Advice on lenses

AT06 · Mar 31, 2013

So currently I have a 400D with a 18-55mm kit lens (no IS and IQ is so bad I never use it) and a 50mm f1.8 (I use this all the time). I don't want to upgrade my camera as I plan on going full frame when I have saved up enough money.

I'm looking at the 24-105mm f4L IS and the 70-200mm f4L IS. I plan on eventually having both, but out of the two which would you buy first and for what reason?

As always, any help is greatly appreciated.

I AM THE MAN · Mar 31, 2013

Honestly depends on what kind of focal length you prefer. Ive been using a DSLR for almost 2 and a half years and before I bought a Mark 2, I had a T3. The 4th lens I bought was the 70-200mm f/4 (NON IS) and even today, its one of my favorite lens to use, especially with my full frame Mark 2. However, using either the 70-200 or the 24-105 indoors will definitely bring you a little problem, unless you really up your ISO a ton. Otherwise, if you use either lens outdoors, you will be amazed by the performance. Some of the photos I manage to take with my 70-200mm still amaze me today.

I would personally go with the 70-200 in your case just because it will add a "broader" focal length to your lens collection. You already have a nifty fifty and an 18-55mm. If you were to go with the 24-105, you'd have an overlap. Therefore, with the 70-200mm you have more coverage when it comes to focal length.

Good luck! I myself am saving up for the 24-105! Can't wait to get my hands on it!

AT06 · Mar 31, 2013

I AM THE MAN said:
Honestly depends on what kind of focal length you prefer. Ive been using a DSLR for almost 2 and a half years and before I bought a Mark 2, I had a T3. The 4th lens I bought was the 70-200mm f/4 (NON IS) and even today, its one of my favorite lens to use, especially with my full frame Mark 2. However, using either the 70-200 or the 24-105 indoors will definitely bring you a little problem, unless you really up your ISO a ton. Otherwise, if you use either lens outdoors, you will be amazed by the performance. Some of the photos I manage to take with my 70-200mm still amaze me today.

I would personally go with the 70-200 in your case just because it will add a "broader" focal length to your lens collection. You already have a nifty fifty and an 18-55mm. If you were to go with the 24-105, you'd have an overlap. Therefore, with the 70-200mm you have more coverage when it comes to focal length.

Good luck! I myself am saving up for the 24-105! Can't wait to get my hands on it!

That's my thought too - broaden my focal range and get the 70-200 f4L IS. But that 24-105 is tempting as my 18-55 is the old non-IS version that really is quite poor.

snberk103 · Mar 31, 2013

If you can live without a wide angle for bit, then the 70-200 first. Your current 50mm sits in the middle of the 24-105 range, so really it is useful only as a wide angle and moderate portrait lense. For the money you will get more unduplicated range from the 70-200 which will take you from nearly normal to telephoto. The 50 gives you a fast lense as well.

You might consider picking up a prime wide angle to fill that gap at the short end. If you get a used one you will be able to sell it for about the same amount of money to put towards a zoom wide angle.

Luck

ChristianVirtual · Mar 31, 2013

70-200 first. And if money allow adding 17-40 ? With the 50mm prime you would quite good coverage. I'm lucky with my 24-70 in combination with 70-200; ideal coverage for most of my needs. The credit card didn't liked it

AT06 · Mar 31, 2013

At the moment I'm leaning more towards the 24-105mm to replace my 18-55mm kit (which I never use as its the old non-is version that's rubbish). It will likely be my most used lens, so I think it makes sense to get that first then get the 70-200mm.

El Cabong · Mar 31, 2013

Always get the lens that best suits your needs. Right now, it sounds like you're in need of a standard zoom, so go for the 24-105. Unless you're planning to do a lot of telephoto work, the 70-200 can wait.

ChristianVirtual · Mar 31, 2013

AT06 said:
t will likely be my most used lens, so I think it makes sense to get that first then get the 70-200mm.

If this is your preferred focal length range there is nothing wrong with this sequence. Go for it and happy shooting ! Enjoy !

LumbermanSVO · Mar 31, 2013

AT06 said:
At the moment I'm leaning more towards the 24-105mm to replace my 18-55mm kit (which I never use as its the old non-is version that's rubbish). It will likely be my most used lens, so I think it makes sense to get that first then get the 70-200mm.

The only reason I'd tell you to wait is that the 24-105 usually comes at a nice discount when packaged as a "kit" lens with a full frame body. Since you want both, this lens and a full frame body, the wallet says to wait.

In the meantime, you can pickup a used 18-55 IS for about $100 to hold you over until you get the new setup. While the 18-55 IS isn't a "Knock your sock off" great lens, it is reasonably decent and should keep the credit card in the wallet a little longer. I've created many images with mine that people thought were made with much nicer glass.

OreoCookie · Mar 31, 2013

I'd like to throw a curveball here and suggest either Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8 or, if you are on a budget, Tamron's 17-50 mm f/2.8: both cover the bread-and-butter zoom range, the image quality is very good and they'll remain in demand because of these qualities.

AT06 · Apr 1, 2013

All good ideas. I think the best thing now, after some thought, is to wait. I'm in no rush, and you never know what cashback deals canon will do in the summer. Keep taking photos until I'm definate over what part of the focal range I feel I'm missing, or if I really need a new body.

tgara · Apr 1, 2013

I would disagree with Mr. Oreo a little bit on the 17-55 f/2.8. That is an EF-S lens suitable only to Canon cameras with the APS-C sensor, such as the OP's current camera. If he goes full frame in the future, that lens will have to be sold since it will not work on a full frame model. Given the OP's upgrade plans, I would avoid EF-S lenses entirely.

With respect to the post above pointing out that the 24-105 f/4 IS is part of a kit, keep in mind that argument cuts both ways. Many people purchase, for example, a 5D Mark III kit with the 25-105 lens, and sell the lens. Consequently, those particular lenses are quite plentiful on the market, and will continue to be. In fact, I got mine from such a sale (mine was sold from an authorized Canon dealer as a "white box" model, brand new and never used for $800).

My advice would be to go with the 24-105 f/4L IS lens first, then get the 70-200 at a later date. The OP should check out the Selling board on the POTN site to find a new or nearly new 24-105 lens for a reasonable price.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14

AT06 · Apr 1, 2013

tgara said:
I would disagree with Mr. Oreo a little bit on the 17-55 f/2.8. That is an EF-S lens suitable only to Canon cameras with the APS-C sensor, such as the OP's current camera. If he goes full frame in the future, that lens will have to be sold since it will not work on a full frame model. Given the OP's upgrade plans, I would avoid EF-S lenses entirely.

With respect to the post above pointing out that the 24-105 f/4 IS is part of a kit, keep in mind that argument cuts both ways. Many people purchase, for example, a 5D Mark III kit with the 25-105 lens, and sell the lens. Consequently, those particular lenses are quite plentiful on the market, and will continue to be. In fact, I got mine from such a sale (mine was sold from an authorized Canon dealer as a "white box" model, brand new and never used for $800).

My advice would be to go with the 24-105 f/4L IS lens first, then get the 70-200 at a later date. The OP should check out the Selling board on the POTN site to find a new or nearly new 24-105 lens for a reasonable price.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14

In the UK, the cheapest prices for the 24-105mm are quite a bit higher than the US (although this happens on almost all consumer products!). I think I am going to think it over for a month or so, and hopefully as we get into warner weather and I start taking more photos I will have a clearer mind on what to do.

Thanks to everyone that has helped - it's definitely a difficult decision, and one that can only really be made by taking more time to figure it out.

The Mad Kiwi · Apr 1, 2013

tgara said:
I would disagree with Mr. Oreo a little bit on the 17-55 f/2.8. That is an EF-S lens suitable only to Canon cameras with the APS-C sensor, such as the OP's current camera. If he goes full frame in the future, that lens will have to be sold since it will not work on a full frame model. Given the OP's upgrade plans, I would avoid EF-S lenses entirely.

Don't agree with this, buy for the camera you have not the one you may get 2 years down the track. You can always sell the lens, quality lenses hold their value. The 17-55 2.8 is a much better lens on a crop camera than the 24-105mm.

If I was the OP, I'd save up and get a full frame with the 24-105mm as a kit. The difference in image quality between a 400d and modern full frame is like night and day.

AT06 · Apr 1, 2013

The Mad Kiwi said:
Don't agree with this, buy for the camera you have not the one you may get 2 years down the track. You can always sell the lens, quality lenses hold their value. The 17-55 2.8 is a much better lens on a crop camera than the 24-105mm.

If I was the OP, I'd save up and get a full frame with the 24-105mm as a kit. The difference in image quality between a 400d and modern full frame is like night and day.

Well this is fast becoming my plan - would also give me more time to better isolate my needed focal lengths.

kevinfulton.ca · Apr 1, 2013

If I were you and had the choice between a 5DMK3 with a 24-105 kit lens or a 24-70 f/2.8L USM II, I'd go for the 24-70 without hesitation. What would I get next? Either the 70-200 2.8L or the 70-200 2.8L IS II (but only if I felt I needed the stabilization). Glass always makes a larger difference then the body. I know it sucks having a huge awesome pro lens on a teeny tiny consumer body, but in the long run it will be worth it.
Currently I'm shooting with the same body as you so I feel your pain, but with my better glass (I shoot with primes) I'm getting images that look great blown up to 24x36 prints. Lately, I've been doing mostly studio work so the differences are not as drastic so it's important to consider WHAT you'll be shooting when picking a body. Here's some of my work for reference. Hope this helps!

http://500px.com/kevinfulton

MCAsan · Apr 1, 2013

A couple of weekends ago at our Georgia Nature Photography Association Expo we had Adams Jones as a speaker. He had the same basic kit for landscape and wildlife as several other Canon Explorers of Light.

16-35 or 17-40
24-105
100-400
180macro

Adam uses them with a 5DIII with 5DII as backup.

So planning ahead for your migration to FF, consider the above basic kit. Go with the 17-40 to save money over the 16-35.

For those in the States, Canon USA also sells refurbished lenses and camera bodies. You can save considerable money on them. Most of our lenses come from there with zero problems. At Canon USA heck the availability and cost of a refurbished 5DIII, 5DII, or 6D. Also call them to a quote on trading in you existing Canon body on the FF model. You can save a considerable amount. I got 5DII from them for both the wife and me.

OreoCookie · Apr 1, 2013

tgara said:
I would disagree with Mr. Oreo a little bit on the 17-55 f/2.8. That is an EF-S lens suitable only to Canon cameras with the APS-C sensor, such as the OP's current camera. If he goes full frame in the future, that lens will have to be sold since it will not work on a full frame model.

And? You can easily sell used lenses at minimal loss. And the focal length range of the 17-55 mm is much better suited than the 24-105 mm. Plus, it is faster. People should not buy lenses for a camera they one day might own, but for the camera they own now. New full frame bodies are still very, very expensive, and I reckon that most people should rather take that money and invest in good glass instead of a full frame body (with less good glass). Currently, the OP has an entry-level dslr and the 18-55 mm kit lens, you can't get more basic than that. He's doing the right thing by investing in new glass rather than a new body, but most people in his shoes will never buy a full frame body. Even more ambitious people often stick to cameras with APS-C-sized sensors.

ChrisA · Apr 1, 2013

AT06 said:
So currently I have a 400D with a 18-55mm kit lens (no IS and IQ is so bad I never use it) and a 50mm f1.8 (I use this all the time). I don't want to upgrade my camera as I plan on going full frame when I have saved up enough money.

I'm looking at the 24-105mm f4L IS and the 70-200mm f4L IS. I plan on eventually having both, but out of the two which would you buy first and for what reason?..

First, look at the shoots you take with the 18-55 are they all shot at 55 and still you have to crop? If so get the 70-200 Otherwise get the 24-105.

In general the 24-155 on a full frame body is a good general purpose lens that you will use most of the time. The 70-200 (I have one I used with film body for 15+ years) is a "long" lens that might get used for sports. Some people use if for head and shoulders per traits but the 105 would work as well.

The 70-200 is a specialty lens. Some time wedding photogaphers will be forced to use it because they are required to stand to the rear of the church but need close ups of the couple. But for normal work it is always better to walk up closer. But you can't fr weddings and sports and maybe at the zoo.

Second. You SHOULD be able to get very high IQ with a non-IS lens. Peole did this for 60+ years before IS was invented. The key is to keep the shutter speed to 1/(focal length) or just be safe and never shoot slower than 1/60th. Bump the ISO speed up if need be to keep the shutter fast enough or use a flash.

----------

The Mad Kiwi said:
Don't agree with this, buy for the camera you have not the one you may get 2 years down the track. You can always sell the lens, quality lenses hold their value. The 17-55 2.8 is a much better lens on a crop camera than the 24-105mm. ...

I agree. Why buy a lens that will not work? I did not know you where going to wait years to buy a full frame body. If it is going to be that long then wait until you have the full frame body.

The crop fram body, as long as you own it will always be in need os a wind lens that goes to 16, 17 or 18.

AT06 · Apr 2, 2013

Greatly appreciate all the input guys. At the moment I use my 50mm prime 90% of the time, and often crop the images a bit (not a lot). I'm still trying to pin down my needed focal length, so until I'm sure what that it, I'm going to wait - usually Canon has some cashback offers on a variety of lenses in the summer (non of the lenses I'm looking at are in the current cashback offer).

A piece of advice my dad always gave me is if your not sure, walk away. So I think it's best to wait until I'm sure what I need.

Thanks all for the feedback - you've definately given me a lot of food for thought and helped me think of a few new options.

mulo · Apr 2, 2013

of the two you mentioned, get the 24-105 first, no doubt

tgara · Apr 2, 2013

OreoCookie said:
And? You can easily sell used lenses at minimal loss. And the focal length range of the 17-55 mm is much better suited than the 24-105 mm. Plus, it is faster. People should not buy lenses for a camera they one day might own, but for the camera they own now. New full frame bodies are still very, very expensive, and I reckon that most people should rather take that money and invest in good glass instead of a full frame body (with less good glass). Currently, the OP has an entry-level dslr and the 18-55 mm kit lens, you can't get more basic than that. He's doing the right thing by investing in new glass rather than a new body, but most people in his shoes will never buy a full frame body. Even more ambitious people often stick to cameras with APS-C-sized sensors.

I guess I have a different viewpoint, given the facts that the OP has presented. First, he did state he wanted to migrate to full frame, but did not say exactly when that might happen. He did mention "summer cashbacks" and "saving up" which could mean the next 3 months. If that is his intention, I stand by my recommendation not to get the 17-55 now only to have to sell it at a loss relatively soon. As for the 17-55 being more "suitable", that is subjective and a matter of opinion. I started with a 40D, then a 7D, and most recently a 5D Mark III. When I had my crop cameras, I never purchased an EF-S lens, instead getting the 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and a 17-40 f/4, knowing one day I would have a FF camera. The images from those lenses with any of my crop cameras are stunning, and I didn't have to sell or upgrade any of those lenses when I got my 5D Mark III.

My point here is that if the OP intends to move to FF, and he said he does, he should consider sticking with EF glass as much as possible to make the transition easy and painless.

AT06 · Apr 2, 2013

tgara said:
I guess I have a different viewpoint, given the facts that the OP has presented. First, he did state he wanted to migrate to full frame, but did not say exactly when that might happen. He did mention "summer cashbacks" and "saving up" which could mean the next 3 months. If that is his intention, I stand by my recommendation not to get the 17-55 now only to have to sell it at a loss relatively soon. As for the 17-55 being more "suitable", that is subjective and a matter of opinion. I started with a 40D, then a 7D, and most recently a 5D Mark III. When I had my crop cameras, I never purchased an EF-S lens, instead getting the 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and a 17-40 f/4, knowing one day I would have a FF camera. The images from those lenses with any of my crop cameras are stunning, and I didn't have to sell or upgrade any of those lenses when I got my 5D Mark III.

My point here is that if the OP intends to move to FF, and he said he does, he should consider sticking with EF glass as much as possible to make the transition easy and painless.

I plan to upgrade to FF by the end of the year (fingers crossed) so EF lenses are my current options. If Canon does a summer cashback offer on the 24-105mm I may buy it as the difference between a body only and kit bundle with that lens is almost equal to getting them separately.

kevinfulton.ca · Apr 2, 2013

AT06 said:
I plan to upgrade to FF by the end of the year (fingers crossed) so EF lenses are my current options. If Canon does a summer cashback offer on the 24-105mm I may buy it as the difference between a body only and kit bundle with that lens is almost equal to getting them separately.

Be very careful about that decision. If you're prepared to drop that kind of money on a lens AND body, then you are much better off spending it on a killer lens instead IMO. I 100% understand your pain and that this puts off getting a full frame for longer then you'd like, but when you find yourself in a low-light situation, trying to freeze action, you're going to be kicking yourself that you don't have that f2.8 (plus, don't even get me started about how much sharper that lens is!). It's your money, your decision, and perhaps you don't shoot any low-light action, but definitely try and separate the short term value (lens and body) and consider the long term investment (killer lens and hold off on the body) before purchasing. Again, this is 100% your decision so do what you will, I've just seen too many people blow their cash on high end bodies and compromised on glass. If you can afford perfection, why not get perfection?

rodriguise · Apr 2, 2013

If you aren't worried about warranties (which if you are game to buying used you probably aren't), look up gray-market lenses. These are new lenses packaged for international sale and you get them at a $100-$300 discount over the retail market lenses. Some people say Canon will actually repair them under warranty. Even so, it can still be a better guarantee over a used.

Advice on lenses

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors 603

macrumors 601

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 601

macrumors 65816

macrumors 68030

macrumors 6502

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors 601

macrumors 68030

macrumors G5

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68020

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

Our Staff