New Lens or New Body?

[Kayaker72]

It definitely looks like I am going for the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens. Based on my needs and the way it sounds this would be the better choice for me. I do plan on buying a FF maybe in a year to a year and a half from now. I'll be taking many photos in the meantime. Your advice is definitely solid so I'm going for it!


In the meantime I have one more question:


When looking at a lens sometimes they say "35mm equivalent". What exactly does that mean? Also what is the difference between an EF zoom lens vs. EF telephoto zoom lens?. I'm asking because I cannot seem to understand the difference between these two lenses other than the $1000 difference (I was originally going for one of these but realized that 70-200 is not smart for general purpose for obvious reasons):



<h3 class="name" id="name_1218182821141"][url="http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+EF+70-200mm+f/2.8L+Telephoto+Zoom+Lens+for+Most+Canon+Digital+SL R+Cameras/9839236.p?id=1218182821141&amp;skuId=9839236]Canon - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L Telephoto Zoom Lens for Most Canon Digital SLR Cameras[/url]</h3>



<h3 class="name" id="name_1218057059470"]Canon - EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras</h3>

You posted while I was composing my last message []....there are a number of ways to describe "35 mm equivalent." In short, people try to normalize the field of view of all the different sensor sizes to "35 mm" or full frame (FF). So, your and my camerashave "1.6 crop" sensors, so simply multiple the focal length by 1.6 to get the "35 mm equivalent" focal length. For example, 15 mm on a 1.6 crop sensor gives you a field of view of ~83 degrees, the same FOV you have at 24 mm on a camera with a FF sensor (15 x 1.6 =24). So crop sensor cameras are best for telephoto use because the same lens always has more magnification. But, conversely, FF cameras tend to be better for landscapes because at equivalent focal lengths they see a "wider" angle. If you still have a question, there are several web resources including here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor.


Those are likely completely different lenses at best buy. Currently, you can buy three different 70-200 f/2.8 L lenses from Canon:the 70-200 f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L. Last time I checked, these lenses were going for ~$1,300, ~$1,800, and ~$2,200, respectively. BH, Adorama and Amazon do a good job of distinguishing between the lenses.


Brant

[neuroanatomist]

When looking at a lens sometimes they say "35mm equivalent". What exactly does that mean?

It allows comparison of lenses intended for different sensor formats. Different size sensors result in a different angle of view from a lens of a given focal length, so the term 'crop factor' applies as a result of the difference in sensor sizes. "Full frame" is the reference point, meaning a sensor the size of frame of 35mm film - 24x36mm. Smaller sensors have a narrower angle of view, in the case of your T2i by a factor of 1.6x, so a 50mm lens on your camera has the same angle of view that an 80mm lens would have on a full frame camera like the 5DII. Note that it's called "crop factor" because the some of the image circle of the lens is 'cropped away.' It's not correct to say that a crop sensor 'magnifies' the image - an object shot with the same lens on a 1.6x vs. FF camera at the same distance will cover the same physical area of the sensor, just more of the background will be cropped away with the smaller sensor.


Most people understand the effect of a smaller sensor on focal length, but there are two other effects. The first is on depth of field - to get the same framing of a shot with a crop body, you need to be further from the subject and that increases DoF by the same crop factor, so an f/2.8 lens on a crop body has the same effective DoF as f/4.5 on a FF camera. The other effect is on ISO noise - since a larger sensor gathers more light, there is 1.6x less noise at the same ISO setting. You can see both of these effects easily with point-and-shoot cameras - their much smaller sensors mean deep DoF (so you can't get that nice background blur that you get with a fast lens on a dSLR), an the images from P&amp;S cameras are much noisier.


Hope that makes sense...

I'm asking because I cannot seem to understand the difference between these two lenses other than the $1000 difference

The difference between them is that the $2500 one should be labeled the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens, and the $1500 should be labeled the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L lens. In this case, the extra $1K buys image stabilization and better optical quality, and also weather-sealing. The more expensive one is the Mark II version of that lens (an updated version of the original 70-200/2.8 IS) and was released earlier this year. The other one is an older design.


I should also point out that Best Buy is probably not the best place to shop for lenses. I figured out which lenses they actually are by searching the model numbers from the Best Buy site on the B&amp;H site. Note that on B&amp;H the same lenses are $200 - $400 cheaper (the 70-200 II dropped in price recently, and there's a rebate that Best Buy isn't showing).


I think you're right about getting the general purpose zoom first, then deciding what you want next - fast prime, telephoto zoom, macro, whatever you end up wanting to shoot!

Neuroanatomist, I was looking at your bio on this website and checked out some of your pics. They are awesome!

Thanks! [:$]


There are adapters to mount dSLRs on microscopes - here's one example. I've haven't tried the linked ones, as we use dedicated cameras on ours, but a long time ago I adapted a Sony P&amp;S to a microscope eyepiece - it worked ok! Nikon runs a 'Small World' contest each year - some great images there!

[Kayaker72]

JraPA86,


A few questions: What do you typically shoot? What do you want to shoot? Do you just want to replace your general purpose lens or are you trying to cover ~18 mm to 200 mm with your $1,500 budget? For a quick example, if you want to shoot pictures around your house of kids, which move, the EFS 17-55 makes sense. If you want to take portraits/macro, you may want to think about a prime lens or two. If you want to take pictures of birds, the 100-400L. If you want absolutely the best IQ, you may want to look at some prime lenses. The more you tell us about what you want to shoot, the more we can help. But going with the focal range you mention and assuming you are shooting "normal" things, you may want to consider either the EFS 17-55 or the EFS 15-85 plus one of the 70-200 f4 L lenses (non-IS $625 or the IS, which has better IQ, $1,120). I could see covering from ~18 mm to ~200 mm range with a combination of two of those lenses really well.


And, you may already know this, but when buying lenses, you may also want to factor in the cost of UV filters, circular polarizer filters, etc, which can be expensive themselves. I am finding that many of the "cool" pictures that I like a lot where shot with the aide of a filter.

[jrapa86]

What do you typically shoot?

I typically shoot portrait, scenery, and absolutely love macro.

Do you just want to replace your general purpose lens or are you trying to cover ~18 mm to 200 mm with your $1,500 budget?

Basically I'm looking for a general purpose lens right now with a $1500 budget. When I get a lens I want it to be top notch and stick to f/2.8, therefore I'd rather spend a lot on one lens, rather than spend less on more than one lens. Prime lenses seem amazing, but the focal range seems a little too slim for general purpose since that is all I will be able to afford.

And, you may already know this, but when buying lenses, you may also want to factor in the cost of UV filters, circular polarizer filters, etc, which can be expensive themselves. I am finding that many of the "cool" pictures that I like a lot where shot with the aide of a filter.

So I'm not too sure about the difference. I always took it that UV filters really played a more important role in protecting the lens rather than actually being "a filter of UV". When you say "cool" are you talking about sweet looking, or are you talking about the color temperature "cool"?