Jump to content

Lens query..


david_airey

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi,<br>

I thought I would write and ask if you would be kind enough to recommend a suitable "l" series lens as I'm a still not great at choosing them and this seems to be the best place to ask the Q!<br>

I am able to get by with my current lens which is a 24-105mm f4 but find its a bit limited in the information I can get in (eg. not wide enough angle) I mainly shoot table top items approx 2'/3' away but now I'm being asked to shoot larger items e.g. clothing on tailors dummies.<br>

I sometimes shoot alongside another photographer who uses a 17-40mm f4 with a 5Dmk2 and he get superb results so I would happy to buy that lens although would prefer something that could work without my Bowens 500 flash heads (at times anyway). I recently read an article that tells me the 16-35mm 2.8l (which on paper seems ideal) suffers from ghosting, vignetting and distortion which would cause me big problems working close up.<br>

I would be okay with buying the 17-40mm if thats about the best without the distortion and would try and make do with my 50mm f1.4 for low light conditions..but really do struggle with the narrow angle. As I am writing this I maybe answering my own question as I use a 60D which obviously has a cropped sensor which maybe the root of it and I need to invest in a full frame but I'm no expert or techie so would very much appreciate some guidance!<br>

Sorry if this is a bit confusing!<br>

Best regards,<br>

David</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'd get the Canon 17-55 f2.8, or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC or non-VC (depending on how rich you are feeling). These will do the job for you. You may want the Tamron 17-50 VC as it has image stabilization which you may find useful in low light.</p>
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David<br>

If you don't need the f2.8 of the lenses that other people have recommended above, then the Canon EF-S 15-85 does very nicely on a 60D (I have one myself, to use on a 60D). The general view of its image quality is that it is better than the alternatives, e.g. EF-S 17-85, EF-S 18-135, or the kit lens EF-S 18-55.<br>

That said, if you're strapped for cash, the 18-55 kit lens is very cheap and has better IQ than it has any right to. Make sure you get the IS version - there is a non-IS version around which is reckoned to be not as good.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A 5D/5D2/5D3/6D will make your 24-105/4 wider than the 17-40/50/55 on the crop. Tom is correct in his suggestion that a 15-85 is an excellent choice (since your 24-105/4 indicates you have no need for f2.8), and will give you very nearly 24mm FOV (on a FF unit).</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you're shooting from a tripod, you don't need a fast lens. You just need wide. And it sounds as though you're shooting catalogs, in which case you honestly don't need the very sharpest lens in the world. (Small images are very forgiving.)</p>

<p>For about $600 (?), you could buy a used 5D and get rid of that crop factor and then pick up the 17-40 if you need wider. It's a reasonably economical lens. </p>

<p>The crop alternative would be a 10-20(22) lens for the camera you already have.</p>

<p>Be careful of shooting too wide, though, as 3-dimensional objects get stretched in the margins of the frame. The best alternative, IMO, is to find a work area with more space.</p>

<p>Regarding image defects -- The ghosting is not a problem if you don't have strong highlights in the frame. Distortion and vignetting are easily corrected in post and are therefore not particularly significant issues. The 17-40 has excellent coatings and is very tame with regard to flare and ghosting. It doesn't vignette or distort as much as your 24-105 on the wide end, but it still has these defects. Images may still need correction in post.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Distortion, at least at some focal lengths, is pretty much par for the course with a wide or ultrawide zoom lens. I have the 24-105, BTW, and it has noticeable barrel distortion at the wide end. I currently own the Canon 17-55/2.8 that was recommended in a couple of responses, and used to own the 17-40/4 that you mention; both of these also have noticeable barrel distortion at the wide end. If you're shooting something with straight lines, then this could be a problem, though there's no shortage of software that can fix it (including recent versions of DPP).</p>

 

<p>Be careful comparing the 24-105 on your APS-C camera to a 17-40 on a full-frame camera; not only is the 17-40 a wider lens, but the full-frame camera gets a wider view from its larger sensor. Even if you were to trade lenses in that scenario, the full-frame camera would still get a somewhat wider view out of the 24-105 than you would from the 17-40 (which is approximately equivalent to a 27-64). On your camera, the 24-105 is only modestly wide (38mm equivalent). Do you have a feel for how much wider you need to go? Can you get any guidance from the person with the 17-40 as to what focal lengths they typically use for this type of work, and then adjust them by the 1.6x factor to figure out what focal length you'd need to get an equivalent angle of view?</p>

 

<p>All three of the lenses I've mentioned have professional-quality optics for general-purpose use. I don't do much in the way of close-up shooting, so unfortunately I can't comment on whether they have any defects that become apparent up close. There are plenty of lens reviews and tests out there, and I'd take any one of them with a few grains of salt (an entire spoonful if it's just some random user opinion rather than a true test done by someone with experience at testing lenses). Check out multiple reviews and tests of any lens you're considering, and if they largely agree about its strengths and weaknesses, then you're probably getting good information.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For 35mm/"full-frame" bodies, the 24-105mm is as wide as most people used to go. However, it is only a 'normal' to 'telephoto' on an APS-C. Something like one of the ~17-40mm L lenses gets you a little more wide angle. <br>

For wide angle, there are APS-C only lenses that will give you a 'regular' wide angle perspective - the EF-S 15-85mm is the equivalent in APS-C of the 24-105 on the 35mm-sensor, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, and some other longer range zooms. However, Canon has chosen not to designate any of the EF-S lenses as "L", although many claim that the 17-55 would be worthy.</p>

<p>To get really wide, you need either one of the ~12-24mm "full-frame" lenses or the much more satisfactory (on APS-C, that is, IMHO) EF-S 10-22mm (Canon), the APS-C only Sigmas in the 10-20mm, or other similar 'crop' ultrawide lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks to you all for your quick replies!<br>

I had forgotten about the 17-55 efs and think I must have dismissed it when I bought the body due to the price and thought I should be doin the "L" thing<br>

Sarah, I used the link you provided to another person on the forum and only then did I really appreciate the difference in the full frame body, I was advised I didn't need it but I'm pretty sure now I do..I don't tend to use a tripod much as I prefer the freedom of a monopod which allows far more creativity as I work for publishers.<br>

In the old days (350D) I was "kicked head first" into the swimming pool for a promo at GHD the hair products people, being at night I panicked and bought a 50mm 1.4 after a quick debate so I didn't have to use flash and for me it was an expensive night out but the lens saved my life so that's why I like the faster ones. My work now involves dodging stray light from flash heads and various objects most of the time so its a big relief to be strobe free when poss.<br>

Thanks again for all your great advice, I'll have to give some thought to which way to go. The camera body is fairly new and I like the idea of the 17-55 as its would involve less £'s and sounds like the best tool for the cupboard but I only bought the 24-105 a couple of months ago so bit of a dilemma!<br>

Best wishes,<br>

David</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A bit of a difference in focal length at the telephoto end doesn't mean much, but the difference at the wide end between 17mm and 24mm is more significant. Also, to avoid lens swapping all the time, it isn't necessarily 'bad' to have some overlap in range.</p>

<p>All the same, a more 'rationalized' solution giving you the broadest range for your dollar would be to go for the 'ultrawide' +24-105mm. There are 'full-frame' ultrawide lenses, but they are generally more costly. I found the APS-C Sigma 10-20mm (the older one) to be nice, and when I added 'full-frame', I just went out and added a used (discontinued model, and a lot cheaper) Sigma 15-30mm for the latter.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<cite>Also, to avoid lens swapping all the time, it isn't necessarily 'bad' to have some overlap in range.</cite>

 

<p>I have to agree with this. When my two most used lenses on an APS-C body were the 17-40/4 and 28-135/3.5-5.6, it was really frustrating how often I needed to swap them. There are plenty of other reasons why I replaced these with the 17-55/2.8 and 24-105/4, but having overlap from 24-55 sure beats having overlap from 28-40, too: I'm much more likely to have the right focal length already available than I used to be.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For all the Canon zoom lenses, you should be Digital Photo Professional's DLO ("Digital Lens Optimization") module to automatically correct for the geometric distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, etc. at every aperture and every focal length. This will really elevate the quality of your finished product.</p>

<p>For the types of shooting that you describe, I'd sell the 60D and move to the full-frame Canon camera that fits your budget. Your 24-105mm is a stunning tool on any of those bodies.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have used the 16-35 f/2.8 for a number of years and have been very happy with it and have not seen</p>

<p>"the 16-35mm 2.8l (which on paper seems ideal) suffers from ghosting, vignetting and distortion"<br>

<br>

the OP refers to. There is definitely vignetting, as you can see from the attached. But, hopefully, you can see a simple, one-click adjustment in Lightroom improves it significantly (RHS images).<br>

<br>

The Top photo is at 5/5.6 and the bottom at f/2.8.</p><div>00bVAR-528635784.thumb.jpg.62c45deac0476afc65bc3c31f091bf41.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have used the 16-35 f/2.8 for a number of years and have been very happy with it and have not seen</p>

<p>"the 16-35mm 2.8l (which on paper seems ideal) suffers from ghosting, vignetting and distortion"<br>

<br>

the OP refers to. There is definitely vignetting, as you can see from the attached. But, hopefully, you can see a simple, one-click adjustment in Lightroom improves it significantly (RHS images).<br>

<br>

The Top photo is at 5/5.6 and the bottom at f/2.8.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...