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

[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.

[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

[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]

<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></o>
<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></o>
<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></o>
<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></o>
<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></o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]<o></o>
<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></o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]<o></o>
<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></o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]<o></o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"]Ken<o></o>

[Kayaker72]

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