I start photography out of curiousity with Canon T1i w/kit lens and Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens almost a year . Recently I bought another lens which is Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM . Now I
Printable View
I start photography out of curiousity with Canon T1i w/kit lens and Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens almost a year . Recently I bought another lens which is Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM . Now I
When are you getting a FF camera? If your answer is anything other than "very soon," I'd really recommend considering the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Optically, it's as good or better than the 24-70mm and 24-105mm (on a crop body), it combines two excellent but mutually exclusive features of the two L lenses - f/2.8 and IS, and the 17-55mm gives you a wide angle portion of the zoom range (24mm on 1.6x is normal, not wide, which is <35mm FF-equivalent). IMO, the 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom for a crop body, and would pair wonderfully with the excellent 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, giving you f/2.8 IS coverage from 17-200mm (and you won't miss the 15mm gap).
Hi Larry,
I have to agree with Neuro. If you aren
I agree with the above also. You can
Personally, I
Nuero
Please forgive me but I
I'd vote for the 17-55mm f/2.8 also if you don't have intentions of upgrading to FF soon as well (1 year at the most or less). But if I am sure I will upgrade in the future and don't want to lose anything when I do upgrade then it comes down to personal preferance of wider aperture VS IS and focal length. Personaly I use aperture more than IS in that focal length range (since past 70mm is IS anyway) so Iwould choose the 24-70mm. On a FFit'ssharper in the corners at wider apertures (f/4-5.6) than the 24-105mm. But at typical landscape apertures there's not much differance at 24mm and is more or less the same for the rest of the focal length range. 1.6 crops away the corners so it would be a tighter race which would be sharper.
But like Daniel saidI use primes mostlyin that focal length range anyway[:)]
Hope this helps,
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raid
Nope, you're both wrong (although neuro is more right).
17-55 and 70-200 leaves a 15mm gap in focal length.
.
17-55 in '35mm equivalent framing' is 27-88.
70-200 in '35mm equivalent framing' is 112-320.
so there's a '35mm equivalent framing' gap of 24mm.
.
only if it were a 55mm on FF body and 70mm on APS-C body, there'd be a '35mm equivalent framing' gap of 57mm.
(using the 17-55 on an APS-C body and 70-200 on FF, you'd have a '35mm equivalent framing' overlap of 18mm.
.
but point is, you won't miss the gap between them, using them on the same body, whether you call it 15 or 24mm.
.
Now there's a test, has anyone tried doing it? take an 85mm shot with a 15-85 lens, and a 55mm shot with the 17-55mm lens, crop it and scale it to same framing as the 85mm, which one is better?
Dr Croubie
The 17-55 is an EF-S lens and won
well yeah, but i meant any other lens at 55mm on a ff body, doesn
Well, Raid, if you really want to get pedantic about it, focal length isthe physical distance which separates the rear nodal point of an infinity-focused lens from the image plane onto which the light passing through the lens is focused. Thus, focallength is an intrinsic property of a lens, and is unaffected by the mount format or the size of the sensor in the camera body to which the lens is attached. So, there is a 15mm gap in focal lengths between the 55mm long end of the 17-55mm and the 70mm wide end of the 70-200mm, because 70mm - 55mm = 15mm.
When you mount a 70-200mm lens on a crop body, photo elves do not magically transform it into a 112-320mm lens - the focal length remains 70-200mm, but you get the angles of view equivalent to a (hypothetical) 112-320mm lens on a FF camera. So, if you want to compare FF-equivalent angles of view, then Dr. Croubie is correct and there is a FF-equivalent gap of 24mm (i.e. the gap between 27-88mm and 112-320mm). It's irrelevant that the EF-S 17-55mm cannot mount on a FF camera, since when mounted on a crop body, it yields angles of view equivalent to a (hypothetical) 27-88mm lens on a FF camera.
Raid, it occurs to me that you might have a misconception about EF-S lenses (a fairly common one), that because they mount only to APS-C bodies, their focal lengths are 'corrected' for the APS-C sensor format, such that 55mm on an EF-S lens optically different from 55mm on an EF lens, so that the former gives the same angle of view on APS-C as the latter on FF. But, that's not the case - 55mm is 55mm, regardless of camera or mount format - it just results in a narrower angle of view on an APS-C camera.
So, my original statement, that the 17-55mm + 70-200mm provides coverage from 17-200mm with a 15mm gap, is technically correct. Since the OP has an APS-C camera, that statement could also be phrased as FF-equivalent coverge from 27-320mm with a 24mm gap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Are you sure? I was checking B&H and it seems they are out of magic photo elves. Do you realize how much money I could save on equipment with these elves.
Larry
Neuro's advice for a second lens is sound, the 17-55mm should cover you well however, I have never owned that lens so my statement is based on the lenses reputation.
I have owned these though:The 70-200mm II L that you have is an awesome lens and puts out very good quality. I am less of a fan of the 24-70mm and 24-105mm, I do not feel they match the quality of the 70-200mm, although they are very good lenses. My opinion is that the 16-35mm L II is a better lens than those two. Personally I cover the the short side of my kit with a 24mm and 35mm L andhardly everfind myself wanting a short zoom. ( I should qualify the statement, I haven't found any canon zoom that will match the 70-200mm II)
Good Luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
Yesthere hasDr, onlyI haven't seen one specificalyusing 55mm and 85mm it was other focal lengths,andtests with diffrentbodies.There was a test of the7d and 5d with different focal lengths to take the same area. There are allot of variables in this. Are you going to compare the 85mm L or the 70-200m L at 85mm compared to a cropped 17-55mm? Of course you realize that there are amultiple different ways to test this. Body vs Body, Lens vs Lens and an what seems like a long list of different combinations.
From all the other tests I have seen performed on other lenses, I would bet on the 85mm lens rather than the crop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I assume he meant same body - "85mm shot with a 15-85 lens, and a 55mm shot with the 17-55mm lens" means EF-S lenses based on those zoom ranges, i.e. taking a shot at 55mm on the 17-55mm and cropping it to the framing of 85mm on the 15-85mm. I haven't seen that done, but I'm sure that the native 85mm image would turn out better than the cropped 55mm image. Of course, the OP has the 70-200mm II, which will outperform the 15-85mm in the overlapping part of the range (now, is that a 15mm overlap or a 24mm overlap??), plus be 2 stops faster.
well i was specifically targetting the efs 17-55 f/2.8 vs the efs 15-85 (on the same camera), as they are the two lenses that get most recommended for APS-C cameras on almost every
Dr.
Most of the tests I have seen the crop usually looses. But it is a good question. I would bet a few dollars against the croped image. The 70-200mm at 85mm will beat them all.
I think a better comparison would be if you could improve the quality in the 17-55mm range vs the 15-85mm, and live with a little less quality if you had to crop.
Now, all of you are only partially right. It is a 19.5 mm difference on my Mark IV [:P]
[View:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&am p;FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=675&CameraComp= 474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2]
At comparable focal lengths, I wouldn't really say the 17-55mm beats the 15-85mm at the same distance.
Well, there are ample comparisons (this site, photozone.de, and slrgear.com) for an uncropped comparison of the EFS 15-85 @ 85 mm and the EFS 17-55 @ 55 mm. My quick take, the 15-85 wins in the center by a little and loses at the edges. You start cropping, it will only become worse, and you actually will lose the edge advantage. Opitically, everything I've seen tells me these lenses are very similar. I'll even conceded that looking at all overlapping focal lengths the 17-55 might be a bit better, but not by much, and it really goes back and forth depending upon the focal length. The real difference is the aperture vs the focal length range.
Edit--[:D]...looks like Rick and I were looking up the same thing at basically the same time..........
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&am p;FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=398&CameraComp= 474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2
yeah, i reckon the 15-85 @ 85mm probably would beat a cropped shot, i should have added that i was looking at the edge resolutions when i said it fell apart a bit, the centres are just great the whole way along.
still, it'd be an interesting test, if anyone's got one of each.
(edit, ooh, i just realised, i know someone with a 17-55 f/2.8. on her 1000D. (still, it's better than a 7D with 18-55 non-IS). doubt i could borrow it for a test though.)
.
hmmm, meanwhile, so what happens if i attach my MIR-3 65mm lens to my 7D? it's a wide angle lens when it's on my Pentacon Six, do the lens elves turn it into a wide-angle on my APS-C? or is it a 200mm telephoto? if i put it on a shift adapter for +12mm shift, is it a 77mm lens? :P :P :P :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Ahhh, but that comparison doesn't really address the question. As I read it, the question was 'what happens if you take the 17-55mm @ 55mm, and crop the resulting images,' i.e. by a factor of ~1.6 (1.545, actually) to an AoV of 85mm. The answer is basically the same as the APS-C vs. FF issue, cropping will increase your noise and DoF. If taking an image with a shorter focal length and the cropping it was the best answer, no one would buy a supertele lens, they'd all just use a nifty-fifty and crop the heck out of the images, right?!? [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
The lens elves are not true elves. They are more like leprechauns looking for pots of gold.
The last thing I had them magicaly change is a 100-400mm L they converted it in to a 500mm F L. Thereprice for doing this was about 5000 pot of gold in US currency.
Was there a rainbow involved in the transaction, Rick?
Back to the OP's issue. Seems like we've taken the simple binary chioce (24-70mm or 24-105mm) and added some complexity (one of those two, or the 17-55mm, or the 15-85mm).
Larry, I think it mostly comes down to the focal length(s) and aperture(s) you want. All four of the above lenses will deliver similar IQ when used on your T1i, so I'd just ignore that as a factor in your decision. In the telezoom range, you have the 55-250mm and the 70-200mm f/2.8L - comparing them, you can see what f/2.8 wil do for you. You have the 18-55mm kit lens, so you know what 18mm vs. 24mm looks like, and you can look back over past shots to find out how much shooting you do in the 18-24mm range. From that, you should be able to determine which of the four lenses is best for your needs. To summarize:
- 24-70mm f/2.8 - normal to short tele zoom range, fast and constant aperture, no IS
- 24-105mm f/4 -normal to mid telezoom range, slower but constant aperture, has IS
- 17-55mm f/2.8 - wide to short tele zoom range, fast and constant aperture, has IS
- 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 - very wide to mid tele zoom range, slower and variable aperture, has IS
Good luck with your decision!
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
True it doesn't answer the question specifically. But if the IQ is starting out similar at similar lengths I think we can believe it isn't going to get better cropped it will be worse.Especially with everything that happens to it as you described.
To me the first thing you have to establish is that the 17-55mm is superior to the 15-85mm at an equal length, otherwise you could just crop the 15-85mm at 55mm. From what I see in the charts the 17-55mm isn't beating the 15-85mm at all.
No nifty-fifty, I want to just buy a 14mm L and crop to 500mm. Just think massive DOF everything in focus and you can take a shot of whatever you want and crop later. Finding what I want to crop out might be the problem as it would be so small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
If it was raining that day in New York City there might have been. If I remember right I ordered it at the end of December, so it was probably icy and cold. It must rain alot in NYC and there must be alot of rainbows, as I have left several Pots of Gold at B&H's doorstep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Image of a bald eagle plucking a salmon from a river, taken with a 14mm L and cropped to 500mm AoV:
<p style="text-align: center;"]<span style="color: #993300;"].
Note the rich colors, the clear detail.
[:P]
I own or have owned...
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS
24-70 f/2.8L
70-200 f/4L IS
70-200 f/2.8L IS Version I
70-200 f/2.8L IS Version II
...and I
Neuro & Dr. Croubie
You are correct and I apologize.
I’m so used to converting the FF lenses for a cropped body that I forget that the cropped body values are also converted.
Larry
An apology to you for pushing your post OT.
[:$]
I
After reading all your suggestions I
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry
Ahhh the Internet. Fountain of Truth. [:(]
The 24-70mm f/2.8L and 24-105mm f/4L IS are weather- and dust-resistant lenses, so they have internal seals around the zoom and focus rings which non-sealed lenses lack. However, the 17-55mm is no more prone to dust than any other zoom lens (and probably less than some, since the extension is shorter than something like a 70-300mm). Personally, I've never had a dust issue with mine. I will say that I always keep a UV filter (B+W MRC) on that and all my lenses - it's required to complete the weather sealing of 'sealed' L lenses, and I find it easier to clean a filter than the front element. On the 17-55mm, there are two small holes right near the filter threads, and I suppose that may be a source of dust entering and lodging behind the front element - so, a filter on the front may help in that case.
Even so, a little bit of dust (or a lot, for that matter) is not going to make a speck (pun intended) of difference for the images - light passing through the lens is defocused, meaning you won't ever see a spot from even large specks of dust. Lensrentals.com has a nice writeup on the effect of a front element 'scratch,' and internal dust will have much less impact (sorry, another pun) than that.
Bottom line, don't worry about it, it's a wonderful lens.
What he said. [:)]
I have two visible specks of dust behind the front element on my copy. Not an issue at all. Makes absolutely no difference.
The specks of dust are just that too.. think about it.. the tiniest thing ever. I know they're there because I clean the lens. Other than that, they may as well be invisible.
Larry,
What John (neuro) and Rocco said.
I have had my 17-55 since 1/2009 and it has been a workhorse. It splits time with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS Version I on my 50D, getting @ 2/3 of the time. I have never had any dust issues which affected image quality. If you read through some of Bryan's reviews, you will see some of the <span style="color: #ff0000;"]L's come with a genuine Canon dust speck or two from the factory.
Since I got my 1D IV late last year, my 17-55 gets less use, but that is only because the 50D gets less use. However, the only way I would willingly part with my 17-55 is if I no longer had an APS-C sensor body. (That may never happen, thus far I have not been able to part with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS Version I.) And then, like Jeff, I may wrap it and keep it for a little while just in case I got another APS-C body. Currently, my 50D and 17-55 are in a happy monogamous relationship.
Final thought for what it is worth, I have a 24-70<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L and a 24-105<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L as well, but the 17-55 is my favorite on my 50D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco
I
just received my latest ebay-addiction shipment, Pentacon Six Mount
Zeiss lenses, flektogon 50/4, Biometar 80/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8.
My
heart sank a bit when i saw that all 3 had fungus inside, the Flektogon
had a bit of a scratch on the rear element, Biometar had the worst
fungus internally near the centre (but only noticable held to the
light), and the Sonnar around the edges of the front element. But i knew
it was a crapshoot when i got it, estate sale from a
non-camera-knowledgeable person, and i got the whole lot shipped for
less than i've seen the Sonnar by itself.
But having taken a few pics already, all i can say is 'wow'. Sonnar wide open is as good as my 70-300L @ 180mm.
.
Even
with all the fungus, and bits of dust in there, there is no impact on
the image quality whatsoever. From a logical point of view, there must
be 'some' degradation with dust in a lens. But it is so minimal that
with current sensor technology i doubt anyone could see the difference.
For anyone wanting the 17-55, just put a UV filter on and forget about it...
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]For me it has depended on the lens.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]My oldest (2006), most used, most abused and most traveled lens in my EF-S 17-85.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] There is a lot of dust now in this lens, including a large hair inside plus a small scratch at the edge. I don’t use UV filters, although I did buy one at the same time as the lens. Had too many problems with ghosting in night shots and Lens Flare during the day (Yes, if I were a better photographer I could have managed these problems, but I’m not).<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]My other lenses is/was EF-S 10-22 & EF 70-300 (non-L), while neither of these lenses got anywhere as much use, the dust is/was nonexistent.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]What I think is happening is that when I take the camera out of the bag (Lowepro Nova 2 AW) the lens extends sucking in any dust that collects inside the bag.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Hope this helps.<o:p></o:p>
It
Pre-nup photo shoot[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x550/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/1738.IMG_5F00_5144.JPG[/img]
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x550/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/1018.IMG_5F00_5315.JPG[/img]
Japanese Garden @ San Antonio, Tx.
I forgot the camera setting.