Advice on purchasing a new APS-C body

[Aaron78]

And i do realize the 18-135 is an EF-S lens, and it is being sold to my brother in a few days as he is buying a 60D or 7D in the next day or two.

 

[Loswr]

I own a 7D and love it, i also own a 70-200 2.8L IS II, a 1.4X EF III, a 100 2.8L IS, a 580EX II, and an 18-135 kit lens. ...i have all EF lenses to allow me to do so without the worry of having to sell off EF-S lenses.

And i do realize the 18-135 is an EF-S lens, and it is being sold to my brother in a few days as he is buying a 60D or 7D in the next day or two.

Leaving you with nothing shorter than 70mm (112mm FF equivalent)?? Sounds like you're about to feed your addiction again soon...

 

[Aaron78]

You've got that right, i'm trying to decide on a prime that will give me a good wide angle on the cropped sensor, as well as a standard zoom. Kind of caught up in all of the rumors now, and hoping a 24-70 2.8L II shows up soon. Been eyeing up the 16-35 2.8L II, the 24 1.4 II, the 35 1.4, and the 24-70 2.8L. I have also been looking at zeiss primes, but i think for certain situations i will prefer autofocus, leading me to believe i will be sticking with a canon prime.

 

[Loswr]

You've got that right, i'm trying to decide on a prime that will give me a good wide angle on the cropped sensor, as well as a standard zoom. Kind of caught up in all of the rumors now, and hoping a 24-70 2.8L II shows up soon. Been eyeing up the 16-35 2.8L II, the 24 1.4 II, the 35 1.4, and the 24-70 2.8L. I have also been looking at zeiss primes, but i think for certain situations i will prefer autofocus, leading me to believe i will be sticking with a canon prime.

Technically, 'wide angle' means 35mm or shorter on FF, therefore 22mm or shorter on APS-C. Thus, the only Canon primes that will give you a wide angle on APS-C are the EF 14mm f/2.8L II and the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM (also, the EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, but you're probably looking for a rectilinear lens). The 24mm lenses come close (just barely in the normal range), but the 35mm f/1.4L is absolutely a normal lens on APS-C.

In fact, with an APS-C sensor you'll get better IQ with the high-end EF-S zooms (17-55mm, 15-85mm) than their approximate FF L-series equivalents (24-70mm and 24-105mm, respectively) when comparing on the same APS-C body. Also, the high end EF-S lenses hold their value quite well. For example, although I still have my 17-55mm, I sold my 10-22mm when I bought a 5DII and 16-35mm II, and after nearly a year of use I only lost $50 on the sale of the lens. That was before the round of price hikes earlier this year - currently, used prices for the 17-55mm are running around what I paid for the lens brand new, although since it optically outperforms the 16-35mm II on my 7D (better resolution and less CA), and has IS, I'm holding onto the 17-55mm as a general purpose lens for the 7D.

Personally, I think it's better to get the lenses best-suited to the body you're currently using, and worry about a possible FF upgrade when you are actually making that upgrade. That's especially true depending on the lens(es) you plan to get - for exmaple, if you're looking at the 24-105mm, that's much cheaper in the 5DII kit, and during the spring and fall lens rebate programs, rebates on some lenses are often doubled when you buy a body at the same time.

Primes are a different story, in that there's only one EF-S prime. But even with L primes, you'll have a different lens if/when you get a FF body so it's tough to pick a single focal length that works as you want on both formats.

 

[Aaron78]

That's why i figured on a 24mm (38.4) or 35mm (56), because it would be a useful focal length on either format and has a wide apeture for good low light performance. Good advice on the EF-S lenses, though i'm not completely sold on them given their price and no weather resistance. I bought the camera in early march, the two lenses in late march, and have been pulling my hair out trying to decide which lenses i would choose to cover wide and normal zoom while still having a wide and constant apeture. The other two lenses i bought without hesitation and i love them, but the last two i need are tough to decide on. I've read and watched as many reviews as i could help to in the meantime, but i'm still not 100% on my best option. Thank you for the insight, which is helpful considering you own my camera plus some of the lenses i am considering.

 

[Loswr]

Just FYI, the 35L is not weather sealed, so if that's an important feature for you, consider the 24L II instead. Personally, I prefer 35mm to 24mm on my 5DII for a fast prime - I use it as a nighttime walkaround lens, and 24mm is a bit too wide for my style.

FWIW, for the wide-to-normal zoom range on APS-C with weather sealing, the 17-40mm meets that (although it's soft in the corners even on APS-C and has a substantial barrel distortion). The 16-35mm II, while falling a little short of the 17-55mm for IQ, is fine on the 7D, and also weather sealed. But, it's expensive, and you need to factor in the cost of a UV/clear filter to complete the sealing (and good quality 82mm filters aren't cheap).

 

[Aaron78]

I appreciate the advise sincerely, i go from thinking i know what i want to having no idea. There are many canon branded lenses that fit what i am looking for, to an extent, but all differ in small ways that make them largely different from each other. I hope to build up a number of useful lenses over time, but for right now i would like a fast normal zoom, and either a normal to wide/normal length prime, or a wide-ish fast zoom. In your opinion, how does no IS affect the 16-35 and 24-70 L 2.8 lenses? My lenses are IS, and i like to handhold shoot alot but do own both a monopod and tripod (just like to shoot by hand when possible).

 

[Loswr]

In your opinion, how does no IS affect the 16-35 and 24-70 L 2.8 lenses? My lenses are IS, and i like to handhold shoot alot but do own both a monopod and tripod (just like to shoot by hand when possible).

Depends on focal length and subject. If you're shooting static subjects or subjects where you want an element of motion blur, IS can be wonderful - I've taken 0.5 s - 1.5 s waterfall shots handheld with IS. But if your subjects are moving, it's less useful in the wide-to-short tele range. Normally, you need at least 1/30 s (and 1/60 s is better) to shoot people - even posing, people have slight involuntary movement that affects sharpness. At 50mm, you are probably shooting at 1/80 s on APS-C just based on the 1/focal length guideline (that's what Canon bodies use to set shutter speed in Av mode, for example), and that's fast enough to freeze a person for a portrait-type shot, which is probably what's behind people saying that IS in not needed on a 24-70mm (i.e. they're shooting people with a FF body).

I'd suggest an experiment - before you offload that 18-135mm IS, shoot for a day or two with the IS turned off. See what your keeper rate is like compared to shooting with IS on, and use that to guide your decision about how beneficial IS would be for you in that focal range.

 

[Aaron78]

Thanks again, i also was going to set the lens at focal lengths to see roughly what i would be seeing/shooting if it was a prime with a fixed focal length. I'm not in a rush really, but it would be nice to have a lens with a wider FOV than i have now to shoot the fall colors that will be on the way around here in a month or so (but that's not a good enough reason for me to rush into a lens buy).

 

[Eagle Eye]

Get a room, you two! Killswitch, I agree with other posters that unless you have some need for what the 7d offers over the 60d or the Rebel line, I'd buy a less expensive body and put the balance into some more glass. Maybe an EF-S 60mm macro or a 35mm f/2? A telephoto zoom like the 55-250mm would be good buy as well. Enjoy your new purchases!

 

[killswitch]

Get a room, you two! Killswitch, I agree with other posters that unless you have some need for what the 7d offers over the 60d or the Rebel line, I'd buy a less expensive body and put the balance into some more glass. Maybe an EF-S 60mm macro or a 35mm f/2? A telephoto zoom like the 55-250mm would be good buy as well. Enjoy your new purchases!

Lol, ya I am most likely going to go for the 60D (better body and weight than the 600D)...and really need a telephoto zoom. Confused whether to go for the 70-200 f4L IS or the 70-200 f2.8L non IS. Also if not the L lens, which one is better in terms of sharpness, the 55-250mm or the 70-300mm?

 

[Loswr]

Lol, ya I am most likely going to go for the 60D (better body and weight than the 600D)...and really need a telephoto zoom. Confused whether to go for the 70-200 f4L IS or the 70-200 f2.8L non IS. Also if not the L lens, which one is better in terms of sharpness, the 55-250mm or the 70-300mm?

For the 70-200 L zooms, the f/4L IS has a very slight IQ edge, not something you'd notice in real-world shots. So, it comes down to the obvious - give up a stop of light for IS and a smaller/lighter lens, or get f/2.8. If you're shooting mainly action in low light, you'll want f/2.8. Else, I think the f/4L IS version is a better choice.

For the non-L telezooms, the EF-S 55-250mm is substantially sharper than the EF 70-300mm IS, and cheaper, too. If you're looking at the 70-300 non-L, for not much more cost I'd recommend the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS instead.

 

[koolman]

Get a room, you two! Killswitch, I agree with other posters that unless you have some need for what the 7d offers over the 60d or the Rebel line, I'd buy a less expensive body and put the balance into some more glass. Maybe an EF-S 60mm macro or a 35mm f/2? A telephoto zoom like the 55-250mm would be good buy as well. Enjoy your new purchases!

Lol, ya I am most likely going to go for the 60D (better body and weight than the 600D)...and really need a telephoto zoom. Confused whether to go for the 70-200 f4L IS or the 70-200 f2.8L non IS. Also if not the L lens, which one is better in terms of sharpness, the 55-250mm or the 70-300mm?

Hi Kill,

I would go for the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Its light, very sharp, and simply fun to use. The 2.8 version is much heavier, and you might find not useful with no IS. The IS version mark 2, which is superb, will cost you 2.5 k and is probably a huge overkill.

 

[gmrza]

Get a room, you two! Killswitch, I agree with other posters that unless you have some need for what the 7d offers over the 60d or the Rebel line, I'd buy a less expensive body and put the balance into some more glass. Maybe an EF-S 60mm macro or a 35mm f/2? A telephoto zoom like the 55-250mm would be good buy as well. Enjoy your new purchases!

Lol, ya I am most likely going to go for the 60D (better body and weight than the 600D)...and really need a telephoto zoom. Confused whether to go for the 70-200 f4L IS or the 70-200 f2.8L non IS. Also if not the L lens, which one is better in terms of sharpness, the 55-250mm or the 70-300mm?

Hi Kill,

I would go for the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Its light, very sharp, and simply fun to use. The 2.8 version is much heavier, and you might find not useful with no IS. The IS version mark 2, which is superb, will cost you 2.5 k and is probably a huge overkill.

Don't underestimate the weight factor. My wife has just finished a week of shooting mainly with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II, and she actually has stiff shoulders. Thing was she needed f/2.8, otherwise the f/4L IS would have done. Apart from the factor of how tiring it is working for hours with a 1.5kg lens, especially handheld, you need to carry the thing around with you in your bag. If I just want a 70-200 that I might use, I'll pack the f/4. You need to think about whether you actually have to be able to open up to f/2.8. If you are shooting events for a living, yes, if you are having fun it is less likely that you need 1.5kg of metal and glass.

 

[afira]

Don't underestimate the weight factor. My wife has just finished a week of shooting mainly with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II, and she actually has stiff shoulders. Thing was she needed f/2.8, otherwise the f/4L IS would have done. Apart from the factor of how tiring it is working for hours with a 1.5kg lens, especially handheld, you need to carry the thing around with you in your bag. If I just want a 70-200 that I might use, I'll pack the f/4. You need to think about whether you actually have to be able to open up to f/2.8. If you are shooting events for a living, yes, if you are having fun it is less likely that you need 1.5kg of metal and glass.

The above. Six hours a day by two days this weekend at a horse show and I wanted to fall over and die. I was using my 450D without a flash and the weight was still a killer. F/4 for general walk around usage is typically more than sufficient.

I don't think Aaron78 should discount the EF-S set straight away, if it makes you feel any better, you can purchase a 10-22 EF-S brand new in the US for $750 and resell them for $800 in Australia used with a $20 hood. Go figure. Obviously, if you want the prime for that wide range, then that complicates things and makes the suggestions moot. Personally, I can't see the benefit of having a wide prime for an APS-C, but that's only because I can never seem to have a wide enough lens.

I guess the other part of this is for Killswitch - you're also asking about two almost completely different lenses on an APS-C. The 70-300 is a 114-480 or so equivalent. The 55-250 will remain a 55-250. Do you need the range? Can you fork over the extra for the L version? Do you have something to cover that 55-114 range on an APS-C? My pick would be the 70-300L, the 55-250 next, and then a 70-300, but I don't think you're covering the same range there.

 

[elflord]

The above. Six hours a day by two days this weekend at a horse show and I wanted to fall over and die. I was using my 450D without a flash and the weight was still a killer. F/4 for general walk around usage is typically more than sufficient.

I don't think Aaron78 should discount the EF-S set straight away, if it makes you feel any better, you can purchase a 10-22 EF-S brand new in the US for $750 and resell them for $800 in Australia used with a $20 hood. Go figure. Obviously, if you want the prime for that wide range, then that complicates things and makes the suggestions moot. Personally, I can't see the benefit of having a wide prime for an APS-C, but that's only because I can never seem to have a wide enough lens.

I guess the other part of this is for Killswitch - you're also asking about two almost completely different lenses on an APS-C. The 70-300 is a 114-480 or so equivalent. The 55-250 will remain a 55-250.

It does indeed remain 55-250, but that's 88-400mm "equivalent". The 55-250mm spec is the true focal length range, not the full frame equivalent focal length.

 

[afira]

I guess the other part of this is for Killswitch - you're also asking about two almost completely different lenses on an APS-C. The 70-300 is a 114-480 or so equivalent. The 55-250 will remain a 55-250.

It does indeed remain 55-250, but that's 88-400mm "equivalent". The 55-250mm spec is the true focal length range, not the full frame equivalent focal length.

I thought we were talking about APS-C... Hence why I said it is a 55-250 on APS-C and a 70-300 is a 114-480 on APS-C, via the actual field of view available, never stated anything about a FF equivalent focal . They are still, in my opinion, two completely different lenses on an APS-C sensor. Unless he's contemplating porting an EF-S 55-250 to an FF body, which would be beyond my reasoning for this lens.

 

[Loswr]

I guess the other part of this is for Killswitch - you're also asking about two almost completely different lenses on an APS-C. The 70-300 is a 114-480 or so equivalent. The 55-250 will remain a 55-250.

It does indeed remain 55-250, but that's 88-400mm "equivalent". The 55-250mm spec is the true focal length range, not the full frame equivalent focal length.

I thought we were talking about APS-C... Hence why I said it is a 55-250 on APS-C and a 70-300 is a 114-480 on APS-C, via the actual field of view available, never stated anything about a FF equivalent focal . They are still, in my opinion, two completely different lenses on an APS-C sensor. Unless he's contemplating porting an EF-S 55-250 to an FF body, which would be beyond my reasoning for this lens.

We are talking about APS-C, but so what? I suspect you are suffering from a (rather common) misconception, that EF-S lenses have a focal length that is somehow 'adjusted' for an APS-C sensor. That is not the case. Focal length, by definition, is the physical distance from the rear nodal point of a lens to the image plane. In other words, a lens marked 55-250mm has a focal length of 55-250mm, and a lens marked 70-300mm has a focal length of 70-300mm (ignoring focus breathing) - regardless of the size of the sensor behind that lens, or even whether there is a camera there at all. Focal length is focal length - it's an intrinsic property of a lens. Canon made a lens with focal lengths of 55-250mm, they didn't make a lens with focal lengths of 34-156mm then lie and print 55-250mm on the barrel...

Yes, an EF-S lens will only mount on an APS-C sensor, but that doesn't affect the focal length. If you want to compare fields of view, either use no correction or 1.6x, but you have to apply it to both lenses. So, you can say 55-250mm vs. 70-300mm, or if you want to compare the full frame equivalents, as elflord stated, a 55-250mm on APS-C will produce a field of view equivalent to a hypothetical 88-400mm lens on FF, just as a 70-300mm on APS-C is equivalent to 112-480mm on FF. To repeat, you apply the crop factor to all lenses, not just to EF lenses mounted on APS-C bodies.

Are they different? Yes - by 24mm on the wide end and 80mm on the long end, but not, as you seem to be suggesting, by more than that (e.g. you mentioned the difference between 55mm and 114mm, but no, it's between 88mm and 114mm, and 400mm to 480mm on the other end, not 250mm to 480mm). Different - but not so different after all, in terms of focal length, at least.

 

[killswitch]

I guess the other part of this is for Killswitch - you're also asking about two almost completely different lenses on an APS-C. The 70-300 is a 114-480 or so equivalent. The 55-250 will remain a 55-250.

It does indeed remain 55-250, but that's 88-400mm "equivalent". The 55-250mm spec is the true focal length range, not the full frame equivalent focal length.

I thought we were talking about APS-C... Hence why I said it is a 55-250 on APS-C and a 70-300 is a 114-480 on APS-C, via the actual field of view available, never stated anything about a FF equivalent focal . They are still, in my opinion, two completely different lenses on an APS-C sensor. Unless he's contemplating porting an EF-S 55-250 to an FF body, which would be beyond my reasoning for this lens.

We are talking about APS-C, but so what? I suspect you are suffering from a (rather common) misconception, that EF-S lenses have a focal length that is somehow 'adjusted' for an APS-C sensor. That is not the case. Focal length, by definition, is the physical distance from the rear nodal point of a lens to the image plane. In other words, a lens marked 55-250mm has a focal length of 55-250mm, and a lens marked 70-300mm has a focal length of 70-300mm (ignoring focus breathing) - regardless of the size of the sensor behind that lens, or even whether there is a camera there at all. Focal length is focal length - it's an intrinsic property of a lens. Canon made a lens with focal lengths of 55-250mm, they didn't make a lens with focal lengths of 34-156mm then lie and print 55-250mm on the barrel...

Yes, an EF-S lens will only mount on an APS-C sensor, but that doesn't affect the focal length. If you want to compare fields of view, either use no correction or 1.6x, but you have to apply it to both lenses. So, you can say 55-250mm vs. 70-300mm, or if you want to compare the full frame equivalents, as elflord stated, a 55-250mm on APS-C will produce a field of view equivalent to a hypothetical 88-400mm lens on FF, just as a 70-300mm on APS-C is equivalent to 112-480mm on FF. To repeat, you apply the crop factor to all lenses, not just to EF lenses mounted on APS-C bodies.

Are they different? Yes - by 24mm on the wide end and 80mm on the long end, but not, as you seem to be suggesting, by more than that (e.g. you mentioned the difference between 55mm and 114mm, but no, it's between 88mm and 114mm, and 400mm to 480mm on the other end, not 250mm to 480mm). Different - but not so different after all, in terms of focal length, at least.

Thanks to everyone in this thread for their valuable insights on the subject matter. I lost myself there for a bit regarding the focal length stuff. I currently have these 3 lens, and use the 60D body:

1) 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina
2) 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 EF-S Canon
3) 50mm f1.8 II EF Canon

So, if end up getting lets say the 70-200 f4L IS, I just have a small overlap of focal length (70 to 85 mm) with the 15-85 right? Just wanted to clarify. As far as I knew, focal lengths written on both EF and EF-S lenses are true lengths in itself regardless you put them on a cropped or a full frame body. Its just that the crop factor(multiplier) comes into play when these lens are put in APS-C bodies? Meaning, e.g the 50mm prime lens in APS-C is truly giving me a virtual 80mm length (1.6 x 50mm) feel. The 15-85mm on a cropped body is essentially giving me a length of 24-136mm, right? Due to the crop, essentially they appear to be zoomed in by a factor 1.6 times? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this was the conception I had and I could be wrong.

I am inching towards the 70-200 f4L IS, mainly due to the IS feature. Nothing is more disappointing than a blurred picture due to camera shake. However, I will miss the background blur quality you would get from a 2.8 aperture. Any thought on that? How much difference is the blur quality between these two lens?

 

[Loswr]

So, if end up getting lets say the 70-200 f4L IS, I just have a small overlap of focal length (70 to 85 mm) with the 15-85 right? Just wanted to clarify.

Correct.

As far as I knew, focal lengths written on both EF and EF-S lenses are true lengths in itself regardless you put them on a cropped or a full frame body. Its just that the crop factor(multiplier) comes into play when these lens are put in APS-C bodies? Meaning, e.g the 50mm prime lens in APS-C is truly giving me a virtual 80mm length (1.6 x 50mm) feel. The 15-85mm on a cropped body is essentially giving me a length of 24-136mm, right? Due to the crop, essentially they appear to be zoomed in by a factor 1.6 times? Forgive me if I am mistaken, but this was the conception I had and I could be wrong.

You are absolutely correct. It's afira who seems to have sown some unfortunate confusion in this thread.

I am inching towards the 70-200 f4L IS, mainly due to the IS feature. Nothing is more disappointing than a blurred picture due to camera shake. However, I will miss the background blur quality you would get from a 2.8 aperture. Any thought on that? How much difference is the blur quality between these two lens?

Blur quality (aka bokeh) is similar between the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Blur quantity is obviously going to be less with the f/4 lens. Still, if you tightly frame your subject at 200mm f/4, you can get a decent amount of OOF blur.

The IS is very nice to have in the 70-200mm range, especially on an APS-C body. Shooting people usually requires ~1/60 s (to freeze the involuntary subject motion that can reduce sharpness even in a person holding still). With no IS, camera shake will reduce the frequency of sharp shots starting at 1/100 s at 70mm and 1/320 s at 200mm - thus, the 3 stops of IS will definitely help, especially at the long end. The main reason to get the 70-200/2.8 non-IS would be if you were shooting sports and would routinely be at much higher shutter speeds anyway. But iverall, the 70-200/4 IS is a more versatile lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II gives you the best of both worlds - f/2.8 and IS - as long as you can handle the weight/size increase and afford to pay twice as much.