I recently went to a store to inquire about getting a L series lens for my 60d, the sales person (who gets a commission) told me that I would get the same, or very close results from a good Canon lens as I would with a L series due to the 60d not being a full frame camera, and that the L series difference is the full frame compatibility. I'm looking at a 70-300mm. What's your take on the best lens for me?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon 60D lens
- Thread starter Vascodixon
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are no wrong choices per se, just wrong choices depending on your priorities. I have just upgraded from a 50D to a 5D mark 2. As part of the package I bought the L lens 24-105. I haven't tried it on my 50D because I am too busy playing with my new toy but I have noticed some differences. On the full frame, aperture is now really key as it is very easy to blur the background, even if you don't want too. The pictures are very sharp and focus is quick. IMO this will be similar on the 60D but the effect will be less pronounced. I will experiment with my 50D and get back to you on this.
What you need to do is think about your priorities. For instance:-
1. Are you thinking of going full frame at some point? If so you may want to start getting the right lenses for a full frame camera.
2. How important is lens quality? Do you want to buy the best you can afford and only buy once?
3. How much money can you spare?
4. Do the sort of photos you like taking benefit from the type of lens you are considering buying?
Think it through and make the right decision for you. Whatever you do though enjoy your new lens and remember that it is the person behind the camera that makes the difference.
That said I am a little bit of a tech whore and always think a new lens/camera/gadget will improve my photography. Not true but it never stops me salivating when I'm reading photography magazines.
What you need to do is think about your priorities. For instance:-
1. Are you thinking of going full frame at some point? If so you may want to start getting the right lenses for a full frame camera.
2. How important is lens quality? Do you want to buy the best you can afford and only buy once?
3. How much money can you spare?
4. Do the sort of photos you like taking benefit from the type of lens you are considering buying?
Think it through and make the right decision for you. Whatever you do though enjoy your new lens and remember that it is the person behind the camera that makes the difference.
That said I am a little bit of a tech whore and always think a new lens/camera/gadget will improve my photography. Not true but it never stops me salivating when I'm reading photography magazines.
Ive got a 24-105L for my 60D, its a fantastic lens.
I understand what the salesman meant, that they are geared towards full frame, but there is this to consider:
All lens get some kind of vignetting and distortion at the edges of photos, even if it is very little. The L series lens create an image that fits a full size sensor and gets some of that vignetting and distortions.
With a crop sensor however the sensor will only pick up that sweet spot in the middle of the image while any distortions are left out. Although yes you do get the 1.6X magnification but hey, take a few steps back.
Example in the picture.
I understand what the salesman meant, that they are geared towards full frame, but there is this to consider:
All lens get some kind of vignetting and distortion at the edges of photos, even if it is very little. The L series lens create an image that fits a full size sensor and gets some of that vignetting and distortions.
With a crop sensor however the sensor will only pick up that sweet spot in the middle of the image while any distortions are left out. Although yes you do get the 1.6X magnification but hey, take a few steps back.
Example in the picture.
Attachments
The sale guy needs an education..
If you have the money, the interest, and a critical eye, then always, always, always buy the best glass you can afford. The L series lenses are exceptional, and all things being equal, are superior to other alternatives. The body you shoot with is NOT a limiting factor. A L lens on the original Digital Rebel will result in a better image than a 5D Mark III/cheap lenses combo (all other things being equal). That said, there are some excellent non L lenses. Read the reviews, consider your passion, budget, needs, and find a new sales person.
FYI, I shoot with the following:
60D
17-40 L
70-200L
50 1.4 (non L)
If you have the money, the interest, and a critical eye, then always, always, always buy the best glass you can afford. The L series lenses are exceptional, and all things being equal, are superior to other alternatives. The body you shoot with is NOT a limiting factor. A L lens on the original Digital Rebel will result in a better image than a 5D Mark III/cheap lenses combo (all other things being equal). That said, there are some excellent non L lenses. Read the reviews, consider your passion, budget, needs, and find a new sales person.
FYI, I shoot with the following:
60D
17-40 L
70-200L
50 1.4 (non L)
The f-stops are what matter...
I have the 16-35mm F/2.8 L and the 300mm f/4 L for my 5D mark 2, but the shutter speed can be faster and depth of field shallower with the 50mm f/1.2 L lens. Quicker shutter speed means less motion blur both in scene and from hand holding the camera. Or you can use a lower ISO to get less noise.
Even when you shoot at the same f-stop with an EF-S and and L lens, ex f/2.8, f/4. The L one will look better quicker when stopped down.
Look up some websites that compare lenses that allow you to change the f stop values and see the difference.
I have the 16-35mm F/2.8 L and the 300mm f/4 L for my 5D mark 2, but the shutter speed can be faster and depth of field shallower with the 50mm f/1.2 L lens. Quicker shutter speed means less motion blur both in scene and from hand holding the camera. Or you can use a lower ISO to get less noise.
Even when you shoot at the same f-stop with an EF-S and and L lens, ex f/2.8, f/4. The L one will look better quicker when stopped down.
Look up some websites that compare lenses that allow you to change the f stop values and see the difference.
Canon uses the red L badge to designate more expensive lenses (L stands for luxury). By definition, none of the lenses designed for crop sensors carry the L badge and the L does not necessarily imply superior image quality. For instance, the 85 mm f/1.8 non-L bests its big brother, the faster f/1.2 L, in terms of image quality. The previous-generation 100 mm macro did not have an L badge, but it is a very, very good lens.
Since Canon will not give crop lenses an L badge, there is a tendency to look down on very capable lenses whose focal length is a much better fit (e. g. Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8 comes to mind), and what you should first decide on is a focal length and not a marketing badge.* Also, none of the third-party lenses carry the L (obviously), even though some of the third-party lenses are very good -- especially when it comes to price/performance. For instance, my always on lens is a 30 mm f/1.4 Sigma prime lens. The equivalent Nikon lens (I own a D7000) costs more than 4 times as much! Also Tokina makes very good lenses with a solid construction.
Since Canon will not give crop lenses an L badge, there is a tendency to look down on very capable lenses whose focal length is a much better fit (e. g. Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8 comes to mind), and what you should first decide on is a focal length and not a marketing badge.* Also, none of the third-party lenses carry the L (obviously), even though some of the third-party lenses are very good -- especially when it comes to price/performance. For instance, my always on lens is a 30 mm f/1.4 Sigma prime lens. The equivalent Nikon lens (I own a D7000) costs more than 4 times as much! Also Tokina makes very good lenses with a solid construction.
I don't mean to be argumentative, but these points are largely subjective and not particularly accurate. Indeed canon, sigma, tamron and so on make some fantastic products, however Canon L set the standard. L does indeed imply superior image quality, and the vast majority of cases this is in fact true. You will decide what lens is best for you, and there is no reason to suggest you should buy L, but I encourage you not to fall for the "L is just marketing" mentality. Nothing could be further from the truth.
----------
I should also add that build quality is also very important, and again L lenses set the standard most others aspire to...
The rule of more cash = more quality is very true in lenses. The more you pay, the better the lens will be. The 70-300mm you mentioned isn't bad at allI've borrowed a friend's for a little while in exchange for my 70-200 and quite liked itbut the variable f/3.5-5.6 aperture is a real bummer. It's a giant inconvenience.
Your sales rep is very wrong. Since crop sensors' pixels are much more densely packed than a full frame cameras, it effectively outresolves their full frame counterparts. What this means is that the lesser quality lenses will show their imperfections more, like how the D800 can reveal the imperfections not visible from shots from the D700.
Depending on your budget, the suggestions you get will be very different.
Your sales rep is very wrong. Since crop sensors' pixels are much more densely packed than a full frame cameras, it effectively outresolves their full frame counterparts. What this means is that the lesser quality lenses will show their imperfections more, like how the D800 can reveal the imperfections not visible from shots from the D700.
Depending on your budget, the suggestions you get will be very different.
Can you provide links to Camera specs/evaluations that suggest crop sensors offer higher resolution than full frame? ...... ?????
Canon's APS-C specification is 22.3x14.9mm while the images produced are 5184x3456. This works out to be 232.466 pixels/mm.
Canon's full frame sensor in the 5D Mark III is 36x24mm while the images are 5760x3840. This works out to be 160 pixels/mm.
Since the APS-C has more pixels in the same amount of space, it is able to pick out more details than the full frame sensor and therefore outresolves it.
(here I'm not talking about megapixel resolution, I mean optical resolution)
Which points are not accurate? The fact that Canon does not put an L badge on lenses which have been designed for crop sensors? Or that there are instances when non-L lenses are actually better by one metric or another (performance or price/performance). I gave specific examples, and I maintain it's mainly price that determines the properties of lenses (e. g. specs, image quality and such), i. e. how much money you can invest in a lens as a manufacturer.
For instance, if you want to buy a 17-40~55 mm lens, Canon's non-L 17-55 mm (~860 €) lens is actually more expensive than its 17-40 mm L brother (~710 €). If you look more closely, you can easily see why: you gain one stop, 15 precious mm at the long end and IS, but you lose a little in terms of built quality. Plus, obviously, the L lens has been designed for full frame bodies. That's one case where I think the non-L lens has a clear advantage if, like the OP, you own a crop body. Ditto for many primes: many of them are simply non-L lenses, but that doesn't mean they're better or worse.
Canon does not sprinkle magical pixie dust on its L lenses, L lenses are typically more expensive which means Canon can invest more money into construction and quality assurance than with cheaper lenses.
That's also the reason why expensive third-party lenses are not necessarily worse than first-party lenses -- if you compare lenses of the similar price.
I'm not falling for anything. It's a marketing decision Canon does not jack up the price of the 17-55 mm and gives that lens a more robust enclosure while keeping the current optics. But if you look at the 7D, then you know there are very capable crop cameras out there, and if you need reach, a crop sensor may actually be the better choice. Nikon, for instance, does have some crop sensor pro lenses (e. g. its own 17-55 mm Nikkor which was just as expensive as comparable full frame lenses).
My guess is that Canon could not find a way to seal the 17-55 properly, leading to its lack of L status and the big dust problem present with the lens. And another factor for being a L lens is that it must be backwards compatible with all previous EOS cameras; EF-S mounts do not satisfy that criterion.
And who says they must be compatible with full frame cameras? That's a conscious decision on part of Canon. I don't see any reason why the Big Two (with few exceptions on Nikon's part for obvious reasons) insist on designing all pro lenses pretending they'll be used on full frame bodies? I'd find 70-200 mm f/2.8 equivalent lenses very interesting (I own a 80-200 mm Nikkor), perhaps specced at 50-135 mm and f/2?
Well, Canon only designates the 1 series as professional, if I recall correctly, and the 1 series only uses EF mount lenses. Canon is very careful in their wording in the 7D description; they say it's popular among semi-professionals, not professionals.
So by Canon's words, the professional cameras only use EF mounts, and that's what the L lenses are geared towards.
Tricky, tricky.
Yes, that's their claim, but that doesn't mean it's true and only 1-series cameras are used by professionals, plenty of people use 5D-series cameras, the 7D and in former times also x0D cameras (the 60D took the x0D series down a notch in price and features). Before the release of the 5D Mark III, the 7D had a much, much better AF system than either the 5D Mark I and Mark II, and thus was the better tool for some people. Similarly, the Nikon Dx00-series has also been very popular with professionals.
I find that more professional use 5D series more than the 1D series. Although the 1D is considered and claimed by Canon as the professional series, it does lack FF sensor. When you look in camera magazines, I believe you will find more pictures taken with a 5D series camera than a 1D series. Actually I use to subscribe to 3 different camera magazines and havent seen any pictures taken with the 1D yet.
I absolutely agree, a professional camera is what professionals use and not what manufacturers define as professional.
It's really much simpler than that. If you want to know what Canon defines as "professional" you can simply look at the list of items that are eligible for the Canon Professional Services (CPS) program. Go to this page and click on the link for "Eligible CPS products." You'll see that they include a number of crop cameras and EF-S lenses in the list.
If only Canon gave the 17-55 the L treatment and upped its build quality...
Then again, the 60D is also listed under there and that's definitely not a professional camera by any means.
The 18-xx kit lenses are also included in that list. No, it's not that simple.
I'm not an expert on every Canon lens, but I do know that there are a few exceptional non-L lenses, such as the 60mm EF-S Macro and the 10-22mm EF-S Wideangle. Because they are EF-S (crop sensor-only) lenses, they do not qualify for the L designation.
But in the 70-300 mm zoom focal range, my understanding is that the L glass is considered better than the non-L Canon product. I own the EF-S 55-250, and it's construction quality and image quality aren't bad, but neither are they great.
At least they have released a mirrorless camera with a properly sized sensor. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Nikon.)
I guess it's all about »what pros use«. My cousin is a pro (photographer and director for commercials), and I think he also owns a 1000D and a kit lens. Small and light. And it doesn't hurt (as much) if it gets stolen on your vacation. I could picture that some pros use the 60D as a backup body the way they've used 40Ds and 50Ds. But then again, I'm not a pro *
I agree...I mean, Nikon being outdone by Sony?? I never thought I'd see the day!
(this thread got quickly derailed...)
@OP, here's a list of standard zooms that you might be interested in.
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - Not an L lens, deserves to be. EF-S mount only, has large aperture AND image stabilization. Covers roughly 27.2-88mm on 60D. Most people recommend this one, including me. IS and f/2.8? God I wish this was a full frame lens!
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (both version 1 and 2) - the legendary 24-70, nicknamed "the brick" for its weight. It's just shy of a kilo! But it pays off in image quality. It's really, really sharp, and supposedly version II is even sharper! IMO the key feature of this lens (version 1 only) is the reverse zoom. It gives equal shading with the lens hood, and creates a practically non-extending body.
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - Extremely long range. Could be classified as a superzoom on a crop body if you wanted to. It's decent on the aperture department with an f/4, but it has that IS and range to make up for it. Very good lens
Lenses to avoid:
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - The 17-55 trumps this lens in every way possible on a crop body.
Superzoom lenses in general - their image quality is abysmal-to-mediocre, and often times the aperture is horrible.