Which Lens(s)?

[ghassert]

As I've probably mentioned a few times on this forum, I'm pretty new to DSLR photography. I own a Canon Digital Rebel XT and it came with a Tamron 28-80 f3.5-56 kit lens. This lens takes decent pictures. Right after purchasing the camera, I was going on a trip to NH and wanted a little something extra, so I purchased an inexpensive Tamron 75-300mm lens(Not very sharp).

Since then my only major purchase has been a Canon 10-22 3.5-4.5 USM and a Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro. I was thinking of purchasing the 24-105 F4 IS L and also the 100-400m 4.5-5.6 IS L. I figured that I would pretty much have the whole range from 10mm to 400mm covered. Now I have seen the Canon 28-300mm 3.5-5.6 IS L and it would cost a little less than the 24-105 and 100-400 combined. I've seen so much coverage of what a great lens the 24-105L is. Would I be losing much by going to the 28-300mm?

I guess what I'm asking, is the extra 100mm(160mm with the 1.6 crop factor) from the 100-400mm really needed? There would also be the added bonus of not needing to change lenses as often and also being able to hike a little lighter.

Thanks,

Glenn

 

[Brambor]

Quality vs Quantity

My opinion is that it is not about 'having all range covered' but about the quality of the resulting image. Lot of times a 35mm lens with a few steps becomes a 50mm lens and a few steps more it becomes an 85mm lens. I like prime lenses but if I were to go to a zoom for your type of camera (not full frame) I would look for the Canon's 24-70L zoom with max aperture of 2.8 http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=5&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

L lense will give you added weatherproofing and aperture of 2.8 will give you the ability to shoot in low light without the need to use flash.

If I were to go prime and light package then Canon's 35/2 and 50/1.8 lenses are cheap, light and outstanding optical quality. If you have the extra cash then the 24L and 35L and 50L lenses are slightly better and give you weatherproofing.

 

[DougPaul]

I've chosen a middle line for my DR-XT. The Canon L lenses look very nice, but are heavy and expensive. I chose the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens (16oz) and the Canon EF 70-300mm IS lens (22 oz). This gives a 27--480 mm (35 mm) equivalent range. The first lens (27-136mm equiv) will cover 95+% of my needs and I can leave the second behind if I am conserving weight.

An even lighter and cheaper combo would be the Canon EF-S 18-55mm (kit) lens (6.7oz) and the Canon EF 55-200mm lens (11oz). This covers a 28--360mm (35mm) equivalent range and is significantly cheaper and lighter than the above.

Doug

 

[Tim Seaver]

The 24-105 F4 IS L is an amazing lens, but if you are using on a 2/3 frame camera, much of the glass you are paying for isn't really being utilized. If you don't have a full frame EOS digital camera or film camera that you also would use the lens on, you are probably spending more than you need to.

 

[ghassert]

Thanks...

Thanks for the replies everyone, you've given me plenty to think about.

 

[darren]

One other thing to think about. The 28-300mm L lens is a big heavy lens. It is heavier than the 100-400mm L lens. I have the 100-400 and it is 3 lbs. The 28-300 is 3.7 lbs, almost 1/3 more. I would not carry my 100-400 out hiking unless I had a very specific reason to - knowledge that wildlife WILL be there or say going to Tux to take pictures of skiers. I would be very hesitant to haul that 28-300 into the backcountry.

I have read that considering how big the zoom range is on that lens, that it is a good lens. As an L, it should be. It is however very expensive and I would be a major bummer to drop that much money on a lens and then find out that it is just too big to be an all around walk around lens.

As Tim said, with a crop body you are not going to be using all of the glass that you are paying for. The extra expense for full frame corner sharpness is lost on a crop body. The smaller sensor is only using the center of the glass and not the edges. Even though I have a crop body now, I still plan on buying the 24-105 L though. I look at it as an investment in the future. I know that eventually as prices drop I will get a full frame body and I will be very happy with the 24-105 L then. Happy now + happy then = good for me.

As for 300 vs 400, I have found that it is a big deal. When I used to use my old 75-300 I found that I mostly would use it at 300. At 300 it is not sharp. With the 100-400 I use it a lot at around 400 but I can back off to around 380 and keep it at peak sharpness. When you use a tele it is because you need reach. 300 has some reach but I have found that it is often not enough. 400 is often not enough reach, but hey, I don't have the cash to go bigger and it is close enough to be a good compromise for me.

I would say use the cash to buy 2 lenses. One general all around lens and a tele lens. Only carry the tele when you need it.

- darren

 

[ghassert]

Thanks for the input Darren. Good point about the weight.

As for a general all around lens, it looks like Tamron is coming out with an 18 - 250mm in March. Looks like it has promise.

Thanks,

Glenn

 

[forestgnome]

Tim and Darren,

What is this about "crop body" and "full frame"? What about my Canon Digital Rebel 300D?

Thanks

 

[DougPaul]

What is this about "crop body" and "full frame"? What about my Canon Digital Rebel 300D?

Has to do with the size of the sensor relative to the size of 35mm film.

Full frame is the same size as 35mm. Eg Canon EOS-5D.

Crop [body] is a body with a smaller sensor. (Crops the image.)

The Digital Rebel series uses an APS-C size sensor which is a factor of 1.6 smaller than a 35mm frame. Thus the 35mm equivalent FL of a lens is a factor of 1.6 longer than the actual FL.

Doug

 

[darren]

Thanks for the input Darren. Good point about the weight.

As for a general all around lens, it looks like Tamron is coming out with an 18 - 250mm in March. Looks like it has promise.

Thanks,

Glenn

I guess it depends on what is most important to you. Zooms with a wide range are going to suffer lower picture quality. Optics just can't be cheated. It is the reason why the Canon 28-300 L lens is so big. My initial guess on a small lens like that Tamron that has a wide zoom range is that you are going to sacrifice quality for convenience.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a Tamron lenses. I bought a good camera, and I'm only going to put good glass on it. Third party lenses just are not as good as Canon or Nikon. There is a reason they are cheaper - it's the laws of physics. Sigma has made some advances and they make a few decent lenses now, but from what I hear they still suffer from a lack of quality control.

In the end, you have to decide what is most important to you: convenience or quality and then balance that with cost.

- darren

 

[ghassert]

Crop factor

The 24-105 F4 IS L is an amazing lens, but if you are using on a 2/3 frame camera, much of the glass you are paying for isn't really being utilized. If you don't have a full frame EOS digital camera or film camera that you also would use the lens on, you are probably spending more than you need to.

Probably a dumb question and I think I already know the answer, but is the crop factor still an issue with lenses designed for digitals? Such as the Canon EF-S line? I have the EF-S 10-22mm and I'm assuming that a picture at 10mm is still a 35mm equivalent of 16mm using the Canon Digital Rebel XT?

Thanks,

Glenn

 

[DougPaul]

Probably a dumb question and I think I already know the answer, but is the crop factor still an issue with lenses designed for digitals?

The crop factor being referred to here is about the sensor. Start with a full frame 35mm sensor and "crop" out the borders to get a smaller sensor. (Of course nobody actually does this--they just use a smaller sensor and the ratio between the size of the senor and a 35mm frame becomes the crop factor.)

Digital zoom does the same thing--drop the pixels around the border to get the effect of a longer focal length. (You can also crop the digital image after the fact to get the same effect.) However, digital zoom throws away pixels and resolution.

Such as the Canon EF-S line? I have the EF-S 10-22mm and I'm assuming that a picture at 10mm is still a 35mm equivalent of 16mm using the Canon Digital Rebel XT?

This factor is 1.6 for the Digital Rebel series--it applies to all lenses to get the equivalent focal length* for a lens used with a full frame 35 mm sensor (or 35mm film).

* lenses with the same 35mm equivalent focal length will have the same field of view and perspective.

Doug

 

[ghassert]

Thanks Doug, that's what I thought.

 

[Brambor]

I think someone mentioned that buying good glass for a crop body is like throwing part of it away or not utilizing all of it.

I think it should be noted that if you are 'throwing' something away it is usually the worst performing part of the lens and using the best of it. Lenses have sweetspot from the center outwards. On telephoto it isn't usually as apparent as it is in wideangle lenses.

So crappy glass will expose faults on full frame camera body. On wideangle lenses you will see light falloff (vignetting).

On a crop body the vigneting part will be cut off and you will get better image performance.

So if you buy good glass you will get great performance on both bodies (full frame or crop)

My concern would be with speed of the wideangle glass you can use on the crop body. If you want a wideangle lense with maximum aperture of 2.0 - 1.4 then you don't have any options. To achieve 24mm or 35mm field of view you need a 20mm lense or wider and they don't make them with aperture larger than 2.8

 

[forestgnome]

DougPaul,

Thanks. I was aware of that 1.6 FL equivelent, just didn't pick up on the context. D'oh!

Happy Trails

 

[DougPaul]

Thanks. I was aware of that 1.6 FL equivelent, just didn't pick up on the context. D'oh!

I had never heard the term "crop body" before either, but there seemed to be only one obvious meaning. A quick google shows it to be a common term in photo discussion groups.

Doug