Dumb (kind of) question) - and opinions on lenses

[thesaltypeanut]

<p>Greetings!</p>

<p>I currently own the Canon T1i - I've been a second shooter to two photographers for years and have been slowly making the transition to buying more professional equipment as I branch out on my own. I usually have the luxury using the photographer's 5D when we are out. </p>

<p>I bought the Canon T1i for myself about a year ago and do wish I would have gotten a higher quality body. With this being said, I've used the T1i as a second photographer and the images have been great - no complaints from the photographer.</p>

<p>I've been asked to shoot 3 smaller weddings this summer - all pretty much the same: outdoor, 30-40 guest, BBQ reception. I'm at the point where I can start upgrading. Instead of borrowing my friend's lenses, I'm ready to make my first big boy lens purchase. My ultimate short/mid range goal is to purchase my own 5d and use my T1i as a backup body. Thoughts? I do love the T1i... Obviously the ultimate goal would be to have another full frame as the backup but that's just not going to happen right now.</p>

<p>I'm looking at either the Canon 17-55 or the 24-70. I've been doing quite a bit of research and think I pretty much have it narrowed down. My question is would both of these lenses work on both the T1i and a full frame when I decide to upgrade? I'm looking at purchasing a full frame within a year or two. Until then, I'm stuck with the T1i as a body.</p>

<p>Any thoughts would be appreciated :) Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Both are excellent lenses. You might find the 24-70 is not quite wide enough on the T1i. Since you are planning on keeping the T1i, I'd probably opt for the 17-55 for now.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>The Canon 17-55mm will not work on full frame (or at least, not designed to work). The 24-70mm will work on both cropped sensor and full frame.</p>

<p>My suggestion is to get the 17-55mm or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for now, to have access to a nice range of focal lengths. You can always sell it later when you upgrade, or keep it to 'go' with the Rebel if you keep it. A 24-70mm on the Rebel is not a great range for an all purpose 'wedding lens'.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>The EF-s 17-55 will be useless on a 5D because it won't mount.</p>

<p>However it will make your T1i sing and dance untill you actually get that 5D.</p>

<p>It's resale value is pretty impressive too.</p>

<p>Plus some photographers keep their crop camera's because of that lens...</p>

<p>Personally I've no experience with it so listen to others as well.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>EF-S lenses like the 17-55 will not work on a full frame (or APS-H like the 1DIV) body. I beleive that the reason Canon made it impossible to mount EF-S lenses on full frame bodies is because the rear lens tubes can actually hit the mirror in a full frame body when it flips up. <br>

The 24-70 works fine on a APS-C body but it might be rather unbalanced on a small body like the Rebel (it is fine on the 7D). As others have said you may find it a bit wide - I know that I do not use mine a lot on my 7D - preferring the 16-35 II.<br>

If you plan to go full frame I can offer some suggestions - if you need the F2.8 lens for low light and for a shallow Depth of field then you might want to consider a prime - either the 50 f1.8, 50 F1.4 or 85 f1.8 together with a zoom like the 17-40 f4L. A combination like this will give you a low light capability and a wide angle zoom for outdoor use.</p>

[thesaltypeanut]

<p>Wow, thanks for all of the great suggestions and comments - I really appreciate it. I should have noted what I do already have:<br>

Canon 50mm f1.8 prime<br>

Canon 18-55mm kit lens<br>

Canon 55-250mm<br>

Speedlite 580ex II</p>

<p>I more than likely will go ahead with the 17-55... although the Tamron 17-50/2.8 has a $70 rebate which will bring it down quite substantially. Ahhh decisions decisions!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I'm looking at either the Canon 17-55 or the 24-70. I've been doing quite a bit of research and think I pretty much have it narrowed down. My question is would both of these lenses work on both the T1i and a full frame when I decide to upgrade?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both are excellent lenses. I'd probably get the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for use on a cropped sensor body, but it won't work on full frame.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>The 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens and as stated will work well with your rebel. Really, if you already like the rebel for this type of work, there will be no real good reason to replace it. Like Matthijs pointed out, I also got that lens and use it with my 40D because Canon does not make any other lens in that focal length range with f 2.8 AND IS. It is great for low light reception halls.</p>

<p>You also said you plan to at some point to have only full frame bodies. Peronally, I find it great to have both full frame and a crop body. I shoot with a 5D and 40D with the 24-105 f4 IS, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 70-200 f2.8IS, 85 f1.8, and the 50 f1.8. With the two bodies, that takes me from 24mm to effectively 320mm. All f2.8 and faster.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[tdigi]

<p>You may want to consider the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as a cheaper alternative its very good and fits nicely on a rebel. All the high end canon zooms are great. 17-55, 24-70 but they are bigger and more expensive. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>IMO it is important to understand two points, the first is about camera and lens MOUNTS (or bayonet couplings), there are two types of LENS MOUNTS in the EOS system, they are: “EF” and “EF-S”</p>

<p>1. None of the EF-S lenses, will MOUNT on a 5D, because <strong><em>the 5D is an “EF ONLY” mount Camera.</em></strong><br />(However for the very keen, any EF-S mount lens, can have a little surgery to allow the lens’s bayonet to mount to a non EF-S mount Camera, but there are dangers in doing that . . .)</p>

<p>The second point is about “Short Back Focus” (what the “S” stands for in “EF-S”)</p>

<p>2. EF-S lenses (in addition to having a DIFFERNT MOUNT to EF lenses) also have a “Short Back Focus” - which you can look up if you wish, but the nitty-gritty in simple terms is that the back bit of the lens can stick into the camera (more than with an EF lens).</p>

<p>This is very important to acknowledge, especially with a zoom EF-S lens, because if you decide to make the surgery, so the EF-S lens WILL mount on an “EF ONLY” camera (like the 5D), then as the back bit of the zoom lens winds toward the camera (usually at the Wide Angle FLs), it will end up will crashing into the Camera’s Mirror and making a nice noise and not a very nice exposure.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Three points regarding the LENS MOUNTS of EOS cameras:</p>

<p>Those Cameras which will accept EF-S mounts have a White Square signifying the alignment of lens and camera. There is also a WHITE SQUARE on all EF-S lenses.</p>

<p>Those Cameras which accept ONLY EF Mount Lenses, have a Red Dot to signify the alignment point. There is also a Red Dot on all EF lenses</p>

<p>Importantly, all <strong><em>EF-S mount</em></strong> cameras (to date) also accept <strong><em>EF mount</em></strong> lenses and therefore these Cameras also have a RED DOT as well as the WHITE SQUARE.</p>

<p>Below is a 400D and note there are two alignment points signifying that the 400D accepts both EF-S and EF mount lenses; but on the 5D there is only the Red Dot, signifying it only accepts EF mount lenses.</p>

<p>Also there is an EF-S 18 to 55 zoom and the EF35/2.</p>

<p>Note on the zoom, beyond the lens’s bayonet mount, there is a light grey surround which shrouds the last small element of the zoom. The zoom is set at its maximum wide FL = 18mm.<br />If the grey shroud is removed, that last lens element will be “inside” the camera and the mirror (on the 5D) will crash into that last lens element, when it attempts to flip up.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>If you are still reading then there are other issues which are confused by not adhering to these little technical bits in conversations and descriptions, my pet one is that many websites refer to “EF-S Lenses" as “Digital Lenses" or "for digital cameras", or similar . . . which leads folk to believe they “fit” on all EOS digital cameras – which is not true.</p>

<p>Further sometimes the EF-S lenses are referred to as “Crop Lenses”, or similar which leads folk to believe that these EF-S lenses fit on all the EOS “Crop Cameras” which is also NOT correct: as EF-S lenses will NOT mount on EOS APS-H format cameras (commonly refried to as “1.3 crop”). (mentioned above by Philip Wilson)</p>

<p>And further some commentary refer to EF-S lenses as “1.6 crop lenses” which tends to imply that EF-S lenses will mount onto all Canon APS-C Format cameras, (commonly referred to as “1.6 crop cameras"), and this is incorrect information, also.</p>

<p>***<br /><br />And if you are still reading: a lens like the Tamron 17 to 50/f2.8, has an EF mount and therefore will MOUNT on the 5D, but that lens has an APS-C Format IMAGE CIRCLE, (a smaller image circle) and therefore if it is used on the 5D, there will be vignetting.</p>

<p>This point of differentiation of LENS MOUNT is important to understand and is a practical point in the circumstance of a Wedding, if there is a failure of equipment, for example, the Tamron can be used on the 5D, (albeit with vignetting – but you will get an image) . . . but on the other hand, the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8IS, cannot mount without surgery to the lens and if you do that surgery and subsequently mount the lens on the 5D, you run the risk of stuffing the 5D’s mirror.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Which brings me to my suggestion for your consideration:</p>

<p>If you intend to keep a dual format system, then you might want to look at the EF 16 to 35 or the EF17 to 40 as both of these are wide (a normal working lens) on your 500D and both will also mount on the 5D.</p>

<p>The other consideration is that with respect to the Canon F/2.8 range of Zoom lenses (16-35; 24-70; 70 200) – the 24 to 70 becomes basically superfluous in respect of Focal Length Coverage, if you have a Dual Format Kit, such as a 500D and 5D.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>The EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM is an amazing lens and the only reason I, (we) did not buy this lens for use with our 30D’s, in our Wedding Kits, was that we ran a 30D / 5D camera combination.</p>

<p>If I used only APS-C bodies I would have no hesitation in acquiring an EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 and using it as my main working zoom.</p>

<p>IMO the 24 to 70 is too long (at 24mm) to be a useful Main Working Zoom in a Wedding Kit if it is to be used on an APS-C Format Camera.</p>

<p>WW</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><em>“with a 5D and 40D with the 24-105 f4 IS, 17-55 f2.8 IS, 70-200 f2.8IS, 85 f1.8, and the 50 f1.8. With the two bodies, that takes me from <strong>24mm to effectively 320mm. All f2.8 and faster.”</strong></em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Gidday Jason:</p>

<p>I am not randomly picking nits with you nor picking on your Wedding Kit.</p>

<p>But I am passionate about designing camera kits and the like and I have been paid a bit of money to do just that for a few studios . . .</p>

<p>With those cameras and those lenses you do NOT get equivalent FoV coverage from “<strong><em>24 to 320 all at F/2.8 and faster”</em></strong>.</p>

<p>You have about (equivalent) <strong><em>28F/2.8 (or 27mm)</em></strong> to 88F/2.8 with the 17 to 55 mounted on the 40D.<br>

You get 24 to 168 <strong><em>all at F/4</em></strong> with your 24 to 105, using both cameras.<br>

You get 70 to 320 all at F/2.8 with your 70 to 200, using both cameras.<br>

And the four <strong><em>“faster than F/2.8” </em></strong>you have are: 50F/1.8 and 80/1.8 and 85F/1.8 and 136F/1.8.<br>

Which is, IMO <strong><em>a limited spread being</em></strong> effectively only three FL’s being 50, 85 and 135 – none of which are “wide” and those three FL’s are only a small part of the “effective 24 to 320” range you have.<br>

A System Redundancy Point about the<em> “effective range” </em>and at<em> “F/2.8 or faster”</em> is that if <strong><em>EITHER </em></strong>the 40D <strong><em>OR</em></strong> the 17 to 55 becomes a U/S item, then there is only 24 to 70 <strong><em>at F/4 </em></strong>(and there is 50/1.8).<br>

These points might or might not be an issue for particular Photographers – but they are relevant IF one is shooting: In Tight Environs; Larger Wedding Parties, with a No Flash Rule – as one example.<br>

Noted there is the advantage of IS which is applicable for “still” Subjects.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>I am not making comment on the worth of this kit nor suggesting that it does not suit your style and your work – I am merely pointing out, it does not delivery, what you stated.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Ok William...thanks...I think. :o)</p>

<p>You are right, at f 2.8 the range is 28 to 320mm. Not 24 to 320mm. My bad. <br>

Redundancy is on purpose. The 24 (or 28) to about 90mm is my most important range. The 5D with the 24-105 and the 40D with 17-55 both cover that rather well. Its true that if the 40D went down, I would be limited to f4 at that point. However, I have used that lens and camera combo enough to know that I can make it work just fine in a pinch. It used to be all I had.</p>

<p>If money had not been an issue and I could have hired someone like you, I am sure my kit would have turn out rather different. For one, I would truely love to have the 24-70 f2.8 instead of the 24-105. But at the time I was to hung up on the importance of IS...so there ya go.</p>

<p>Truth be known, I did not start out building a wedding kit. I got the 24-105 because I wanted somthing better than what I had. Later on I saw the need for f2.8 but I also wanted IS(I was still hung up on that). So I got the 17-55.</p>

<p>Also I normally only use the primes for portraits (well the 85mm, the 50 is just there if I need it. I have used it when no flash was allowed). So I never intended for them to cover a large range. I do have a 15mm fisheye, but have yet to need it. </p>

<p>I never once intended to claim it was the ultimate kit, nor did I claim it to handle any and all situations.</p>

<p>All I really wanted to point out (and I failed completely it would seem) was to say that by haveing two different format bodies, it changes the effective range of your lens kit. Granted it would be really sweet if the 17-55 would work with out issue on the 5D. </p>

<p>Bottom line for me was that I was limited by the f4 of the 24-105 and the 24-70 did not have IS. The 17-55 on the 40D fit the bill, and it gave me effectively up to 320mm with the 70-200.</p>

<p>So yes, if I were building a wedding kit from scratch (like the OP) it would turn out rather different from what I currently have.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[prasad_apte]

<p>you have two ways, IMHO<br />1. Just wait with your kit lens (if you can for right now) and save for the big guy - 5D II<br />2. if you are desparate to get good lens, buy Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for now which let you shoot in low light and give you better quality. By buying Tamron you will save some money which I think you should, because spending for canon 17-55 when you are going to upgrade for full frame is not good idea. I think. You can use saved money for 5D II and better lenses.<br />24-70 is undoubtedly great lens but not right now for you as you are using crop body. So I will say - get a Tamron now, save money, get a 5DII and 24-70 whenever you can.<br />happy shooting prasad</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Jason: Thank you for replying, I hoped you would.</p>

<p><strong><em>"...thanks...I think. :o)"</em></strong></p>

<p>My comment was sincerely meant in that spirit, yes. I pondered a while before writing and decided so to do because of your positive spirit and the help you have provided in other of your posts.</p>

<p>“<strong><em>at f 2.8 the range is 28 to 320mm. Not 24 to 320mm”.<br /><br /></em></strong>Let me explain further it was not the point of being nit picking about those 4 mm from 24 to 28: it is the fact that those 4mm can be quite important in some areas and for some Wedding Photographers – small Churches or Chapels, in Winter – and a No Flash Rule can be quite painful, not sure if any areas in your neck of the woods have traditional smaller Churches, sandstone small windows and strict “No Flash” Vicars . . . might not even apply to you . . . but this example and other examples like it might be important to others.</p>

<p><br /><strong><em>“The 24 (or 28) to about 90mm is my most important range. The 5D with the 24-105 and the 40D with 17-55 both cover that rather well.” </em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

Yes. I was on to that, And also the fact that both lenses are IS. I have ponder that thought often (the value of IS). The 24 to 105 was the most problematic lens decision for me when we were building the studio – we did not buy it – I know many who use it (on a 5D) as the main working zoom.</p>

<p>I understand the fact that using the 24 to 105 enough, one can use it well. If that was all you had originally then I am convinced you know the limits of the lens and your limits using it (not that I need to be convinced, but I mean that nicely – I believe that know ALL the limits is very important – <strong><em>"knowing limits"</em></strong> is another topic I get very passionate about . . .)</p>

<p>I am not sure that you needed to hire someone like me . . . you seem to have it all sorted and money is always and issue and most people are never in a position to build a kit from scratch WITH the experience of having built many kits and several years of doing Weddings and Events My situation was that the studio was cutting over from Film to Digital, at the time we employed several Photographers and we had the Capital (money) to buy what ended up being four “Wedding Kits”. We bit the bullet and changed Camera Manufacturers and bought all Canon Digital gear.</p>

<p>It is interesting that you mention that you would like the 24 to 70 . . . consider this fact that is relevant to the trilogy of Canon F/2.8 zooms: You have a 40D and a 5D and you also have the 70 to 200/2.8 AND you have the 5 0/1.8. If you purchase the 16 to 35/2.8, the 24 to 70/2.8 is superfluous in terms of effective FoV. . . the TWO zooms (16 to 35 and 70 to 200) using TWO cameras (APS-C and 135format) gives you effective 16 to 46/2.8 and 70 to 320/2.8 . . . the 50/1.8 fills the small gap . . . so working the 16 to 35 as the main zoom (on the 40D) you have the 50mm on the 5D at the Brides home (for example) . . . And at the Church and outside you swing the 70 to 200 onto the 5D and you have effective one camera working 25 to 46/2.8 and the other 70 to 200/2.8, you also have the 50 on the 40D for the equivalent of the 80/1.8 IF you need F/1.8 at 80mm . . . (just thinking out aloud).</p>

<p>I am very aware that not having a main zoom which “suits” the camera (like buying a 5D without the 24 70 – or buying a 40D without a 17 to 55) is counter-intuitive to many Photographers and many think the idea is ratty – but that is the exact principle we ended up deciding – no kit has the 24 to 70 and I don’t own one either – my lateral ideas do not suit all, I know that.</p>

<p>I think that many kits are built as a result of wanting better than what one has – and that is good - but it can also be the downfall of the end result because it each purchase is always “an addition to” and at no stage in the planning is a big sheet of white paper taken out and one sits down to define the “kit I want” and then build it from scratch</p>

<p>In closing there is absolutely no need to defend your kit or defend your decisions in any manner.</p>

<p>I do believe that discussing the reasons why you (anyone) bought items and how those items fit together to make a kit and how it all works is good: that discussion not only can uncover strengths and weaknesses for the operator, but also highlights strengths and weaknesses in those tools as applied to the way other would use them - - - that is what a forum is for - to <strong><em>discuss</em></strong> these matters.</p>

<p>If I had have had access to forum like Photonet thirty years ago, I would not have made as many purchasing errors.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[Brad_]

I would get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for now. I have one and it's a superb portrait lens on my crop cam. Much smaller, lighter

and less $$$ than the Canon 17-55.

 

And then when you get get a FF cam, get the lens that makes sense for what you're doing at the time. I have a 24-70 f/2.8 for my FF cam and am not exactly thrilled with it. Though I know many people love it.

[thesaltypeanut]

<p>Wow, thanks again for all of the detailed replies. William, you could never write too much, I soak up new information like a sponge :) </p>

<p>I actually went down to the Camera Company and they let me try out a few of the lenses and I'm sold on the Tamron 17-50/2.8. The guys down at the shop raved about it as well. I actually have a day-after-shoot today that I'll be able to bust it out on. </p>

<p>Once again, thank you for your quick replies - your thoughts and suggestions mean a LOT to me! </p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I understand that both models of the Tamron 17 to 50/2.8 are very nice lenses, though I have not used either myself; I trust the opinion of a good friend and very experience Wedding Professional who uses the older version of that lens lens.<br />Also (I assume) you are in the USA and the "Used Market", in many areas there allows you to sell that lens later, (should you later decide to) - so I am sure you will get value for money from that lens whatever you decide down the track . . . I think that is good thinking.<br />Also I understand the Tamron Lenses have a 6 year USA warrantee which is also a very large plus.</p>

<p>Which one are you getting . . .<br />SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF)<br />or<br />AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical<br /><br /></p>

<p>Enjoy ></p>

<p>WW</p>

[thesaltypeanut]

<p>Yup, USA... I did just notice the 6 year warranty. </p>

<p>Actually, I just got back from the store! I did go with the SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD Aspherical (IF). </p>

<p>This is similar to what I am feeling like right now: <br /><a href="

<p>:)</p>

[William Michael]

<p>HA!<br /><br />Before I opened the "you tube" link, I had a bet with myself that it was kids opening Christmas presents –<br /><br /><strong><em>Get off the internet and get out shooting . . . </em></strong><br /><br />YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! <br /><br />Have fun.<br /><br />Best to you.<br /><br />William</p>