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

[StapledPhoto]

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.

[Sheiky]

Hey Ken,





just trowing some ideas in here.

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

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.

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.

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

[neuroanatomist]

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


--John

[peety3]

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.

[bob williams]

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

[Tom Wertman]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[peety3]

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.

[bob williams]

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

[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!