Gear advice (Canon)

[truonda]

For a while now I've been itching to sell my Canon 24-105mm f/4L and "upgrade" to the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II as I figured the extra stops in aperture would be good for street photography (faster shutter speed for moving subjects). I'm having some second thoughts now as my two primes (50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8) already cover the range of the 24-70; the only benefit would be that I wouldn't have to change lenses as often.

I guess my questions would be: Should I keep my current lineup? Is the 24-105 the right lens to replace? What other lenses should I consider?

[DanK]

I don't think anyone can answer that question better than you can. For example, how often do you shoot at apertures wider than f/4? For your shooting, is the narrower DOF of f/2.8 acceptable? (I assume you have a full frame, given your lens lineup. At 5 meters, DOF at 70mm and f/2.8 is less than .9 m.) How often do you shoot at lengths between 70mm and 105mm? Given what you do, how much difference will a single stop make? All of the lenses you describe are fine; it's just a question of what YOU will find most useful. What any of us would find most useful may not be all that relevant.

My own view is that if I am able to do what I want without new equipment, I probably don't need it. Of course, sometimes one just wants it...

[truonda]

Dan, I think I agree with what you're saying. I shoot a lot with my 85mm and quite a bit with my 50mm. I find myself rarely using the 24-105 and I guess I want to replace it with something more useful...

[Polar01]

Daniel two things if you only want 1 stop faster shutter speed then switch from 200 ISO to 400 much cheaper. Now one of the things you do not say is which camera you have. Is it one of the entry level cameras or is it a mid to higher end camera? With the newer sensors along with in camera noise reduction you just raise the ISO with no or little problems. The result of this I think that the f/2.8 glass is going the way of the dinosaur, they ruled in their time however their time is ending. Do not get me wrong they are great glass, and great glass will always be great glass however the f/2.8 and lower are from the days of film where quality and speed were not as good as what you get with today's sensors.
Thinks of lens suggestion check out the work of one I think the best street shooters here at CIC Phil Page (Dubaiphil), a lot of his work was shot with a Carl Zeiss 2/35, love that lens hope to get one someday.

Cheers: Allan

[Geoff F]

I recently upgraded my 24-105 with the Tamron 24-70 after the Canon 24-105 had been returned to the repairers for the second time.

For me, the Tamron is a noticeable improvement and it has stabilisation, unlike some Canon alternatives. But ask me again in a couple of years time after it has seen some more hard use.

Sometimes I do miss the extra length though, but I also have the Canon 70-200 which are excellent lenses. Prior to the 24-105 I had the 28-135 which was surprisingly good for the price.

[Magwai]

I really like the 24-105. For me I could not replace the extra range even to gain a stop. Especially since you have nice primes in that range I would stick with your current lineup.

One trick I really like is to go to 105 and walk back a couple of paces. Gives a nice shallow dof. Not as shallow as a fast prime but gives a good compromise if you don't have time to change lens.

[truonda]

I am using a Canon 6D. The other thing that is making me hesitant to switch to the 24-70 is that it has no IS... Why Canon? Why?!

[Manfred M]

I am using a Canon 6D. The other thing that is making me hesitant to switch to the 24-70 is that it has no IS... Why Canon? Why?!

Nikon did the same thing on their version too. It is pro FF glass, so IS is really not required for this focal length; wide angle to slight telephoto.

I've shot the Nikon for about 4 years and have never found that it needs stabilization.

[William W]

. . . I figured the extra stops in aperture would be good for street photography (faster shutter speed for moving subjects). . .

I agree with Dan - YOU only can make the choice and I suggest that you line up all the key features of each lens and then along side whether you see each one as a virtue or a detraction FOR WHAT YOU DO - but I wanted to express the view that it seems not good logic to view the one stop faster as a virtue for arresting fast moving subjects, for street photography - ISO will do that.

*

I have both a 24-70/2.8 and a 24-105/4 IS, and for ‘street photography’, when I do use a zoom lens, I almost always use the 24 to 105 and not the 24 to 70, see POST #5 here, for more: Etiquette of photographing and posting images of people?

WW

[MarkS]

I have the 6D and was going back and forth between the 24-105 and 24-70 for sometime during the purchase. For me I ended up with the 24-105 and I so far do not regret the decision. I find the extra reach is something that I in fact use and take advantage of quite regularly, and the lower price doesn't hurt. I am about to purchase the 50mm f1.2 which gives me the wide-open aperture I find I am wishing I had from time to time. Lots of good advice already here.

[Paul Windass]

Can anyone offer advice please. My wife has bought me a Canon EF50MM F/1.8 II lens. Being a novice at photography and learning, what sort of shots is this lens useful for? Apologies if you think me a little thick

[CanadianJake]

Hey Paul:
For me personally, this lens is a great all around lens. I use it quite a bit for almost everything, especially portraits . That is just me. Others will have their own specific uses.

[Manfred M]

Can anyone offer advice please. My wife has bought me a Canon EF50MM F/1.8 II lens. Being a novice at photography and learning, what sort of shots is this lens useful for? Apologies if you think me a little thick

I assume you are shooting on a crop-frame camera? If so, it's the equivilent to a 80mm full-frame lens, so is probably most suited for portraiture. Certainly also useful for some landscape work. It's a "short" telephoto and certainly not my favourite focal length.

[William W]

Can anyone offer advice please. My wife has bought me a Canon EF50MM F/1.8 II lens. Being a novice at photography and learning, what sort of shots is this lens useful for? Apologies if you think me a little thick

Noted that you have a 1000D and a 700D, both are APS-C Format Cameras, commonly referred to as ‘crop cameras’ or ‘crop frame cameras’. As Manfred mentioned a 50mm lens acts as a short telephoto lens on your two cameras.

***

I suspect that you might have an EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 “Kit Lens”. If not I bet a mars bar that you do have at least one ZOOM LENS, so I shall use this lens to make a comparison and contrast to the 50 F/1.8 MkII Lens which you have just received from your wife. I shall touch on TWO key elements, the fact that it is a PRIME LENS and the fact that it is a FAST LENS:

*

Firstly, your new 50mm lens is a PRIME LENS. This means that you cannot change the FOCAL LENGTH by ZOOMING the lens. You will note with a zoom lens you can stand in one place and zoom in and out and that changes the FIELD OF VIEW – that’s what you see when you look through the viewfinder: a WIDE field of view at the 18mm end and, zooming to a more NARROW field of view, at the 55mm end of the zoom.

On the other hand, your 50mm PRIME LENS, has only one Field of View. What does this mean? Well, one key thing that it does mean is that I advise that you question references to “zooming with your feet” - you can’t do that.

What you can do is move closer or farther away from the Subject, to FRAME the subject differently. For example photographing your Wife, you could move in close and make a Tight Head Shot Portrait – or – move farther away and make a Full Length Portrait. Moving the Camera will change the PERSPECTIVE – and that is not the same as Zooming.

*

Secondly, the other key difference is the MAXIMUM APERTURE, or SPEED of THE LENS. Your 50F/1.8 Lens has a “fast maximum aperture” (i.e. the lens can open up to a big hole of F/1.8). This means two things are more easily possible with this lens:

1. you can make images with a very shallow DEPTH OF FIELD – Aperture has an effect on Depth of Field

2. you can more easily arrest MOTION by using FAST SHUTTER SPEEDS and/or higher ISO –Aperture being ONE of the THREE - EXPOSURE PARAMETERS – has an effect on what SHUTTER SPEED can be used for any give shot.

*

Shallow Depth of Field is sometimes sort after for PORTRAITURE PHOTOGRAPHY, usually it isolate the eyes or the front of the face or the body as a whole from the background; but using shallow Depth of Field is a technique used generally to emphasise a particular subject, sorting it from both the background and also the foreground.

This is an example of using a fast 50mm Prime Lens (Canon EF 50 F/1.4), at a party, in low level AVAILABLE LIGHT (i.e. no flash), to arrest SUBJECT MOTION and to also employ SHALLOW Depth of Field to separate the main Subject from the background:



*

Arresting Motion can be arresting SUBJECT motion or CAMERA motion or BOTH.

Let’s take the example that you want to make a photo of your wife when you are out at dinner, but you do not want to use FLASH. Let’s say you make a meter reading of the scene and the expected exposure is:
F/5.6 @ 1/10ths @ ISO3200.

Now, you could make that shot with your kit zoom lens (set at 55mm), but it would require your wife to be very still, because people even when sitting still do actually move quiet a lot during one tenth of a second –and her being asked to “sit very still” might make for a stilted or un-natural appearance. Also assuming that you do NOT have IMAGE STABILIZATION on your kit zoom lens, holding the camera steady for a shot at 1/10ths might be too difficult and result in blur due to the camera shaking.

But using your 50 F/1.8 lens, you could use the lens at F/2 and the exposure parameters would then be:
F/2 @ 1/80ths @ ISO3200. And using 1/80ths might just be the difference between being able to make the shot or not make the shot still at a reasonably acceptable ISO of ISO3200.

(we have OPENED the APERTURE three stops, from F/5.6 to F/2 – so we must SHORTEN the SHUTTER SPEED three stops, from 1/10ths to 1/80ths)

Similarly you might be interested in indoor sport, like basket ball, gymnastics or indoor soccer as examples – you can use the “fast lens” to more easily arrest the Subject Motion of the athletes.

*

Also as another thought - your profile mentions that you are interested in MACRO Photography – for a small cost you can buy a set of EXTENSION TUBES (the latest series of the Kenko set of three are useful). This set of extension tubes work very well with a fast 50mm Prime Lens for close up and also macro work. This is a less expensive option than buying a dedicated MACRO LENS, but some photographers do not like the inconvenience of this set-up.

*

Also this new 50mm lens, is an "EF" mount lens, which means that it can mount to ALL the EOS Series Cameras, whereas Canon "EF-S" Lenses can only mount to Canon Cameras with an EF-S Lens mount.


***

The amount of ways that you can employ this lens is only limited by your ideas.

A lens of itself does not have a set of specific photos that it can make, but what it does have is specific features that make it useful for various tasks, there is a subtle but important difference.


WW


Post Script:

As an aside - it would probably be better in the future, for a raft of reasons, to start a new thread with your question about "My new 50mm Lens", rather than divert this conversation to a different topic, from the "EF 24 to 105/ L IS and associated matters."

[Colin Southern]

I'd argue that the increased 1 stop of aperture isn't as significant as it once used to be; back in the "good old days" of film we didn't have a heck of a choice when it came to film speeds - I think something like ASA 1600 was about the limit - these days we get ISO number going up into the 1/4 million. Big difference.

So rather than invest a lot of money on an extra stop, I'd probably just up the ISO a stop to compensate.

[AtSea]

I'd argue that the increased 1 stop of aperture isn't as significant as it once used to be; back in the "good old days" of film we didn't have a heck of a choice when it came to film speeds - I think something like ASA 1600 was about the limit - these days we get ISO number going up into the 1/4 million. Big difference.

So rather than invest a lot of money on an extra stop, I'd probably just up the ISO a stop to compensate.

I'd tend to agree with that, however the extra stop isn't solely about speed, either. It's also about sharpness - a lens that starts at 2.8 tends to be sharper at F/4 than one that starts there. More importantly, though, it's about DoF. Most portrait shooters, wedding shooters, etc, like to have the option of going to 2.8, if not even larger - 1.4, and the like.

That being said, you could always takes a few steps back and zoom in further for isolation and achieve nearly the same feel.

[Colin Southern]

It's also about sharpness - a lens that starts at 2.8 tends to be sharper at F/4 than one that starts there.

Only when pixel-peeping; you won't see any difference in a real-world image. Plus, an optimal multi-pass image sharpening workflow will have a far far far far greater impact on the final image compared to any inherent difference between any 2 stops.

More importantly, though, it's about DoF. Most portrait shooters, wedding shooters, etc, like to have the option of going to 2.8, if not even larger - 1.4, and the like.

Yes and no; in the studio I'm normally shooting portraiture in the F11 to F22 range. On location shoots F2.8 is something I do use, but you need to have lighting that can keep up with shutter speeds well above X-Sync, and most photographers don't have that kind of equipment. I'm not disagreeing, but extreme apertures are somewhat over-rated IMO (case in point, I have an EF 85mm F1.2L USM II and it hardly ever sees the light of day whereas the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II is on the camera 95% of the time for location portraiture).

[AtSea]

Only when pixel-peeping; you won't see any difference in a real-world image. Plus, an optimal multi-pass image sharpening workflow will have a far far far far greater impact on the final image compared to any inherent difference between any 2 stops.



Yes and no; in the studio I'm normally shooting portraiture in the F11 to F22 range. On location shoots F2.8 is something I do use, but you need to have lighting that can keep up with shutter speeds well above X-Sync, and most photographers don't have that kind of equipment. I'm not disagreeing, but extreme apertures are somewhat over-rated IMO (case in point, I have an EF 85mm F1.2L USM II and it hardly ever sees the light of day whereas the EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II is on the camera 95% of the time for location portraiture).

In both cases my points nonetheless stand, though. Where there is room for discussion is to the extent of the differences.

Sharpness - I agree, software can make a more drastic difference than 1 stop - but if we're talking about lenses that go down to 2.8, they tend to be sharper. For example, the 24-70 II 2.8 vs the 24-105 4.0 at the wide end has a much more drastic difference in real world landscapes, imo. Albeit, this isn't necessarily a characteristic of the aperture opening larger - but rather that generally, lenses that start at 2.8 are slightly sharper. Those are both L lenses in that case, but even if we compare 16-35 and 17-40, they're both L, but one is slightly sharper than the other. I suppose one situation where this doesn't apply is with the 70-200 F4 and 70-200 2.8. The F4 version starts out as sharp as they come. I think this is an exceptional lens, though.

When shooting with the 70-200 2.8, that was my most used aperture. There's a reason they make bulky, heavy versions starting at 2.8- one of those reasons is because of the look. There's a distinct difference at 2.8 vs 4.0 when shooting portraits outdoors. We can argue over whether it's distinct or not, fair enough. I do agree, though, I rarely go beyond 2.8, but to me the difference between 4.0 and 2.8 is much more important than 2.8 and 1.8 - without overly worrying about DoF as far as focus goes. A lot of my outdoor portraiture work is done with natural light and reflectors, so shutter speed is a non-issue - and for the work I do with speedlights, I'm usually well above 5.6 as well.

Of course, again, this gets down into the very technical side of it all - arguably not that impactful when out in the 'real world'. But when not out shooting, it's important to know every single bit about your gear, and gain a competitive edge so your photos stand out in every possible way.

[Colin Southern]

Sharpness - I agree, software can make a more drastic difference than 1 stop

Not "can make" -- DOES make. No if's or buts about it. Not even close.

but if we're talking about lenses that go down to 2.8, they tend to be sharper. For example, the 24-70 II 2.8 vs the 24-105 4.0 at the wide end has a much more drastic difference in real world landscapes, imo.

Again, you'll only see that difference when pixel-peeping. With real-world images, most are either down-sampled for internet display (typically discarding around 95% of the information) or they're printed at modest sizes that don't allow the human eye to resolve those differences - or if they're printed large (most of mine are 44" canvas prints) then they're viewed from such a distance that, again, the eye can't resolve any differences between quality lenses such as we're discussing.

Albeit, this isn't necessarily a characteristic of the aperture opening larger - but rather that generally, lenses that start at 2.8 are slightly sharper. Those are both L lenses in that case, but even if we compare 16-35 and 17-40, they're both L, but one is slightly sharper than the other.

I think you'll find it's more a function of the technology generation; the EF 16-35mmF2.8L USM II (which I have) is a LOT newer technology than the 17-40.

I suppose one situation where this doesn't apply is with the 70-200 F4 and 70-200 2.8. The F4 version starts out as sharp as they come. I think this is an exceptional lens, though.

Again, a function of the technology - not the aperture.

When shooting with the 70-200 2.8, that was my most used aperture. There's a reason they make bulky, heavy versions starting at 2.8- one of those reasons is because of the look. There's a distinct difference at 2.8 vs 4.0 when shooting portraits outdoors. We can argue over whether it's distinct or not, fair enough. I do agree, though, I rarely go beyond 2.8, but to me the difference between 4.0 and 2.8 is much more important than 2.8 and 1.8 - without overly worrying about DoF as far as focus goes. A lot of my outdoor portraiture work is done with natural light and reflectors, so shutter speed is a non-issue - and for the work I do with speedlights, I'm usually well above 5.6 as well.

Here's a challenge for you - without cheating and looking at the exif data, see if you can tell what apertures these were taken at:

Of course, again, this gets down into the very technical side of it all - arguably not that impactful when out in the 'real world'. But when not out shooting, it's important to know every single bit about your gear, and gain a competitive edge so your photos stand out in every possible way.

If I were to list in order all the things necessary to gain a competitive edge, an F2.8 lens over a F4.0 would be pretty close to the bottom.

[William W]

. . .More importantly, though, it's about DoF. Most portrait shooters, wedding shooters, etc, like to have the option of going to 2.8, if not even larger - 1.4, and the like. . .

I disagree. That's a commonly put phrase, but I don't believe that it is about the DoF as many times as people think that it is.

For example here is a Chart for DoF for three typical Portrait Shots made with 135 Format Camera, although not listed the DoF for F/4 falls very close to half-way between F/2.8 and F/5.6. As can be seen there is not a really appreciable difference in the DoF for the Full Length Shot, considering the DEPTH of a person’s body, certainly less practical difference for the Half Shot and less again for the Head Shot:



*

In both cases my points nonetheless stand, though. Where there is room for discussion is to the extent of the differences. . .

No, actually both of the original points that were made, don’t seem to stand: and that’s my point . . .

*

. . .There's a distinct difference at 2.8 vs 4.0 when shooting portraits outdoors.

I agree, but I suggest that in mostly all cases it is NOT about the DoF (which was first stated) but about the quality and texture of the OoF Background Blur – and that is a different animal to DoF.

This is not a pedantic point for the sake of pedantic points: but it is about defining why Available Light Portraiture appears different (and often identifiably different) when comparing for example the 135/2L shot wide open up against the 70 to 200F/4 shot wide open.

This can be so with the 24 to 70/2.8 and the 24 to 105/4, both shooting wide open, also.

And it is also so when using an F/2.8 lens at F/2.8 and then comparing it used at F/4, and there is often quite a noticeable difference when this test is performed.

Bok Atkins has a ‘Blur Calculator’ which puts numbers on these visual factors.

WW