XTi Lenses - Thinking ahead to FF

[rixhobbbies]

All,

 

I've learned quite a bit from reading responses to my posts and other on this

site. Everyone here is extremely helpful!

 

As some of you may know, I have an XTi. I have had a chance to test drive a

5D and although my budget doesn't allow for one this year, it is definately in

the cards for me within two years.

 

Having said that, I need to re-evaluate some of my lens choices. I want to

make sure that whatever lenses I end up with for my XTi end up being good

choices for a FF camera.

 

As such, I am considering one of the following choices. I'll need to sell my

existing lenses (17-85is and 70-300is) to make this work, but the focal

lengths offered fall within the range of where I take most of my pictures.

Also, ideally I'd like to wander with a two lens selection (in addition to my

very compact Canon 60 f2.8 macro lens, so three in total) because that's what

fits into my carry bag of choice.

 

So, considering that I will use an XTi for the next couple of years, which

would you recommend?

 

#1) 17-40 L and 24-105 IS L

 

#2) 10-22 EF-S and 24-105

 

I am leaning towards #1, though there is some duplication of focal length. I

really like the L lenses. I especially appreciate the feel of the zoom and

focus rings over the lenses I have now.

 

Obviously with #2, the 10-22 would be sold when I bought the FF camera.

 

I'm having a tough time choosing between these. Any thoughts?

 

(P.S. I would consider adding the 70-200 F4 IS at some point if I found I

wanted more reach than the 24-105, but I have my doubts as my 17-85 fits well

for most of my pictures. I just wish it were sharper at 17mm.)

 

Regards,

 

Rick

[sattler123]

EF-S lenses won't work on a FF camera! The logical choice is #1.

[gdanmitchell]

"#1) 17-40 L and 24-105 IS L"

 

As I think you know, none of the EF-S lenses will work with that future full frame camera -

so you will need to unload the 17-85mm and the 10-22 if you purchase it.

 

Your option #1 is my current favorite and most used pair of lenses on my crop sensor

Canon 8MP body. I frequently go out with just those two lenses. For example, they

comprise my basic backpacking rig.

 

You'll have to decide whether 17mm is sufficiently wide enough for your current use. It is

for me - almost all the time. The 17mm lens will be equivalent to that 10-22 at the wide

end when you put it on a full frame body.

 

I like the overlap between the 17-40 and the 24-105. Each can work as a "normal" lens in

certain circumstances, with the other available for shots beyond that range. (Which is

"normal" sort of depends on what I'm photographing.) The overlap means that I change

lenses much less frequently.

 

The 70-200 is a fine lens as well. I have the non-IS version and I imagine that the 24-105

plus the 17-200 might work as a standard two lens kit in many situations with the full

frame body. The 17-40 will be available for ultra wide at that point.

[jon_austin]

What Dan Mitchell said. I have these three lenses (17-40, 24-105 and 70-200) for use with my 20D, and they're all excellent. A certain amount of overlap is good: cuts down on the lens swaps.

 

Robin Sibson may argue for the 10-22 / 24-105 combo. It all depends on whether you need a FoV wider than 17mm on a crop body (I don't) and how you feel about trying to sell the 10-22 in a couple of years, when you go full frame.

[abqnmusa]

I use both an XTI & 5D.

 

on the 5D

============

17-40 F4L / 24-105 F4L IS / 70-200 F4L IS / 300mm F4L IS

 

same lenses on the XTI

======================

28-65 / 36-168 / 112-320 / 480

 

This combination is working out for me.

[ronaldo_r]

#3) Tokina 12-24 and 24-105 IS L

 

The Tokina is better built than 10-22 AND it will mount on FF body, effectievly becoming a 19-24 zoom (12-19 will vignette). I tried and it works.

[JDMvW]

I'm not clear on why you're selling the 70-300 IS lens? Just for the money? Otherwise, it will work just fine on the 5D regardless of whether it is the old or new one. It's hard to say, of course, and there are those rumors of stupendous new things from Canon this year (2007), but it does look like the APS size sensors will continue to be made --if that is so, then the EF-S lenses should be marketable--right now they certainly fetch close to new prices as used items on-line, so you could have the advantage of the use of these things for a year or two at a modest cost. On the other hand, if Canon goes all full frame, then the EF-S is going to be like the FD market!

[ronaldo_r]

"...if Canon goes all full frame..." in a few years, then who cares, you'll have used your EF-S lens to your advantage, just write it off as an expense. Altenatively, go with semi EF-S lenses that can mount of FF bodies, such as Tokina 12-24 etc

[phoneguy]

#1 all the way. You'll probaly have to consider a longer lens upon the purchase of the 5D, just a guess though.

[joe_robinson2]

Although I mostly don't shoot less than 18-24mm on FF. If you are thinking ahead to FF and want Ultra wide. What is wrong with the Sigma 12-24mm EX DG (For FF), as it is good on FF and the 1.6 crop sensors (19mm equiv.)? Then you would have no need to sell it. It is very good on the 1.6 crop sensors and watch your feet wiiiiide on FF. Not plugging it, just thought I would mention it. It won't take front filters though, uses rear Mt. gellatin filters, but is made for FF.

JoeR

[mars c]

You currently already have a good system IMO,

 

If you wanna go FF , why not save your money for an FF body, Instead of expending it on lens , that would only delay your journey towards FF?

 

... and worry about lens later.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Rick,

 

I have found that the flexibility of quality lenses with larger apertures (f2.8, F2.0, f1.8, f1.4) are well worth the extra money.

 

I'd recommend the Canon 16-35mm f2.8L and the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L.

I know that this pair of lenses are more than what you're currently considering, but it's my opinion that you won't be kicking yourself later because the f4.0 lenses are too slow. Don't underestimate the desirability of an extra stop or more. Keep reading and take you time.

 

The other thing I noticed in your question was that you mentioned that you owned the Canon 60mm f2.8 Macro lens. I assume that this is the Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro lens. If you're concerned about being able to use this macro lens on an XTi and a 5D, then you need to also sell this lens... since it won't fit the 5D. I'd recommend buying the Canon 50mm f2.5 Macro or the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro to replace it. Both are less money than the EF-S 60mm.

 

I hope this helps.

 

//Chuck

[rixhobbbies]

I guess my thinking was that I could use the lenses now with the XTi, but if I saved for a FF camera then the only lens I would have is the 70-300.

 

Some of the points that some of you are making though make sense. I could just wait and see how the market goes, though I am not happy with the 17-85 so I want to at least do something there (which is why I was considering the 17-55). I guess I just figured that for a little more than the 17-55, I could have the 17-40 and the 24-105 (well, maybe more than just a little more, but do-able).

[jim_larson1]

I think you definately have a case of lens envy :)

 

The only *need* you have stated is that your 17-85/EF-S is not great on the wide end.

 

So just replace that *one* lens. The 17-40/4L is just about your only non-EFS wide choice. So make the swap! You will have a gap between 40 and 70. . but that won't hurt so much. If it DOES hurt. . . then consider filling it with the 50/1.8.

 

Also. . .consider the 24-85 to fill the gap. Who says everything must be an "L".

 

And besides. . .what makes you think you need Full Frame? Are you hurting on the wide end? If so. . .the 10-22/EF-S is lots cheaper than a 5D.

[rixhobbbies]

You make a very good point and you're probably right. After seeing the 5D and using the L lenses in the store, they seemed like something to shoot for since they are quite nice. However, for the pics I take, I don't really *need* FF. You may just be the voice of reason, my friend!

 

As another poster put it, I need to take some time and read some more. Its a lot of money to spend and I don't want to make a poor choice, after all.

 

I took my XTi to the camera store with my 17-85 lens today to see if I could make some comparisons. The camera store guy recommended the 17-55 in my situation and he offered to let me take some pics using both my 17-85 and the 17-55. It turns out that what I perceived as soft in the 17-85 is what he said was typical, being good. However, it was obvious to us both that the 17-55 lens was in fact sharper anywhere through 17 to 55 fl. He said that while the 17-85 is good, the 17-55 is excellent. Based on what I saw, I would agree and this is in line with the reviews and feedback I've received. He was out of the 17-40 so I didn't get a chance to try it.

 

So, maybe I should just get the 17-55, sell the 17-85, keep the 60 EF-S 2.8 and the 17-300 IS. If I decide to go full frame, I could always save up. It's either that or go the extra $700 and get the 17-40 and the 24-105. I'll do a bit more research and settle on one of those two options.

 

Thanks for everyone's patience and feedback with this!

 

Rick

[rixhobbbies]

(Woops, I meant 70-300 IS, not 17-300. That would be an interesting lens though!)

[robin_sibson1]

Robin Sibson might indeed argue for the 10~22 plus 24~105 combination if he could get a word in edgeways on a popular thread, but that's not a dogmatic position, it's because I don't find 17mm wide enough on 1.6-factor. Your mileage may vary. I have the 17~40 as well, and guess what? Last weekend I took all three of them out to photograph our local floods in the Severn Valley, decided to give the 17~40 a run for its money, and almost immediately changed to the 10~22. But then again, I've always said that the changeover at 22/24mm is far from ideal on 1.6-factor, and it's easy to live without IS up to 40mm, even if it can be useful. The 'tough' decision is whether you want to go wider than 17mm while you're still using 1.6-factor - bear in mind that if the answer is 'no' you wont need the 17~40 on FF either!

[colin carron]

Rick, I was in your position with a 300D which I sold and then bought a 5D. As I like wide angle shots I had to have the 10-22. I used this lens with great pleasure while I had the 300D then sold it at the same time and bought the 17-40 instead to go with the 5D. The sale price of the secondhand lenses on ebay was pretty good (look it up) making the cost of ownership fairly low. So my recommendation is you buy whatever lenses suit your shooting style and then sell them where necesaaty when you upgrade.

[mark u]

The 60mm EF-S macro can be used with a full frame body for macro work by mounting it via a Canon EF II extension tube. Of course, you will no longer have infinity focus, but even the 12mm extension tube is sufficient to give a larger image circle that will avoid vignetting.

[yakim_peled1]

>> The 60mm EF-S macro can be used with a full frame body for macro work by mounting it via a Canon EF II extension tube. Of course, you will no longer have infinity focus, but even the 12mm extension tube is sufficient to give a larger image circle that will avoid vignetting.

 

Have you tried it? If so, can you please post a picture? How is the sharpness in the edges?

 

>> So, maybe I should just get the 17-55, sell the 17-85, keep the 60 EF-S 2.8 and the 17-300 IS. If I decide to go full frame, I could always save up. It's either that or go the extra $700 and get the 17-40 and the 24-105. I'll do a bit more research and settle on one of those two options.

 

Is 17mm wide enough for you? If so, I'd personally would rather have the 17-55/2.8 IS even though it's an EF-S lens.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[mark u]

Using the 60mm EF-S on a full frame body was discussed in this thread which has links to a thread on FM which has images from use on a 5D and film :

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FVZG

 

Film images:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/360672/1

 

(Digital results later in the thread)

 

Canon's Chuck Westfall also confirmed the useability with tubes in a thread at the now defunct Robgalbraith forums.

[jim_larson1]

woah. Dude. . .the EF-S lenses in general may be ok. . .but the 17-55/2.8-IS is definataly pushing the cost/value edge. Isn't that lens. . .like. . .. over $1000 and not even "L" construction?

 

As Robin mentioned. . . .image stabilization is not that critical for a 17-55 lens. I mean. . .you can hand hold the lens without image stabilization at 1/60th. What you are really paying for in this lens is the F2.8 aperture. How important is that to you?

 

The 17-40/4L will not disappoint. While it lacks IS. . .the cost is relatively low. Image quality supurb.

[rixhobbbies]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If I am going to pay premium prices for a lens, I'd want it to be L class. But, in the end, it's the quality of the pictures that matter.

 

I do take about 25% of my pictures under indoor incandecent lighting but when I do, I almost always use my external flash. I know when I'm going to be doing this and I setup accordingly. However, I can also appreciate that some photos could look better using available lighting.

 

Whether I go FF in the future or not, it's obvious that I should select my lens options that will best suit my needs now. Who knows, my needs (and budget) might change in the future.

 

I never thought that lens decisions would be so tough!

 

Rick

[yakim_peled1]

Hi Mark,

 

Fascinating thread. I am only sorry that - for some obscure reason - I can not see the attached pictures... :-(

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.