Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.

[jon_charron]

I'm going to a full frame camera and starting over with glass after a theft.  I do photos and video, so the 17-55 2.8 IS has been my most widely used lens (with my former 7D body).  Photography wise, I have used it extensively for event photography.  For instance, in clubs and low light events like wedding dances, I use second curtain sync flash at 2.8 and shutter speeds as low as 1.5-0.5 second range.

The 2.8 and the IS mode are equally important in this case, and have allowed me to do some great shots I couldn't really duplicate easily with any other full frame combo I know of.  Since I sometimes zoom or twist the camera while the shutter is open, the zoom is also important, so one of the new medium primes with IS is also out. 

I want to go full frame, but I feel like without a 2.8 zoom in this range with IS, that matches the image quality of the 17-55, I will miss a ton of great shots I'm kind of known for.  Any advice here?

Here are some sample images with the combo I had before:











I'm trying to wrap my head around if increasing ISO (compared to what was useable on the 7d) with the 5D iii or 6D will offset the loss of speed from the lens if I go with say, the 24-105L.  My gut says, yes...and no.

[Random Orbits]

It depends on what your budget is.  The most affordable way is to get the 24-105 with 6D kit.  The 24-105 will most likely match the DOF and range that you were used to with the 17-55.  The 24-105 would give you slightly shallower DOF because it's paired with a larger sensor. 

If you can afford more, a step up on the lens side would be the Tamron 24-70 VC.  The Tamron would give you markedly shallower DOF at f/2.8 and give you less noise headroom than the crop camera.

[jon_charron]

It depends on what your budget is.  The most affordable way is to get the 24-105 with 6D kit.  The 24-105 will most likely match the DOF and range that you were used to with the 17-55.  The 24-105 would give you slightly shallower DOF because it's paired with a larger sensor. 

If you can afford more, a step up on the lens side would be the Tamron 24-70 VC.  The Tamron would give you markedly shallower DOF at f/2.8 and give you less noise headroom than the crop camera.

I was just checking that lens out online.  I have to say that I could only get the shots I've shown consistently with the lens at 2.8.  Going up to f4 made a huge difference and was not really an option.  DOF is not a concern for this type of shooting, especially since flash will punch out the DOF anyway.  My concern with the Tamron is well...it's a Tamron, but also the focus speed and accuracy (which I've heard is not great). It's also supposed to be very heavy, which if the other factors are good, I can live with.  I shoot most these using one hand, camera in the right and flash in the left with a hacked flash snyc cable and an RJ45 cable to make it a bit longer.  The only time I use two hands is to quickly change the zoom to frame, and the rare but necessary occasion that I want to zoom while shutter is open.  I was really hoping Canon would finally come out with the 24-70 2.8 IS L, but no.  They had to introduce that stupid, redundant 24-70 f4 IS, but that is another thread.

Forgot to mention, I'm not really worried about the cost of the lens, and yes the 6D is one of the bodies I'm looking at.  I would get the kit lens, but I don't think it will work for me at F4.

[Random Orbits]

FFs perform better at higher ISOs due to the larger sensor size.  You could use the lens at f/4 and double the ISO and still get a better/cleaner results than the current crop of Canon crop cameras.

In any case, it'd make sense to get a FF camera with 24-105.  Try it and sell it if it doesn't work for you.  You can sell it for more than the difference between the camera only/kit price.  You could also try renting the Tamron and see if it works for you in the way you shoot.

Nice images BTW. 

[neuroanatomist]

A 6D or 5DIII will give you 1.5-2 stops better ISO performance.  If you give up a stop going from f/2.8 to f/4, you're still well ahead, plus the 24-105 is both wider and longer.  If you're shooting in low light, FF trumps APS-C hands down.

[jon_charron]

Nice images BTW. 

Thanks.

Yes I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.  I understand the ISO and FF sensor issue, but an example would be shooting BIF with a 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200/2.8 vs. 70-200 f4 IS at 200/4.  Even tried a 500 f4 on a FF.  I crank the ISO up and still can't get the keeper rate as high at 1/1600 and higher using f4 compared f2.8.  2.8 always wins when both have IS and the ISO is similar stops.  Maybe it's more a focusing issue.  I certainly came to know the intricacies of the 7D while I had it and used to kind of irritate the BIF guys with the bigger F4 lenses at times when shooting side by side, especially in the golden hour. 

[Eli]

But are your BIF non keepers due to motion blur or just completely out of focus?
The 5d mkiii + 24-105 f4l will be better than your 7d + 17-55 f2.8 in almost every way for your nightclub work, you could jack up the ISO by 2 stops and still have cleaner images.
You could have the same shutter speed, and lets say on your 7d you'd have to use iso6400 at f2.8, with the 5d mkiii, and same shutter speed, you'd use iso12800 and f4, but the image will still be cleaner than your 7d.
If not just get the tamron 24-70 vc f2.8 and get the best of both worlds in regards to aperture and IS, doesn't cost that much more..

[neuroanatomist]

I crank the ISO up and still can't get the keeper rate as high at 1/1600 and higher using f4 compared f2.8.  2.8 always wins when both have IS and the ISO is similar stops.  Maybe it's more a focusing issue.  I certainly came to know the intricacies of the 7D while I had it and used to kind of irritate the BIF guys with the bigger F4 lenses at times when shooting side by side, especially in the golden hour.

That's the point.  Sensor size does not affect exposure.  Shooting at 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on APS-C, if you switch to f/4 and keep 1/1600 s and ISO 3200, you'll have half as much light per unit area hitting the sensor.  Same would be true with the teeny sensor on my PowerShot S100. 

What sensor size does affect is the amount of noise at a given ISO.  So compared to 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on the 7D, you could shoot the FF camera at 1/1600 s, f/4, ISO 6400 and have lower image noise (better IQ) or you could shoot at 1/3200 s, f/4, ISO 12800 and have similar IQ to the 7D shot at f/2.8, ISO 3200 - i.e., a faster shutter speed with the slower lens and equivalent IQ.

Here's a shot with one of one of those 'bigger f/4 lenses' at dusk on an overcast day, FF camera and ISO 6400.  Same shot on a 7D would be unusably noisy (and in this case, f/2.8 isn't an option...). 


EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM, 1/250 s, f/4, ISO 6400

[Dylan777]

About the NEW - Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC(IS)

[wickidwombat]

Going up to f4 made a huge difference and was not really an option.  DOF is not a concern for this type of shooting, especially since flash will punch out the DOF anyway.  My concern with the Tamron is well...it's a Tamron,

Ummmm I dont quite think you understand the concept of DOF here flash and DOF are two completely mutually exclussive aspects. ie flash has precisely zero effect on DOF. DOF is a function of the lens and sensor the flash simply provide light for the exposure

the tamron fear is totally understandable however.

the f4 on full frame is essentially going to give you the equivalent as the 2.8 on your crop
on the 5Dmk3 at events even shooting iso 16,000 is fine where as with crop its 1600 maybe 3200 at a push
iso 16000 on the 5dmk3 takes about the same NR and processing as 1600 does on crop IMO

[TrumpetPower!]

One of the regulars here -- sorry, I don't remember which one -- often makes the point that the 24-105 on full frame is superior in every way to the 17-55 on a crop. It's wider and longer, you can get a shallower depth of field, and you get less noise.

If you like the 17-55, you'll absolutely love the 24-105 on a full frame camera.

Cheers,

b&

[robbymack]

Well if you must have 2.8 and IS in a FF compatible mid range zoom you have only one choice, it's the tamron. I own it, is it perfect?  No, but what lens is?  For what you spend its fantastic.  You can spend an awful lot more for maybe a 10% iq improvement with the canon 24-70ii but you lose IS and a cool grand in the process. considering what you posted you shoot I don't see your clients really caring too much. After all anything you give them is a thousand times better than the millions of (insert any modern smartphone here) pictures they have been taking and adding crappy Instagram filters to.

[neuroanatomist]

One of the regulars here -- sorry, I don't remember which one -- often makes the point that the 24-105 on full frame is superior in every way to the 17-55 on a crop. It's wider and longer, you can get a shallower depth of field, and you get less noise.

Every way but one...you lose the f/2.8 high precision center AF point.  A very worthwhile trade, IMO.

[TrumpetPower!]

One of the regulars here -- sorry, I don't remember which one -- often makes the point that the 24-105 on full frame is superior in every way to the 17-55 on a crop. It's wider and longer, you can get a shallower depth of field, and you get less noise.

Every way but one...you lose the f/2.8 high precision center AF point.  A very worthwhile trade, IMO.

True -- assuming, of course, the camera itself has an f/2.8 high precision center AF point. If I remember right, the Rebels at least don't, even if Jon's 7D does....

b&

[neuroanatomist]

True -- assuming, of course, the camera itself has an f/2.8 high precision center AF point. If I remember right, the Rebels at least don't, even if Jon's 7D does....

Rebel bodies starting with the XTi/400D have a high-precision f/2.8 center AF point, although the 'high precision f/2.8' part if the cross-type point is a single-orientation line sensor. The T4i/650D got the 40D/50D/60D AF sensor with the dual-cross center point similar to the 7D's center point.