Recommendations on a lens ...

[Jon Ruyle]

Could you explain that a bit further? The image circles will be the same size for both lenses, I expect.

I think the idea is that image circles are more difficult to attain with shorter focal length lenses, and thus it is more of a shame to waste image circle with a short lens. Another way of putting the same thing is that an EF-S lens 24-70 would be much easier to make (and much cheaper) than the EF counterpart, while an EF-S 70-200 would not be.


Yet another way of saying the same thing is that there is probably exists EF-S lens that will give more performance for the dollar on a crop body than the 24-70, which is exactly what you concluded about the 17-55.


(I'm sure Daniel can answer this better than I can. But I'm stuck proctoring a math test and have nothing better to do[])

[Chuck Lee]

It's not as "good" a lens as the 70-200mm f/4L

George, be careful


We 70-200 f2.8L non IS and IS users are watching you...[]


That's a very difficult statement to substaintiate. It really depends on what you consider to be "good". If it's the lighter weight, tack sharp imaging @ f4 and resonable price tag then you may have somewhat of an argument. Unfortunately, you'll never gain a full stop of speed in low light shooting nor ever see the bokeh and isolation that af2.8 aperture can provide. Bang for the absolute buck, I'll pick the f2.8L over the f4L any day. But that's me. It is the portrait zoom of portrait zooms. If I shoot zoomed landcscapes @ f8 then yeah the f4L version would be better than adequate.

[Daniel Browning]

You hit the nail on the head, Jon.

Could you explain that a bit further? The image circles will be the same size for both lenses, I expect.

Yes, the image circle size is the same between the 24-70 and 70-200, but the difference is that the 70-200 gets it for free, whereas you have to really pay for it with the 24-70. In other words, longer focal lengths result in large image circles as a necessary part of their construction. Short ones don't, and so they require expensive lens designs (retro focal) to get the image circle large enough. And if the lens needs to cover 2.56X more area, that can add up to a lot of expense (and/or lower quality).

Compare the 18-55 IS with the 17-40 f/4 L on a 50D

The $150 kit lens beats the $770 L in resolution at several focal lengths and f-numbers, despite the fact that it costs 4.5X less! The reason for this is that the L must be able to cover a much larger sensor size. The 24-70 provides relatively low value on a crop for the same reason.

Of course, if the 24-70 provides the exact focal length that the OP needs, then it doesn't matter if Canon could have built an EF-S version for half the price and twice the quality, because unlike the 17-40, there are no EF-S 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. The reason they do not exist, IMHO, is because most lens makers think the 17-50 range is more useful on APS-C.

In any case, once you get into the longer focal lengths like 70-200, the image circle will cover 35mm without any effort, so there is nothing to be gained by building an EF-S version.

[hotsecretary]

IMO, Die EF-S [:P]



I was praying that 7D was a FF But now I'm stuck buying a 5D II this weekend hopefully ...


Forget my previous recommendation.. get a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM .. then you have all the reach you need covered [6]

[Chuck Lee]

But now I'm stuck buying a 5D II this weekend hopefully

I wish I was stuck having to buy a 5D MkII.


We discussed this before. EF-S is not going away. It is very useful for many.


Take deep breaths Kenny, deep breaths........it's OK....[]

[George Slusher]

It's not as "good" a lens as the 70-200mm f/4L

George, be careful


We 70-200 f2.8L non IS and IS users are watching you...[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]


That's a very difficult statement to substaintiate. It really depends on what you consider to be "good". If it's the lighter weight, tack sharp imaging @ f4 and resonable price tag then you may have somewhat of an argument. Unfortunately, you'll never gain a full stop of speed in low light shooting nor ever see the bokeh and isolation that af2.8 aperture can provide. Bang for the absolute buck, I'll pick the f2.8L over the f4L any day. But that's me. It is the portrait zoom of portrait zooms. If I shoot zoomed landcscapes @ f8 then yeah the f4L version would be better than adequate.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Chuck, did you note that I said that I own and use both a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS? I've shot over 500 images with each lens, so I have some idea of what they do and the advantages/disadvantages of each. (Have you used both extensively?) If I have a choice, I'll use the f/4L IS. I can actually refute one of your statements, about low light shooting--see below. Again, if you haven't actually used both lenses, you may not realize the major difference in IS performance. Remember that the f/2.8L IS was introduced in 2001, the f/4L IS in 2006, so it benefitted from 5 years advance in technology.


Where the f/2.8L IS has an advantage:

1. Action-stopping in low light. That's why I got the f/2.8L IS, as I often shoot horse shows in poorly-lit indoor arenas. I need 1/400 sec or faster to get a galloping horse's legs to not be noticeably blurred. I can keep the body from blurring by panning with the horse, but the legs move quite fast relative to the horse's body. Even so, it's not fast enough for some arenas, so I use faster primes.
   
2. Isolation, as you said, but that depends upon what you shoot. It may or may not be that useful and depends a lot upon the distance (well, actually upon the size of the image of the subject). The f/4 lens may be just fine at longer distances. For portraits, 70mm @ 8 ft and f/2.8 with a 1.6x body gives a DOF of 0.42 ft (5 inches). That's great for isolation, but it can put part of the person out of focus, as well. In the same situation, f/4 gives a DOF of 0.59 ft or 7 inches. That's a small difference. FWIW, backing off and using a longer focal length will give you the SAME DOF. 140mm @ 16 ft also gives 0.42 ft at f/2.8, 0.59 ft at f/4.
   
3. Bokeh. The background will be a bit more out of focus with the f/2.8L IS @ f/2.8, but how often do you use f/2.8?
4. Ruggedness. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is a tank (and weighs almost as much as one!).
   
5. Autofocus in low light.

If you are really serious, #s 1, 2, 3, and 5 above would be good arguments for fast primes. I've read that serious wedding photographers like the 85mm f/1.2L, for example, and indoor sports can benefit from fast primes, if the distance doesn't change very much. In photographing games (barrel racing, pole bending, etc) at horse shows, I usually choose one spot on the course to shot and pick the lens (and my location, as much as I can) to fit. Up in the stands, I've used 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2. I have gone down to the floor level and used 35mm f.2 and 50m f/1.8. (I need to try out my 30m f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 for this.)


Where the f/4L IS has an advantage:

1. Handheld in low light with stationary subjects. I'm not the only one who has found that the f/4L IS can get good results at lower shutter speeds than the f/2.8L IS does. I've made direct comparisons--same subject, same light (within minutes), same camera, same techniques, etc. I was able to get at least one stop (often more) slower shutter speeds with the f/4L IS at f/4 than with the f/2.8L IS at f/2.8, so it more than makes up that stop. Check Ken Rockwell's results for the f/4L IS @ f/4 and f/2.8L IS @ f/2.8. Ken gives the slowest shutter speed where he got at least 50% "perfectly sharp" images. At 70mm, it was 1/8 sec for the f/2.8L IS, 1/3 sec for the f/4L IS. That's more than 1 stop better. At 200mm, it was 1/30 sec for the f/2.8L IS but 1/11 sec for the f/4L IS, again, more than one stop better. One other advantage: the f/4L IS is tripod-sensing; the f/2.8L IS is not. You need to remember to turn it off when it's on a tripod or you can get some odd results.
   
2. Sharpness. The 70-200mm f/4L IS is reported to be the sharpest zoom Canon makes and may be the sharpest zoom, period. See Ken's review as well as Bryan's.
   
3. Carrying it around. The f/2.8L IS weighs roughly 56 oz, the f/4L IS about 26 oz, nearly 2 pounds difference. (If you add in the hood and tripod ring, the difference becomes a bit greater.) This is non-trivial, especially if you carry the camera on a strap around your neck. (I have a way that makes it less of a burden, necessitated by walking around with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at horse shows and the almost-as-heavy (6 oz less) 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS for nature/wildlife photography.)
   
4. Ergonomics. It's easy to spin the zoom ring on the f/4L IS with the fingers of my right hand on my 30D + battery grip. Can't do that with the f/2.8L IS. It's also easier to handle because the balance point isn't so far forward.
   
5. Minimum focus distance. f/2.8L IS is 51", magnification 0.17; f.4L IS is 47" and 0.21. Neither is a "macro" lens, but the f/4L is a tiny bit better in this regard. It can be useful if I'm shooting an outdoor horse show and find an interesting flower. When I'm trekking around for nature photography, I'll have either a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens or a Canon 77mm 500D close-up lens (and step-up ring).
   
6. Autofocus speed is a bit faster and more stable for me with the f/4L IS, given adequate light, but the difference is minor.
   

Which lens is "better" will, thus, depend upon what you're using it for, irrespective of the cost. For example, when shooting outdoor horse shows, f/2.8 would provide better isolation, but it might also make it harder to ensure good focus over the main subject, which can easily be 8+ feet long/deep and moving a up to 20 mph.

[George Slusher]

Daniel &amp; Jon:


Thanks for the crystal-clear explanation. That's essentially what I thought might be the case.

The reason they do not exist, IMHO, is because most lens makers think the 17-50 range is more useful on APS-C.

I expect that you're correct. The 17-55mm or 18-55mm covers almost the same "framing" range on the APS-C bodies as the ever-popular 28-80 or 28-90mm lenses did on 35mm cameras. When I bought my first Canon SLR, a Rebel 2000, it came with two cheap Sigma lenses, 28-80mm and 70-300mm. (I had been using two Minolta bodies--XD11 and XP470, but they and all my lenses were stolen.) I still have them, as they're hardly worth trying to sell, but that package is still available. I may end up donating/loaning them to a 4-H member. I've already done that with the Sigma 28-300mm lens I bought immediately after I got the 30D with the kit lens (non-IS at the time). Little did I guess, then, that, less than 2 years later, I would have bought 20 more lenses plus two extenders. (I gotta get around to selling the ones that have become redundant.)

[holeysox]

<div>



<div>





<span>Thanks to everyone who provided comments. They are all
useful and in some cases you folks have offered an option I haven't thought
about ... such as purchasing a EFS 18-200 3.5-5.6 IS along with a EF 85 1.8 and
a new flash. =)<o></o>


<span>I'm afraid after reading all the comments, I've narrowed it down
to the "classic" choice between the 24-70 and the 24-105. And
I'm heavily favoring the 24-70 because of the f2.8 ...<o></o>


<span>Now, I know there have been countless threads on comparing the two
so I won't take you guys down that road again ... but here are my reasons:<o></o>


<span>1) I don't mind changing lens while I'm at an indoor location.
Having different lenses is the reason why I bought a DSLR. I usually
set up my "base" in some corner and go through the various lenses
I've brought with me and get a different style of shot throughout the day.
This does mean thatoccasionallyI will miss a candid shot here
and there because I don't have the right lens on my camera. Hence, my original
comment about using the 30 1.4 at my kids birthday.<o></o>


<span>I do, however, hate changing lenses when I am outdoors and running
about with my kid. <o></o>


<span>This means I cannot consider any of the 70-200 lenses for this
particular purchase. It will probably be the purchase after this one and
use it for when he starts playing hockey! =) And I will probably be saving up
for the 2.8LIS ... <o></o>


<span>2) Having to go to a f5.6 or f6.3 on the long end is also out of
the question. Although my kid is not as fast as a horse around a track or
a basketball player on the court, he RARELY sits still. The lighting is
also rarely adequate in places like the local McDonalds indoor playground or
the theme park at dusk. I will need something faster than a f5.6. I
guess in some cases even f2.8 won't be enough.<o></o>


<span>When you couple that reason with the fact that I hate to change
lenses when I'm out and about, that means that the option of EFS 18-200, 15-85,
17-85 combo with long prime is out of the question. Although they are all
excellent focal lengths, I&rsquo;m afraid they are just not fast enough.<o></o>


<span>3) For what I'm shooting, I don't need it to be wider than 24mm;
that&rsquo;s even when considering my 1.6X crop factor. The reason I came to
this conclusion is because I find my 30mm adequate for most of the group shots
of my family and friends. Any wider than 24mm would be for when I'm
travelling with my wife and taking architectural or landscapes shots during the
day ... and that is rare enough that I'm willing to live with my 18-55 IS.
I know it's a kit lens and all, but I really find the sharpness to be
adequate for my amateur landscape photography. The only regret is buying
a $100 CPL filter for a $100 kit lens; just doesn't seem worth it ... but
that's another thread. <o></o>


<span>This means the 24-70 is wide enough and adds another (70X1.6 -
55X1.6) 22mm on the long end compared to my kit lens. I just wish there
were places where I can rent lenses in Vancouver .... because I need to find
out if (70X1.6) 112mm is long enough for what I'm shooting.<o></o>


<span>My only remaining questions is to IAMB since he/she has had a
positive experience in using the 24-105 in a poorly lit gym shooting a
basketball game .... is it really good enough for stop action indoor
photography? I know for sure that f5.6 is too slow but is f4 fast enough?<span> If it is, I wouldn&rsquo;t mind getting the extra
(35X1.6) 56mm beyond the 24-70.<o></o>


<span>Thanks again to all who have posted!<o></o>

</div>



</div>

[George Slusher]

But now I'm stuck buying a 5D II this weekend hopefully

I wish I was stuck having to buy a 5D MkII.


We discussed this before. EF-S is not going away. It is very useful for many.


Take deep breaths Kenny, deep breaths........it's OK....[img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Good one! I expect that EF-S cameras outsell full-frame--or even full-frame plus the 1.3x 1D--by an order of magnitude or more. I've been to several "photography" stores that don't even stock the 5D, much less the 1D or 1Ds, but they push the Rebels and consider the 50D their "top" Canon camera. The reason is pretty obvious--lots more folks will be in the market for a $500 Rebel XS, $627 Rebel XSi, $785 Rebel T1i, or even $1215 50D (all with the most-common kit lenses) than the $2700 5D (body only!) or $3700 1D, much less the [:O] $6,115 1Ds.

[Chuck Lee]

Chuck, did you note that I said that I own and use both a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS? I've shot over 500 images with each lens, so I have some idea of what they do and the advantages/disadvantages of each. (Have you used both extensively?) If I have a choice, I'll use the f/4L IS. I can actually refute one of your statements, about low light shooting--see below. Again, if you haven't actually used both lenses, you may not realize the major difference in IS performance. Remember that the f/2.8L IS was introduced in 2001, the f/4L IS in 2006, so it benefitted from 5 years advance in technology.

George,


I stand officially refuted.


Thanks for your in-depth comparison. When I decide to step up to a IS version of the 70-200 I will definitely give the f4 version much more consideration. It may possibly be the betterchoice for a 5D FF body. I do shoot alot at f2.8 with my non-IS version but prefer f4 asthe default.