Which lens?

[wimpy]

G'Day,





I recently bought a 500D/T1I with the standard 18-55mm lens, then later purchased a 50mm f/1.8. I'm very happy with both of these purchases, Although i find that the kit lens now spends a lot of time in my bag.


I'm now looking to buy a 3rd lens and im finding it very difficult to decide what to spend my money on. I have tentatively narrowed it down to three lenses, the 24-105mm L, the 17-55mm f/2.8 or the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I Realise the Macro option may seem odd in comparrison, but if i was going to buy either of the other 2 lenses i would also by some extenders to give me some degree of macro capability.


The question is, Would the 24-105mm or the 17-55mm prove to be vastly more useful than the 18-55mm kit lens? I think i would appreciate the extra reach of the 24-105 but is it worth the substantial amount of money considering the lenses i already own? Would i be better off saving my money and going for the macro lens and perhaps looking at a telephoto in the future?


As i am new to digital photography i hope to try as many different styles as i can. Macro, Nature, Portrait, Landscape and Action photography all interest me.


I realize the answer to these questions will vary from person to person but as i have never used any of these lenses and many of you have, I would greatly appreciate your views.





Cheers, Al

[Daniel Browning]

I recently bought a 500D/T1I with the standard 18-55mm lens, then later purchased a 50mm f/1.8. I'm very happy with both of these purchases, Although i find that the kit lens now spends a lot of time in my bag.

Excellent!

if i was going to buy either of the other 2 lenses i would also by some extenders to give me some degree of macro capability.

Since it sounds like you will get a lot of use out of macro, and you're comfortable using prime lenses, so I suggest you go for a dedicated macro lens. I prefer the EF-S 60mm f/2.8, which is more inexpensive, but the 100 is excellent.

The question is, Would the 24-105mm or the 17-55mm prove to be vastly more useful than the 18-55mm kit lens?

The 24-105 is in a whole different category than the kit lens, because on your camera it's a "normal to full telephoto" zoom, whereas the kit lens and 17-55 are "wide angle to short telephoto" zooms. For me, the 17-55 is a more useful range, but some don't ever shoot wide angle.


The 17-55 has the advantage of a fast f/2.8 f-number: that is very different from the f/4 on the 24-105, but it's worlds apart from the f/5.6 on the kit lens. Furthermore, the image quality is fantastic, especially for a zoom. be Not to mention the fact that in the range where they overlap (24-55), the 17-55 has far superior image quality (almost as good as the 50mm f/1.8, and even better in some ways). But even with all that, I can't say if either lens will be vastly more useful than your kit lens, because it just might not be the focal length you want to shoot.


Personally, I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, because the I.S. and other features of the Canon 17-55 was not important enough to me to spend the extra $600, and the Tamron is every bit as sharp.

Would i be better off saving my money and going for the macro lens and perhaps looking at a telephoto in the future?

Most folks use a "normal" zoom like the 17-55 or 18-55 for a lot of their photography, but everyone is different, and so far your kit lens has stayed in the bag. A telephoto lens is pretty important for me, personally, so I would want to have something, even if it was more inexpensive to use while I'm saving up. The Sigma 70-300 APO MACRO is the cheapest option, but the Canon 70-300 IS makes a great value if you can afford it.

I realize the answer to these questions will vary from person to person but as i have never used any of these lenses and many of you have, I would greatly appreciate your views.

Something you might consider is to rent a lens for a week and try it out. I used to get rentals from the local photography place for hundreds of dollars, but now I do lensrentals.com for less than a third of the price. Great way to try things out without committing to a purchase.


Have fun with your new gear!

[wimpy]

Thanks Daniel, very helpful advice. So in your opinion having a dedicated macro lens is a better option than having a set of extenders and a possibly more versatile lens such as either of the 70-300mm telephotos mentioned? I guess rather than stretching to afford the 24-105 i might be better off with a mid range macro and telephoto, each being roughly half the 24-105's price, and covering a larger combined focal length.


Renting lenses is something i have considered, but I'm yet to try. It's a shame I'm not in the US because that link your provided looks very good.





Cheers, Al

[clemmb]

Daniel Browning said "the 17-55 has far superior image quality " I disagree. Check Brayan's ISO 12233 Chart 100% Crop Comparison. The 24-105 is much sharper than the 17-55.
<div class="ForumPostButtons"][url="http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/p/1385/9773.aspx#9773][/url] [url="http://community.the-digital-picture.com/members/wimpy/default.aspx][b]wimpy[/b][/url][b][/b]Said[b] "[/b]Macro, Nature, Portrait, Landscape and Action photography all interest me." The 24-105 would be better for Macro, Nature and portrait than the 17-55. The 17-55 would be better for Landscape and possibly action allthough I have used the 24-105 for indoor basketball with good results. The only time I have run into the 24 not being wide enough on a crop body was indoors in a small room but I do not shoot much wide angle. If you need wide angle then the 17-55 is for you.</div>
<div class="ForumPostButtons"]</div>
<div class="ForumPostButtons"]Mark</div>

[wimpy]

More good advice, thanks clemb. I'm thinking of getting a set of kenko extenders tomorrow and seeing how they go for macro with my 50mm f/1.8. Then maybe getting into a camera shop on the weekend to take a look at a 24-105mm and hopefully the other lenses to see if im really willing to spend so much money on glass.

[ShutterbugJohan]

I have tentatively narrowed it down to three lenses, the 24-105mm L, the 17-55mm f/2.8 or the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I Realise the Macro option may seem odd in comparrison, but if i was going to buy either of the other 2 lenses i would also by some extenders to give me some degree of macro capability.

If you shoot in low light fairly frequently, I would recommend buying the Tamron 17-50/2.8 Di-II and the Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro. Together, these two lenses cost about the same as the 24-105L or EF-S 17-55/2.8IS. If you shoot in good lighting conditions, and the kit lens is fine for you, buy the 70-300IS instead of the Tamron 17-50.

The question is, Would the 24-105mm or the 17-55mm prove to be vastly more useful than the 18-55mm kit lens?

Depends. The 24-105 is probably less useful, becuase although you gain some telephoto, you lose some wide-angle (it is easier to crop than to reverse-crop). If you shoot in low light, the EF-S 17-55/2.8IS would be better. Of course, both of these lenses have better IQ than the kit lens.

I think i would appreciate the extra reach of the
24-105 but is it worth the substantial amount of money considering the
lenses i already own?

I would say no, because you lose some wide-angle. If you buy the 100/2.8 Macro, you'll have a wider range than the 24-105 anyway, although not in one lens.

Would i be better off saving my money and going for
the macro lens and perhaps looking at a telephoto in the future?

Probably.

I suggest you go for a dedicated macro lens. I prefer the EF-S 60mm f/2.8, which is more inexpensive, but the 100 is excellent.

I disagree. For macro work with live critters, the longer reach of the 100mm is essential, plus the 100mm has a focus limiter switch so the AF doesn't hunt much when not shooting macro.

[Daniel Browning]

I guess rather than stretching to afford the
24-105 i might be better off with a mid range macro and telephoto, each
being roughly half the 24-105's price, and covering a larger combined
focal length.

Yes, IMHO. Particularly since the quality/ease of use will be better than a 24-105 with tubes.

Daniel Browningsaid "the 17-55
has far superior image quality " I disagree. Check Brayan's ISO
12233 Chart 100% Crop Comparison. The 24-105 is much sharper than the
17-55.

Different bodies
cannot be compared, just as it says in the instructions:

About ISO 12233 Chart Data and Sample Images[/url]]
Lenses should be compared to each other only with test data from the same camera body.

That's from this page: About ISO 12233 Chart Data and Sample Images


There are too many differences between bodies: entirely
different spatial frequencies, the framing is different, and even the chart itself may be different.

[clemmb]

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]<v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" oreferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f" id="_x0000_t75"]<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"]</v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"]</v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"]</v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"]</v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"]</v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"]</v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"]</v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"]</v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"]</v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"]</v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"]</v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"]</v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"]</v:f></v:formulas><vath o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"]</vath><o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"]</o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape type="#_x0000_t75" style="width: 8.25pt; height: 9.75pt;" id="_x0000_i1025"]<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\clemmb\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\06\clip_ image001.gif" o:href="http://community.the-digital-picture.com/Themes/hawaii/images/icon-quote.gif"]</v:imagedata></v:shape>[/i]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"]clemmb:[/i]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]<o></o>[/i]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Daniel Browningsaid "the 17-55 has far superior image quality " I disagree. Check Brayan's ISO 12233 Chart 100% Crop Comparison. The 24-105 is much sharper than the 17-55.<o></o>[/i]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto;" class="MsoNormal"]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Different bodies cannot be compared, just as it says in the instructions:<o></o>[/i]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]<v:shape type="#_x0000_t75" style="width: 8.25pt; height: 9.75pt;" id="_x0000_i1026"]<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\clemmb\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\06\clip_ image001.gif" o:href="http://community.the-digital-picture.com/Themes/hawaii/images/icon-quote.gif"]</v:imagedata></v:shape>[/i][b]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"][url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx]About ISO 12233 Chart Data and Sample Images[/url]:[/i][/b]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]<o></o>[/i]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]Lenses should be compared to each other only with test data from the same camera body.<o></o>[/i]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto;" class="MsoNormal"]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]That's from this page: About ISO 12233 Chart Data and Sample Images<o></o>[/i]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto;" class="MsoNormal"]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]There are too many differences between bodies: entirely different spatial frequencies, the framing is different, and even the chart itself may be different.<o></o>[/i]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto;" class="MsoNormal"]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-size: 6.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana;"]<o></o>[/i]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"]<span style="font-family: Arial;"]<o><span style="font-size: small;"]</o>[/i]
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Arial;"]<o><span style="font-size: small;"]I have used both lenses on the same body. I stand by my claim that the 24-105 has better overall IQ but agree it may not be the best lens for the indeviduals use.</o>

[clemmb]

Please accept my apologies if I sound argumentative. I do not intend to.


Mark

[Daniel Browning]

No need to apologize, Mark, you're doing great.


Both are tested on an 8 MP camera (the 350D) at Photozone:


http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/188-canon-ef-24-105mm-f4-usm-l-is-lab-test-report--review?start=1


http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1


For resolution/contrast on a 8 MP camera, they are similar:


1728 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 24-105 at 24mm f/4 border


1758 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 17-55 at 24mm f/4 border


1972 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 24-105 at 24mm f/4 center


2134 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 17-55 at 24mm f/4 center


(I think the difference would be more pronounced on a 15 MP body, but I haven't seen any direct comparisons yet.)


For chromatic aberration:


1.55 for 24-105 at 24mm f/4 border


0.73 for the 17-55 at 24mm f/4 border


Vignetting:


0.37 for the 24-105 at 24mm f/4 (first win for the 24-105)


0.43 for the 17-55 at 24mm f/4


Distortion:


0.32% for the 17-55 at 24mm


0.61% for the 24-105 at 24mm