How to Judge What Lens to Buy Next Based On My Old G5

[carmen_m]

I know people are advised to use the kit lens first in order to figure out what

lens they really need.

 

I take lots of pictures when traveling, cityscapes, landscapes, etc and I won't

do much of that in the next 6 months or so. I have done it in the past few years

and my workhorse has been a Canon G5. I am preparing and learning for a 5-week

photo trip to Scotland next year and I can't afford to use THAT as a learning trip.

 

I was wondering, based on the pictures I took with the G5 can I figure out what

sort of lens to buy next for my 350D?

 

The shooting style and composition of pictures won't change dramatically so I

was wondering if looking at the focal length used to take those pictures (I have

thousands) is helpful. At the moment I feel I'll need significantly more zoom

but maybe the pictures will tell me something else.

 

The G5 has 35-140 mm according to dpreview. I tried looking in Zoom Browser at

the shooting info of pics taken with it and here's what it says

Lens: 7.2-28.8mm

Focal lengh: 14.4mm (one example).

 

I'm totally confused. What can I make out of this? Is this comparison even

relevant? Any tips are greatly appreciated.

[john_macpherson]

The lens on your G5 is - effectively - the same length as a 35-140. What causes the confusion is that the sensor in the G5 is a lot smaller than a normal 350D or EOS1/D/Ds sensor, so the lens has to be correspondingly shorter too. So although it says 7.2 - 28.8mm it actually gives the effective coverage of the 35-140.

 

So - I would suggest the ideal lens that is useful for you - good quality, flexible and not expensive - is the Canon 17-85 IS lens. It has image stabilising and covers the effective range from 28mm upwards.

 

Your 350D has a slightly smaller sensor than a full-frame camera (but much larger than a G5!) so that makes the effective focal length of this lens something in the region of 28mm to 136mm. Ideal for what you need.

[mark u]

Multiply the G5's reported focal length by 3 to get close to the equivalent on a 350D. The equivalence isn't exact, because the G5 uses a 4:3 aspect ratio, whereas the 350D uses 3:2, so the 350D will give slightly wider but slightly less tall images.

 

Incidentally, for Scotland, whether it is views of Scottish lochs and Highland mountains or castle interiors I think you will appreciate having a somewhat wider angle of view than your G5 offers. You may also want to bear in mind that many DSLR lenses don't have the macro capability of your G5: you'd need about 1:2.4 magnification to match it on a 350D.

[carmen_m]

Thank you John for your response. The trouble is even the 4x my G5 seemed too short. I had a teleconvertor to increase zoom at 7x and that worked well when there was enough light and no subject movement at the tele end.

 

I am considering the 28-105 (not the L version, can't afford that just yet) or the 28-135 but I'm not sure which to get.

 

I'd like to find a way to compare the focal length of the G5 with a lens for my 350D - to see what zoom range I used most and to figure out whether it's worth spending more on extra mm.

 

Would it be safe to say, based on your comments, that the G5 coverage at 14.4mm is the same as 57.6mm on the 350D?

 

Thanks

[carmen_m]

I must have crossed replies with MarkU. So I'll multiply it by 3.

 

MarkU, yes, a wide angle is nice but so is a zoom for castles, lonely pine trees, boats, etc. I don't expect to shoot wildlife though. Decisions, decisions.... I do have the kit lens as well but from what I understand at 18-20mm it's soft on the edges. What other lens are there?

[robin_sibson1]

Your previous post reveals that you have the kit lens and the 50/1.4.

What you need for Scotland depends on what you propose to do during your five weeks. There is quite a lot of wildlife to be seen in Scotland, but you will be lucky to see anything at other than pretty long range, and a half-hearted attempt at setting yourself up for that sort of photography would be a waste of time - but do take a pair of binoculars. Scotland has enchanting scenery, and there may even be a couple of days in your five weeks when the sun shines on it. You might want a lens wider than 17mm to capture some of the more panoramic views.

 

Secondly, there are fascinating, if sometimes rather dour, cities to explore. Edinburgh is the star, without question, but Glasgow also has its merits, and some of the smaller places, and the little west coast towns like Oban and Fort William, have great charm. Here again, 17mm may not be quite wide enough for everything you want to photograph, but it will do reasonably well.

 

Then there are galleries, museums, castles, and so on. Restrictions on flash and tripods are likely in most interiors, but in many places you can take photographs hand-held without flash. A reasonably fast fairly wide lens will be needed.

 

There are lots of events, especially at the time of the Edinburgh Festival, and if you have the chance, go to a highland games.

 

It is certainly correct that the 17~85 will give you approximately the same angle-of-view range as your G5, but significantly more at the wide end - even a fraction more than your kit lens. It is generally regarded as a better lens than the kit lens, has a much bigger zoom range at the long end, and IS. Not a bad choice in my view, but rather slow, even allowing for the good high-ISO performance of the 350D. It would replace rather than supplement the kit lens.

 

Alternative set-ups start to get you into serious money and more weight with the need to carry several, heavier, lenses. For example, you could consider the 17~55/2.8IS - similar zoom range to the kit lens, but in a different league in all other respects, and just about the ideal walk-around lens in a country not noted for the dazzling brilliance of the light. At the long end, the 70~200/4L IS would partner it well, at no more than reasonable weight and bulk, and would be as long as you are likely to need for anything but wildlife. My own usual walk-around setup is the 10~22 and 24~105, which gives seriously good wide-angle coverage, but a maximum aperture of f/4 rather than f/2.8 in the standard range.

[robin_sibson1]

Several replies in quick succession while I was writing mine! So I'll just add that if you feel limited at the long end of the zoom range and are also constrained for price, the 28~135IS would be a good choice to supplement your kit lens - much preferable to the 28~105, even in its good (f/3.5~f/4.5 USM) version. My wife uses the 28~135 a lot on her 20D. But it has no wide-angle coverage at all on a 1.6-factor body, and you will certainly want that in Scotland, which will mean hanging on to your kit lens until you can afford something better.

[ralph_jensen]

The multiplier from your G5 to full-frame is about 5x and about 3x to the 350D. If your lens is a 7-28mm and it's equivalent (roughly, although with different aspect ratio) to a 35-140 on a "full-frame" SLR, then you can easily do the math in steps based on your Zoom Browser readings:

 

7mm on G5 = 35mm lens on full-frame = 22mm lens on 350D

 

14mm on G5 = 70mm lens on full-frame = 44mm lens on 350D

 

21mm on G5 = 105mm lens on full-frame = 66mm lens on 350D

 

28mm on G5 = 140mm lens on full-frame = 88mm lens on 350D

 

(350D equivalents derived by dividing full-frame numbers by 1.6, but you'd get roughly the same numbers if multiplying G5 focal lengths by 3.)

 

Lots of good advice here, esp. from Robin re: specific locations.

 

If you already have the 18-55 (as you say) -- a lens that's strongest at the 18mm end and weakest at the 55mm end -- like Robin, I'd recommend the 28-135, which is a very good lens on crop cameras. When used on a 350D, the 28-135 would be equal to using a 45-216 on a full-frame camera (and the 28-135 would be equivalent, if not exactly equal, to 9-48 on your G5, which has a 7-28 lens).

[carmen_m]

Thank you all for your help. Things are getting a little clearer now.

 

Robin, thanks for your tips on Scotland. I should have mentioned that I know Scotland very well having spent 4 touristy summers there and traveled all over the place from the Borders to Wester Ross and Skye. I know Edinburgh like the back of my hand in terms of best photo spots, time of day etc. I want to go back with a better camera and take much better pictures. This is why I wanted to compare the G5 pics in term of focal length. I already know what I want to take :)

 

My interest is in landscapes and cityscapes, less in wildlife although stray sheep nearly falling over the cliffs of Skye or sheep chased by a dog on a Highland road does make for interesting photography :).

 

I'm pretty sure I can't afford a 10-22mm or the 17-40mm JUST for the sake of a wider angle zoom which makes the available options quite limited.

[carmen_m]

Thought I'd be clearer and say that while I know what I want to shoot, there's always room for improvement/experimenting but my budget, while not incredibly tight, is limited. Wide angle would be nice :)

[mark u]

Since you are working to a budget that won't allow you to get Robin's excellent choices and you seem set on having more telephoto range I'll have a stab at some alternative recommendations. Your 1.75x TCON on the G5 gives you about the same view as a 150mm lens on your 350D.

 

I do think you ought to improve on the kit lens. You can't zoom out with your feet in open landscapes, or in narrow streets, so the wider angle really is important. Ideally, you need something that is both optically better and faster - with IS would be an added bonus, but the 17-55 IS is ruled out on cost grounds, so if you can stretch to it, I'd pick the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, or failing that the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5, which is optically on a par with the 17-85, but benefits from faster apertures.

 

So far as something longer is concerned, perhaps the ideal would be the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, but again this is beyond your budget. So instead, go for the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO DG (it's important that you go for the APO DG version). That will give you twice the reach of your G5 plus TCON, and is the next best choice.

[chrisjb]

Hi, just another option, I`ve used the 28 135 for years, its a great lens but when short I use a Tamron x1.4 TC with it which works well, 135x1.6x1.4=. I think that would cut down some space in the kitbag.

[t_n1]

My first digital camera was the Canon G5. While playing with that camera for a year or two, I was shooting with a film camera Canon EOS 5 at the same time. Actually I was using the Canon EOS 5 for several years before buying the G5.

 

I progressively migrated through several different cameras, including Canon 10D, 20D, 1DmkII, and 5D + XTi. Each had its specific purpose.

 

Based on my experience with all these cameras, especially since I started with a G5 like you, I would not get the Canon 28-105mm, Canon 17-85mm, or Canon 28-135mm. I say this because you've enjoyed using the fast lens on your G5 (f2.0-f3.0). The three lenses I've mentioned are much slower. Also you will find that the wide end of the zoom lens is extremely limited on two of the lenses (28-105, 28-135).

 

I still have the 28-105mm (and I use it on my 5D when I want a small setup). It's not a bad lens, but optically it's a little lacking. I would suggest you pick up two lenses for your XTi, the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (very sharp) and the Canon 70-200mm 4L IS (also very sharp). If you cannot afford both lenses, then perhaps you can get the non-IS version.

 

You will be very happy with those two lenses, along with your 50mm 1.4 for traveling.

[carmen_m]

Looks like I don't have a choice but eventually buy two lenses - one for the wide angle one for the telephoto. Since I can't afford them at the moment, both will have to wait.

 

For the wide-angle I might opt for the 10-22mm and the 70-200mm for the tele (IF I can manage to save enough in a year's time for both of them).

 

This just occured to me but I'm not sure if it would work. Would it be possible to obtain a similar effect to a wide-angle lens by stitching up 4 frames taken with a 50mm prime lens? This could work for open landscapes but what would happen to shots where there's something interesting in the foreground (I know wide-angle emphasize the foreground).

 

It would sure be a very nice temporary solution until I can afford to buy another lens! I'd have to learn how this technique works and I'd also need a sturdy tripod (not the flimsy one I have - can anyone recommend a sturdy but light tripod - being a girl I don't fancy bulky ones).

 

Thanks!

 

PS: this forum is great, I'm learning so much!

[t_n1]

It would be difficult, but not impossible to stitch images from 50mm lens. However you have to remember that on the Canon XT (350), the sensor is 1.6x. This means that your 50mm is behaving like an 80mm lens, which is closer to a short tele. I would rather stitch images from the Tamron 17-50mm lens.

[carmen_m]

I know that which is why this would probably only work with open landscapes.

[chrisjb]

It is possible, this is one I tried using an A640 10m P&S hand held, elbows on a wall, at just on 40mm (35mm equiv) 4 images stiched with canon`s `photostitch` it can be one way to increase detail. a pano head is uaually a better option.

[t_n1]

<p><i>This just occured to me but I'm not sure if it would work. Would it be possible to obtain a similar effect to a wide-angle lens by stitching up 4 frames taken with a 50mm prime lens? This could work for open landscapes but what would happen to shots where there's something interesting in the foreground (I know wide-angle emphasize the foreground).</i></p>

<p>I was simply answering your question. If you need foreground material in your stitching, I would recommend shooting two rows. In other words I'd shoot 8 shots total, four on top and four on bottom, then merge in panorama factory (I've had great success with that program).</p>

[mark u]

If you really want to shoot panoramas, you'll need a reasonably good tripod and a panoramic head - at least a Panosaurus.

 

http://www.panoguide.com/howto/

 

You don't need all the gear which you'd have to carry (and software to buy) if you can get the image with a wider angle lens. Panoramic shooting is an artform of itself, and requires quite a bit of effort to do well.