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

[krstahl]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[Kayaker72]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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:

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).

[Kayaker72]

One point of contention:

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 []. 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

[peety3]

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[krstahl]

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!

[Sheiky]

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


Have fun!