Advice/opinion on 'lens upgrade'

[daniela9uk]

Hi All, I haven't been here for a very long while; but hey - I am back.
I had lots of practice with my Canon 60D I bought few years back.
Now I really would like to ask you good people for an advice or just an opinion.
I have currently Canon 18-135mm f3.5-5.6, Canon 50mm f1.8 and Canon 100mm f2.8L macro lenses.
I have got unexpectedly a bit of money (just something over £1k) so I am now considering to buy 1or 2 better lenses then those I currently own. I love all my 3 lenses and use them equally for landscape, portraits, city trips, family events and for taking photos of craft and buttons projects.
The zoom lens is most probably on my camera 80% of times and I like it but that's the main lens I want to upgrade. I am looking at few options - I read very good reviews of Canon 17-55 f2.8 but am also inclined to get an L lens either Canon 24-105 f4L or Canon 24-70 f2.8L.
Canon 17-55 f2.8 has generally the most positive reviews but I would ideally like my next lens to be L lens. Canon 24-105 f4L is probably the most versatile from these three lenses but I am not sure if I like f4 lenght; and the Canon 24-70 f2.8L has everything apart from IS which I think is quite important.
I would love to see some experienced people to point me right direction.
My camera is Canon 60D and my budget about £1300.
Thank you.

[Andrew1]

You've pretty much narrowed this down yourself to the two L lenses. The difference as I see it is the 24-105 has a wider range closer to what you are used to most of the time however the 24-70 has that 2.8 aperture that can come in handy for lower light and shallow DOF. From what little I can tell from your post you are most likely taking photos in well lit daytime conditions so I'd personally go for the 24-105. Sell the 18-135 and also consider whether you'll still need the 100 if macro isn't you thing.

Also, someone posted this lately so have a look there as well for some help. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0

2cents

[inkista]

First thing you might want to do is look at all the images you've taken with the 18-135, and see how often you use the 18-24 range, before moving to a 24-something L lens. In Lightroom, you can display images by the lens and focal length used in the Library module with the Metadata tab; if you don't have Lightroom, you could use a tool like ExposurePlot.

24mm isn't particularly wide on a crop body. You could, of course, supplement with an ultrawide zoom, but that may be more than you want to spend.

You'll also want to handle or rent the desired L in person, because given the lenses you have now, you may be expecting it to be smaller/lighter than it is.

I used a 24-105L on an XT and a 50D for a while, and thought I loved it. Then I got myself a 5DMkII, and I finally realized what kind of lens it was really meant to be.

You'll also want to look at how often you use the 70-135 and 105-135 range on 18-135, and whether you might want to toss a telephoto zoom, like the non-L 70-300 IS USM, into the mix.

To me, the 17-55/2.8 is the crop body analog to the 24-70/2.8L, and the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is the crop-body analog to the 24-105 f/4L IS USM. Unless you plan to move to full frame in the near future, you may actually prefer using crop lenses on the 60D, because they're typically smaller, lighter, sharper, and cost less than the big full frame Ls. They may not have the same contrast/color, though.

I'd also recommend that if the 50/1.8 II is getting on your nerves, that you consider the 35/2 (IS or non-IS depending on budget), 40/2.8 STM (if you want small with a metal bayonet), or the 85/1.8 USM if you want something longer and faster-focusing. But I'm idiosyncratic when it comes to primes.

[GrahamS]

Kathy Li has said it all - good advice is only good if it is taken...

[DanK]

Kathy's advice is right on the mark. I'd add only one thing:

but I would ideally like my next lens to be L lens

Why? There is nothing magical about an L lens. There are any number of non-L lenses that are optically superb, such as the EF-S 60mm macro and the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. L lenses have some additional features, e.g., better weather sealing, but those features don't matter to a lot of people.

I suggest you start by deciding what features you need, e.g., focal length range and speed to start, and then things like AF speed, full time manual focusing, or whatever. Once you have your list, then look to see which lenses fit the bill and, of those, which get reviewed best. In some cases, you will be able to buy two very good non-L lenses for the price of one L.

Over the years, I have accrued a bunch of L lenses, and now all but one of mine are Ls. However, that fact kind of crept up on me. The fact that they are Ls played no role in my decisions. E.g., in buying my 100mm macro, my main consideration was whether I was willing to spend a lot more for IS. I decided I was, and that resulted in my buying an L. Otherwise, I would have ended up with the non-L 100mm and put the extra cash toward some other use.

[rpcrowe]

I absolutely love my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens but, as a caveat, I would not enjoy using this lens alone because the long side is just not long enough. I match it up with a 70-200mm f/4L IS on another 7D camera. However, that combination is both heavy and expensive.

I would expect that the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron combined with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Tamron VC would be a nice combination on a crop camera.

[NorthernFocus]

Daniela the one thing you didn't mention in the OP is why you are thinking of upgrading. Are you trying to solve a particular problem? When I read that you love a lens and you're thinking of replacing it, the first thing that pops into my mind is why?

[William W]

What Kathy wrote and then what Dan K, Richard and Dan all added - I agree.


***

My spin on it -

You need to know how much you actually use 18mm to 24mm. (Perhaps you might even want wider than 17/18mm?)

You need to identify OUTPUTS that you CANNOT achieve with your current gear and then base your purchase choices on addressing those OUTPUTS.

You need to understand why, when you have an APS-C Camera that you have "L Series Lens Lust" - understand that no EF-S Lens can EVER be an L Series Lens, simply because it cannot meet the criterion of mounting to all cameras in the EOS Series.

***

For an APS-C camera with good quality, High ISO Register: a very handy, versatile, high image quality, broad range (Canon) zoom lens kit, that would not break the bank, would be:

> EF-S EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
> EF-S 17 to 55/2.8 IS USM (main working STANDARD fast zoom lens with bonus of IS - neither EF24 to 70/2.8L has IS)
> EF 70 to 70/F4 L IS USM (long telephoto zoom - the gap between 55mm and 70mm is minor.)

Primes to consider:
> EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM (typically more suitable WD than 100mm macro and doubles as an excellent short telephoto for Portraiture).
> EF 85/1.8 – excellent value for money, fast telephoto
> EF35/2 – excellent value for money (and good IQ on APC-S) fast Standard Prime Lens


WW

[daniela9uk]

Thank you all for your valuable input.
I need to put all the info and advice together and re-think what I am going to do.
I went through my photos last night and was actually very surprised to realize that I hardly shoot 18 with my 18-135 lens. The most of my photos start from 24mm. I never realized that before. So the suggestion about 24-105 lens would probably suit the best to my work - but as I also sometimes miss that extra stop of light (my 18-135 is f3.5-5.6) I would love the 24-105 to be f2.8 lol.
I had Sigma 10-20 f3.5 once; I took it to New York with me and although I know its a good wide angle lens, I have to say that it was on my camera only on few occasions and when I went through my photos I could see that all the photos taken with that lens were on 20mm end.
I probably need to get one good prime as many of you suggested and then 24-105 (or 17-55) and maybe telephoto lens after that - If I feel I need it.
I am not sure I ditch my 100mm macro as yet - I don't use it much but its one of the lenses you only use for a specific situations and I would probably miss it.
Photography is only my hobby and I am not very skilled; but I love it and would love to have a nice kit - and having some extra unexpected £1K - I decided to upgrade (that's the reason why I want to upgrade)
Thank you to all of you nice people - I will give myself a week to make a decision. I will let you know what I went for; I might come back earlier for more questions if something comes up.

[Polar01]

That 100 macro at 2.8 you know makes a good portrait lens.

Cheers: Allan

[steve welle]

That 100 macro at 2.8 you know makes a good portrait lens.

Cheers: Allan

I second Allan's comment. The 100 mm macro f2.8 is probably my favorite portrait lens. You can back off enough to get good enough depth of field at 2.8 and get a nice bokeh and good performance in low light.

[daniela9uk]

I second Allan's comment. The 100 mm macro f2.8 is probably my favorite portrait lens. You can back off enough to get good enough depth of field at 2.8 and get a nice bokeh and good performance in low light.

I like both for portraits - my 50mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.8 and use them equally.

[Geoff F]

I have the Canon 24-105 L, Daniela and to be honest I was a little disappointed with it. Sometimes it is fine but too often I have had rather soft images; and it generally didn't perform as well as expected.

Maybe I purchased a 'Friday lens' so I sent it to a Canon repairer for checking and they replaced the rear bearing. A year later it totally stopped shooting and had to go away again for a second repair.

In the meantime, I was looking at the Canon 24-70 L but eventually went for the Tamron 24-70 (which Dan mentioned).

So far, that has proved to be an excellent lens and it has IS. OK not absolutely sharp at F2.8 but that applies to most lenses. However by F4 it is perfect; and most of my photography is closer to the F8 to F11 bracket.

And when directly compared against the 24-105 at F4 there is no doubt about it, the Tamron is far superior. The same applies to my Canon 70-200 at F4 and 70 mm; although possibly that isn't a fair comparison.

I did get the Canon 24-105 repaired and use it on my 40D as a spare, or a 'rough use' camera. But my choice for most subjects is the Tamron.

ps. When trying to decide which lens to purchase, I have always found this comparison site useful http://www.photozone.de/Reviews

[daniela9uk]

Hi all,
I spent whole week reading and researching all the lenses, forums, checking the photos... and trying to make up my mind.
Every morning I woke up I was kind of inclined to a different one (depending what was the last bit of information I read in the evening I guess).
I came back to this thread so many times while making a decision - but realized how helpful you all were. I was also glad I found that I was not the only one having this dilemma.
Well - I made my mind ( I think lol)
I am going to place an order with Panamoz tonight for Canon 17-55 f2.8 lens with a hood and filter and 3year UK guarantee for £603. I think that is a very good deal.
My next purchase will definitely be 70-200 Canon.
I still will keep the 18-135 for a little while until I try out my new kit.

I will have then:
17-55 f2.8
18-135 f3.5-5.6 (for a while)
70-200 f4 (probably)
50 f1.8
100 f2.8L macro
I am happy about it.
I want to thank you all for your valuable advice.

[daniela9uk]

Hi all - just an update : I bought 17-55 f2.8 lens and had walk around the Thames in London today. I am very happy with the images; the lens is so much sharper than my 18-135 so I am really happy with this choice.
Now I am looking for the longer lens - I was nearly 100% sure that I would be buying 70-200 f4 but before I do so I would like to ask if someone has an experience with Sigma 50-150 OS f2.8
I saw many images taken with the lens and I was so impressed, but I cant really find many reviews or people's opinions about it. I read that Sigma just very recently discontinued this lens but I know it is still available to buy.
I just would like to hear any opinions.
Thank you.

[William W]

I haven’t: but have seen many results from the Tokina 50 to 135/2.8 and that is a very nice lens.
The Sigma you mention (I think there are a couple or maybe three versions) and the Tokina were/are popular amongst Wedding Photographers. IME the Tokina is much more popular even though it is not as long and does not have any image stabilization.
I guess though, the Sigma is aimed to compete more directly with the 70 to 200 market – I think that the Sigma is almost as big as the lighter weight Canon 70 to 200 lenses: the size and weight was one reason why the Tokina was more popular with several Wedding Pros whom I know.
But, for you, the comparison and contrast is with a longer (200mm) but slower (F/4) Canon 70 to 200 – not knowing the difference in cost and also not knowing whether that difference is a big factor to you – I would opt for the Canon 70 to 200/4 IS USM. I know that I haven’t use the Sigma, but I cannot envisage that the Sigma would out-perform the Canon L Series and you get 50mm more reach.
The gap between 50 and 70 (equiv. 80~112) is not that much to endure, but the added 50mm at the tele end might be worthwhile to you. I expect that the difference between F/4 and F/2.8 will not be a big ask of you unless you are really stopping Subject Motion indoors or outdoors under floodlights.

I would buy the Canon, but I must state - I have a bias against Sigma, but I have not used that lens, so my bias might be unfounded for a particular version (or versions) of that particular lens – I would expect that the latest version would be the best.

Not the most conclusive response that I have provided, but I hope it helps you sort out a line of thinking to select your purchase.

WW

[inkista]

Have you looked at the fredmiranda reviews? They also seem to have a thread on the 50-150 OS. When looking at more exotic gear, I generally hit the FM board first. It seems to be a really good lens, but the same size/weight as a full-frame 70-200, which sort of negates the crop advantages one typically wants a crop lens for. You can, at least, use full frame lenses on both formats, crop lenses are crop only. To me, crop-only lenses make the most sense at the ultrawide/wide-walkaround range, because you can't get there at reasonable cost any other way. Telephoto, otoh, is a different kettle of fish, and you typically get greedy for as much reach as you can (or at least I did).

[daniela9uk]

Thank you William and Kathy. You have been really helpful.