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It's around the same cost as the 24-105mm, offers a true wide angle (27mm FF equivalent), and a fast f/2.8 aperture. The build quality is not as high as with an L lens, but the optical quality is definitely L-level. Another lens worth considering is theEF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM- it's got a broader zoom range and very good IQ, but is variable aperture and gets slow at anything other than the wide end, so performance will suffer in low light. It also suffers from more distortion at the wide end, resulting from it's broader zoom range.


The combination of the 17-55mm and a 70-200mm zoom is very versatile and will provide excellent IQ throughout the range. IS is a big help for still subjects, and the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is also optically better than the non-IS version. Keep in mind that IS only helps with camera shake at the expense of shutter speed, meaning if your subject is moving IS is not as useful. At longer focal lengths, IS is of greater utility.


You mention wildlife, so I should say that 200mm is often not long enough. I use my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for wildlife only in the pre-dawn and post-sunset hours, where I absolutely need the f/2.8 aperture - in that case, I end up cropping a lot of the image away. In brighter light, I use the 100-400mm, often at 400mm. In case you haven't seen it, Canon is soon releasing a newEF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L USMlens that provides some additional reach relative to the 70-200 series, at the cost of up to a stop of light compared to the 70-200mm f/4 lenses. As a side note, what you list as 'wild life (low light)' is one of the most challenging scenarios for a lens - wildlife usually means you need a long focal length, and low light means you need a fast aperture. The combination of long and fast means a supertelephoto lens (300mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, etc.), and those start at over $4K.


Bottom line, I would recommend considering the EF-S 17-55mm lens. Personally, I have and use both the 17-55mm and the 24-105mm lenses on my 7D. I grab the 24-105mm when it looks like rain, or when I know I'll only be shooting outdoor shots of my toddler (where 24mm is wide enough, because she's less than 3' tall), or when I'm bringing several lenses on a photo outing, meaning I'll have the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 to cover the ultrawide to wide range. But for the most part I use the 17-55mm more frequently than the 24-105mm - it's the lens that stays on my camera when I'm at home, and if I could only pick one lens to take on a trip, the 17-55mm would be it.


Good luck with your decision!


--John

As neuro said, 24-x might not be wide enough for APS-C cameras, especially if you're doing landscape shots. My motto is "you can always crop, but you can't fake a wide-angle lens". Consider the 17-55 or adding the 10-22 after your 24-105. I've learned to live with the 16-35 on my crop cameras; I can't "get close", but I can always crop close.


I'd stay away from the 28-105. If it isn't discontinued, it probably will be soon. You can get the 28-135 (with IS) for no more than $200 anywhere. Perhaps the answer is a 10-22 and a 28-135.


Especially for new photographers, I recommend that you primarily discuss/debate only the next lens purchase, not the next next purchase. Don't worry about your telephoto choice just yet - get your first lens chosen, use it, learn it intimately, and then decide what you need next. You say you want to do low-light wildlife, so you may need f/2.8. For the stationary geology features, you'd want IS and/or a good tripod. For macro, just buy an extension tube. But all of that is for the future.

I agree with neuro. I'd rather have a good lens on a lower-end body than a bad lens on a higher-end body. The lens is the most important piece of equipment. A cheaper option to the 17-55mm is a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC (the VC version is softer... VC is Tamron's name for IS). It's significantly cheaper, and is supposed to be quite good optically. That said, my wife and I wanted extra reach. I knew we couldn't afford a telephoto lens in the near future, so I chose the 24-105mm.


Your choice of telephoto lens could impact your wide-end choices as well. With a 70-200L, or 70-300L, either a Tamron 17-50, or Canon 17-55mm would only leave a small hole if your range. If you were looking at the 100-400mm, you'd have a hole from 50mm/55mm to 100mm, which is a fairly large gap, and you might then want/need a third lens to fill that gap.


Another factor is that Canon cameras can use a more precise focusing mechanism for lenses faster than f/2.8. The 24-105mm can't take advantage of that, nor can the 70-200L f/4 you're considering, or the new 70-300L. If you chose the 17-55mm or the Tamron 17-50mm you'd atleast be getting that advantage on the wide end. The f/2.8 aperture would be better for indoor use, as would the 17mm vs 24mm.


I'm happy enough with my 24-105mm, but I'm always wondering how a 17-55mm, 17-50mm, or 24-70mm would perform at f/2.8.

Similar comments to those above, but Iwanted to put some numbers to why 24 mm isn't that wide on a 1.6x crop body. The diagnonal field of view (FOV-angle from top corner to opposite bottom corner of the picture you will take) is approximately 58 degrees at 24 mm on a 1.6x crop sensor body. On a camera body with a full frame sensor (5D, 1Ds) 24 mm is equivalent to 84 degrees. Thus, you lose 26 degrees of image at your wide angle by using a crop sensor at 24 mm.


On a 1.6xcrop sensor,you will get73 degrees diagonal FOV at 18 mm, 77 degreesfor a 17 mm lens and 84 degreesat 15 mm. Thus, 15 mm on a 1.6x cropped sensor has the same FOV as 24 mm on a full frame sensor.


I own the EF-S 15-85 mm lens and like the pictures a lot. It is "slow," but with the IS I am taking better low light pictures without a flash than I ever have before. The range (15 mm to 85 mm) and image quality are great. I am sure that this would even be better with lower aperturesaswouldthe depth of field (which helps in taking great portraits).


This is probably why I've seen numerous references that the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 is the "premiere" lens for a 1.6x crop camera. You might also want to look at the EF 16-35 f2.8 and the EF 17-40 f 4 if weather sealing is important too you (granted, you lose IS with those lenses).


Good luck,


Brant

Great points, Brant. Yes, the f/2.8 with the 17-55mm offers a shallower DoF than either the 15-85mm or the 24-105mm for the same subject framing, so provides more of the OOF blur that's often desirable for portraits. Although if portraits are your goal, you'd be better served by a fast prime (the 85mm f/1.8 is a truly excellent portrait lens and a great value!).


Also, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words (or numbers in this case, and where better to illustrate with a picture than here on a photo forum, right?!?). Try Tamron's focal length comparison tool (there's one from Canon, too, but it's not as useful since it's based on FF and the only image wider than 20mm is from the 15mm fisheye).


One point of contention:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

You might also want to look at the EF 16-35 f2.8 and the EF 17-40 f 4 if weather sealing is important too you (granted, you lose IS with those lenses).

---

Since<span>krstahl is getting a T2i, which is not a weather-sealed body, weather-sealing on a lens is not a factor (at least for now, unless a body upgrade is in the near future, and it's probably way to early to consider a body upgrade before the first body is even purchased!). Weeather-sealing was a factor in my upgrade from the T1i to the 7D, and that's mainly why I now also have the 24-105mm as a walkaround zoom (but as I stated, I use the 17-55mm more frequently).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

One point of contention:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

You might also want to look at the EF 16-35 f2.8 and the EF 17-40 f 4 if weather sealing is important too you (granted, you lose IS with those lenses).

---

Since<span>krstahl is getting a T2i, which is not a weather-sealed body, weather-sealing on a lens is not a factor (at least for now, unless a body upgrade is in the near future, and it's probably way to early to consider a body upgrade before the first body is even purchased!). Weeather-sealing was a factor in my upgrade from the T1i to the 7D, and that's mainly why I now also have the 24-105mm as a walkaround zoom (but as I stated, I use the 17-55mm more frequently).

---

No contention...I agree [:D]. I forgotwhen I posted that this was for the T2i.


Something that I thought of after I posted was that it seems Canon typically announces it's "Fall and Winter" rebates in the next 2-4 weeks. You may be able to save a little if you can wait. I bought my EFS 15-85 for $100 off this past summer during a similar rebate program. But, if you need the lens soonyou probably want to buy it, the savings typically aren't that much.


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Rebates.aspx

Too. Much. Lens.


I understand each of those words individually, but when you put them together, I just can't figure out what it means. [;)]


The 24-105 is great- I've owned one for several years. It'll be a great all-round lens on the Rebel. For my taste, f/4 is a little slow for a crop body, but for landscapes and geology features, it should be fine. Still, I agree with those who said you should at least consider (perhaps you have already) the faster and wider 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The only downside is that you'd have less reach, but if you're thinking of getting a longer lens anyhow, that might be okay.


As for the 70-200, you are right, the IS is expensive. And you are right, IS is useful. If money is no object (or at least not a major problem), go for it. Then again, if you can use a tripod, you might not need the IS. For low light hand held shots though, it's hard to beat IS, especially in a longish lens.


Keep in mind also that most agree that the IQ of the IS version is a notch above that of the non-IS (I've used both, and I was very impressed with the IS version... in fact, with the exception of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, I'd be hard pressed to think of any zoom that is as sharp).


I'm sure you'll be happy with whatever you decide.

<p style="margin-right: 6pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]All, thanks for the quick responses and informative posts.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin-right: 6pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]So far, I think the biggest "take-away" I have learned from your comments is that maybe I need to reconsider the T2i body and see if I can budget for a lower end professional dSLR that has weather resistance. After that, then maybe I can be assured that my intended use in the great outdoors will be less worrisome for camera protection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Maybe I should be looking for a full frame dSLR, comments?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Please make your recommendations for a Canon body that you think might fit my needs better than the T2i.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] (I can feel the $$$ falling out of my wallet already).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] <o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin-right: 6pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]In reading your posts, it raises more questions that I should have thought of when considering the move to dSLR.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] But first, a bit more explanation of where I came from photo-historically.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin-right: 6pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]For me, photography is just a gratifying hobby of getting the best composition into the camera that I can within my budget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I am not a professional photographer, nor do I plan to go that direction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] For me, it is just fun to do and to try new effects and compositions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I just want to capture the image.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I never was into dark room work, it wasn&rsquo;t enjoyable, although I now enjoy doing the photoshop thing.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]With my past film SLR (Olympus OM-1) my primary lens was a 50mm f1.4 zuiko (great lens). But my walk around was an Asanuma 35-105mm f3.5-5.0.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I really liked that lens a lot. When I broke that lens I bought a Vivitar 28-200mm f3.5-5.6.For long shots I had an Asnuma 100-300mm f5 but it wasn&rsquo;t really all that great of a lens (all shots had to be on a tripod, cable release, mirror flipped up, and very bright sunny day). None of my Olympus stuff was weather resistant and I used it boating, hiking, hunting, and even in some caves, so maybe weather resistant is not all that necessary for me. I don't know how the electronic gearcompares to the old mechanical cameras for weather. Any comments on the weather resistance would be helpful. <o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]The wide range on my Asanuma and Vivitar were about all the wider I wanted to go because of image distortion (dishing) on the top &amp; bottom borders of the image. I figured with the Canon 24-105mm I could still get 38 @ 1.6 cropwidth, shoot two photos end-to-end, then stitch them together if I want to make a panorama. I think I would rather do that than deal with the image distortion of a wider angle. I don't know of a way to effectively stitch photos with the distortion or with vignetted edges without significant photoshop work (and then, results are still sketchy).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I assume wide angle lenses still distort the images at top &amp; bottom, but maybe the new dSLR lenses take that out somehow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Please enlighten me if I&rsquo;m wrong about that but the Tamron lens comparator showed distortion in the 10, 17, &amp; 18mm ranges at the curb in the bottom of the photo.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Sorry to sound like such a newbie, but that is what I am in the dSLR world.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Ken<o:p></o:p>

Hi Ken,


I went through a similar decision making process coming from a similar background about 3 months ago. I bought the Canon 7d.The folks here are very helpful and will probably be able to provide more insight than myself, but a few quick things that I've learned.

• Think about what you will be shooting.This will help with both your lens and camera body selection.
• The "crop factor" helps on the long end and hurts on thewide end. Another way to look at this is thatit is that youget more "reach" for the same focal length with a crop sensor and more "width" with a FF at the samefocal length. Thus, as a general trend, cropped sensors are great for wildlife, sports, and the outdoors.
• It is cheaper to make up for the lack of width (EFS 15-85 or 17-55) as telephoto lenses get very expensive.
• <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]The "crop factor" also affects the aperture. I think I understand the basics which are that for a similarly framed shot at the same aperture setting a cropped sensor, being half the size as a FF sensor, is only receiving half the light. So FF cameras have a1/2 stopadvantagein low light conditions. (Edit-See Neuro's post on page 2)
• The T2i/60D/7D have the essentially the same sensor, so for cropped sensor camera bodies, it gets down to other features and functions.
• I'd spend a lot of time comparing the ISO performance of each camera body. The reviews on this site are great for that.
• Thesaying is that good glass/lenses is more important that good camera bodies. Another way to think about this is that canon refreshes their lenses about once a decade and their dSLR bodies from once a year to about once every 3 yrs.

I'd focus on Bryan's reviews for the T2i, 50D, 60D, 7D, and 5D. You probably can't go "wrong" with any of those camera bodies in terms of your ability to take good pictures.So it gets down to deciding which featuresfits what you want to do the best. This, of course, knowing that Canon has brilliantly added a little more for each progressively more expensive camera body. They are a business after all.


So I bought the 7D. It is a great camera. If I were doing my search today I'd give more consideration to the 5D (I barely looked at it before), but, honestly, I bet I'd end up with a 7D again. I simply really enjoy it's build quality, it is solid, and I find using it to be very intuitive. My primary complaint would be that "Auto ISO" includes 3200, which I find noisy.


Good luck,


Brant

Hi Ken,


Why are you thinking that weather resistance is now a higher priority? Are you planning to shoot in heavy rain? I think the T2i is a perfectly good dSLR especially with an initial total kit budget of ~$1500-2000 from what I'm hearing you talk about. You won't get really good weather protection without going to the fully pro 1D/1Ds bodies anyway as far as I know.


Back to the 24-105, in case that's still under consideration. I'd say pass on it. It's not too much lens - no such thing :) - but your money is probably better spent elsewhere. I own that lens and have used it as my main standard zoom / walkaround lens on both a 40D and 5DII. I don't think it's worth the money on crop, there are better options in terms of range and also sharpness for your dollar. I personally upgraded from the 17-85 to 24-105 on my 40D and didn't think I got very much of an upgrade considering that the L cost 3 times as much. 24 isn't nice to have as your widest lens, especially since you're talking about landscape being a focus of yours.


If IS isn't a high priority, you can get the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the excellent Canon 70-200 F4 for about the same money as the 24-105 alone and the 50-70 gap on crop isn't a big deal in my opinion.


If IS is a priority you can save up towards the 70-200 IS since IS will be most beneficial on the long end, and/or switch to the 17-55IS, 15-85IS or 18-135IS which all offer a nicer wide end than the 24-105IS. Yes you can stitch to cover the wide end, but it creates imperfections because of slight perspective changes. Wide angle lenses, especially crop-only lenses, are not all that distorted anymore. Distortions are also very easy to correct with Photoshop/ACR now, especially since they just released a lens profiling tool which autocorrects distortion for you.

Hey Ken,





just trowing some ideas in here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krstahl

Please make your recommendations for a Canon body that you think might fit my needs better than the T2i.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krstahl

For me, photography is just a gratifying hobby of getting the best composition into the camera that I can within my budget

---

When I combine those two I'm thinking: why did he choose the T2i?


To be honest, the weather-sealing part is very nice, but not a necessity, but I'll come back onto that.


My main question is: Do you need to shoot video with your camera? The T2i offers just that, but you're also looking at the most expensive consumer DSLR. And I personally see that I have to force myself to try video, since I'm just a photo-man, not a video-man. And therfor I'd rather have a cheaper more professional body than a expensive consumer body with video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krstahl

Maybe I should be looking for a full frame dSLR, comments?

---

Well I must say that it would come closest to what you're used to in film-days. However the price is a major step up. And when I say major, I mean major [;)]


I'm not saying you should change your mind, but take a look at the 50D review and see if you like it. It has some advantages over the T2i and also some disadvantages. See what you think. It's probably about the same price if ratios here in Europe equal yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krstahl

I don't know how the electronic gearcompares to the old mechanical cameras for weather. Any comments on the weather resistance would be helpful.

---

With weather-resistance I notice you immediately think about rain. But actually it's not rain that causes most problems, it's dust! Electrical sensors attract dust and it will show in all your images. It's not hard to clean or to remove in post processing, but it's annoying.


So bodies like the 50D with extended weather-sealing aren't fully sealed, but with the help of a weather-sealed lens, they work great in less ideal situations and could take a drop of rain easily. But for more serious rain and weather, you need to get a better weather-sealed body. But again...it's up to you if you need it. I personally like it a lot that I don't have to worry about shooting in the rain.


About the lens. It's true that 24mm on a crop-body is not really wide. However you mentioned that the widest lens you ever had was 35mm on full-frame, which would be equal to approximately 22mm on a crop body. That being said, you know if you where happy with the 35mm and if you found it to be lacking on the wide side. If not, the 24-105 doesn't seem so bad after all.


But as others stated and when looking at my personal preference. I like wider lenses on a crop. I started out with the Tamron 17-50 which is actually very good for what you pay for! But I must say that I also had a 70-200 f4L to cover the long end, since 50mm is kind of short.


Personally I think the best advice I can give you is to buy a good body with a kit-lens (the 18-55). It's practically for free if you buy the kit and after using it for a month or so you know what you like and dislike and you can adjust your future shopping list to that.


Anyway good luck getting into the DSLR world [;)]


Jan

On my way out to dinner, but just wanted to add that in terms of weather sealing, the sequence goes 50D &lt; 5DII &lt; 7D &lt; 1-series. Not sure where the 60D fits, but build-wise it's a downgrade from the 50D.


--John

Why are you so concerned about weather resistance? Are you that motivated to take pictures in conditions where you won't want to be taking pictures? My wife and I do "event" photography as a non-business (long story), so I'm compelled to shoot if there's any semblance of the event to be shot. That said, I've only ever seen a 5D act up ever so slightly when shooting in the rain.


I'm of the persuasion that only puts UV filters on lenses when the conditions are "harsh". They go on for my once/twice-a-year sailing trip, and went on last week for our Alaska cruise (just didn't want to get caught without, and I had a rented 10-22 which is of course hoodless so I wanted at least something on it given the narrow hallways of the ship). My stuff hasn't had problems.

Ken, I just can't help but chime in here. I can't argue with the logic that most are offering, but I can say---3 years ago, I was in the exact same position you are now. So from my point of view, here is alist of things I consider mistakes on my part:


1. I purchased a 400d (XT) body when the 40 d was only a couple hundred more---9 months later I bought the 50D.


2. I bought 2 ultra cheap lenses for the range (bad mistake)-----I should have bought 1 good lens to start and just learn to work with it. If I had it to do over again, the 24-105L would have been my 1st choice ---its got a good range, very durable and pretty good image quality. It is still the lens I reach for when I can only carry one. (others will say the same about the 17-55) but it is for acrop body only---if you decide to go full frame---17-55 won't work on it.


Points I have to argue:


1. You don't need wide angle to shoot landscapes---In fact, if you look at most of thereally great landscape photos, few are done at wide angle----why, because you lose to much detail with wide angle. I learned this the hard way, the expensive way.


2. If you are already thinking about upgrading to a different body and can see this in your financial future---then do it now, don't buy a cheaper body then find yourself buying the better body 6 months from now. Get it right the first time, even if you have to give up a couple of trips to McDonalds each month. I can say that with my 7d, I saw the biggest improvement in my photography.


Finally, My recommendations:


1. Camera Body: To date, My favorite is the 7D, if you can't swing it , then go with the 50/60D over the T2I,


2. First Lens: I think you were right---the 24-105L is a can't lose option that will work with any Canon dslr body and will probably be with you for a long time. (the 17-55 is probably a good alternative, but won't work with full frame, hasn't got the build quality of an L lens, no weather proofing).


3. Finally, consider a "rock solid" tripod---this will make you truly appreciate the equipment you have and will probably do more for image quality than either lens or body


Good luck,


Bob

Ken,


If you are like most of us you can get caught up in the upgrade problem. I started with a Rebel, upgraded to the XTi, then the 40D and eventually the 5D. I currently use the 5D the most and love it (still use the 40D for sports). Along the way I purchased a few EF-S lenses and later sold them. Not only did they not work on a full frame camera but the L glass I owned was better suited for full frame sensors. I currently only own L glass. There is a ton of literature out there to read for comparison between FF and crop cameras so only you can decide where you are going as a photographer.


Bob's advice is sound and heeding to it can save you money in the long run. He ends with a note on tripods which reminded me of an article that can be in theory applied to bodies and lenses as well. I have included the url for you if you desire to read it.


http://www.bythom.com/support.htm


Happy reading and shooting,


Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

The "crop factor" also affects the aperture. I think I understand the basics which are that for a similarly framed shot at the same aperture setting a cropped sensor, being half the size as a FF sensor, is only receiving half the light. So FF cameras have a1/2 stopadvantagein low light conditions.

---

Not quite. The smaller sensor means less total light, but the light per unit are of the sensor is the same, so the 'exposure' (shutter speed and aperture) is the same for FF and crop under the same conditions. But, in addition to focal length, the 1.6x crop does apply to aperture in terms of depth of field (1.33 stops deeper with crop, i.e. f/2.8 on a crop sensor has equivalent DoF to f/4.5 on FF for the same subject framing), and also to ISO noise and diffraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob williams

Points I have to argue:


1. You don't need wide angle to shoot landscapes---In fact, if you look at most of thereally great landscape photos, few are done at wide angle----why, because you lose to much detail with wide angle. I learned this the hard way, the expensive way.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Sometimes, it takes a wide-angle lens to shoot a picture of _________. There's no opportunity to back up any further and get the desired stuff in the shot.


Sometimes, you might want a telephoto lens to shoot a picture of ________. Unless you're shooting for billboards, you really can crop a bit or even a bunch to get the shot you wanted. If you have to crop a lot and wish you had more focal length, remember that more focal length almost always requires more weight and more money; it often requires better support and/or better high-ISO performance too.


Those getting into DSLR photography can easily end up with a lens that's too narrow; often, "they've spent their entire budget" on the kit they bought, and a wider lens is out of the budget for months if not years. I just want to be sure the OP is thinking about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

Those getting into DSLR photography can easily end up with a lens that's too narrow; often, "they've spent their entire budget" on the kit they bought, and a wider lens is out of the budget for months if not years. I just want to be sure the OP is thinking about that.

---

You are absolutely correct Peety-almost to a fault. I think all of us have been and will be in situations where we needed more---More reach, more speed , more angle of view, more stability, more light, more depth. Unfortunately. No single lens can give you all of that. So, when buying a first lens----most new photogs will probably admit that they don't have a clue of what they really want to shoot, because they want to shoot everything. So, buy a good quality, general purpose, durable lens with decent IQ. Don't base a "first" lens decision on any particular subject matter unless you are very confident thatit will be your primary interest area.


Back to the original poster's question:


The 24-105L $1049 at B&amp;H (Compromise: Speed and 7mm on the wide end)


The 17-55EFS $1040at B&amp;H (Compromise: lesser build quality, no weather sealing, 50 MM of reach,won't fit full frame)


Depending on your taste: The 24-105 is heavier and more solid feeling. I personally prefer the weight---some don't.


Again, just my 2 cw.


Bob

9-21-2010


Update to original question:


Thanks to all who responded with their opinions, knowledge, experience. It was all very helpful and made me think about some things I had not considered. Based on the posted replies I have decided that weather-resistance is Very important to me because I am often out in the mountains, sagebrush, sudden rain storms, snow flurries, etc while shooting. I also carry my camera around my neck while on a motorcycle on dusty roads. Therefore, I have decided to suck it up and try to buy a Canon 7D. I do not necessarily plan on depending on the camera for a lot of video, but I have been known to get lucky enough to see Big Horn ramsand elk fighting for mating rights. It's pretty amazing to get that on video. So the 7D looks like the camera for me.


As far as a lens, I'm going to stick with my original decision of using the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for a first lense. After that, it will either be a 70-200mm or a 70-300mm, either way it will be an L series lens for the water/dust resistance.


Again, Thank You all!

Sounds like a well-thought decision. Hope you enjoy it just as much as I do mine [:D]


Have fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Sounds like a well-thought decision. Hope you enjoy it just as much as I do mine [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]


Have fun!
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Ditto [:D]

Excellent choice! I'll only add that if you find 24mm isn't wide enough on the 7D (it often isn't for me), down the line you might consider adding the EF-S 10-22mm (the only Canon UWA for 1.6x bodies), or for something not so wide but with weather sealing, the EF 17-40mm f/4L.