News lens - need vs want

[photo_chick]

Ha! yep. I hear you.

Wide will be my next foray. I find I don't need it as much, except for vacations.

It's good there is a such a robust second hand market! It makes decisions less...final. You can in and out of some really good gear for no cost or negligible cost.

Anyway, will absolutely share a review when I get the new stuff and play around with it.

You can get some especially good deals if you look at discontinued lenses. One that comes to mind is the Canon 17-35 f/2.8 L which goes for about half the price of the 16-35 f/2.8 L.

 

[KCmike]

I found this thread wildly interesting too. I have the holy trinity of lenses 18-55IS, 55-250IS, and the nifty fifty 50mm 1.8. I know I know beginners lenses and all relatively cheap. I will get lens envy every once in awhile but I hold off on that $$$ temptation and just rent a lens to see how it feels. I keep coming back to the 10-22 to rent while on vacation and its really a fun lens but one that I don't feel like I would use too much at home.

I then was awarded, scratch that, gifted a Canon 60d and the kit lens 18-135IS. I think the lens is soft at both ends of the focal range and really wished I had just had the body and stepped up on a better lens. The one good thing is that I still have my old camera and I hope the kids will start playing with me and they can use the old kit lens on it.

I know your on the way to get your new lenses but the 55-250 is such a wonderful telephoto lens for the money. I get some great shots with it.

As far as for me I just don't know which way to go. I think I need to keep renting for awhile as money is tight with my oldest heading to College and my taste for vacations a definite road block into any new gear. A 300mm sounds good right now. Or maybe an "L" lens? Oh the humanity.

 

[photo_chick]

I then was awarded, scratch that, gifted a Canon 60d and the kit lens 18-135IS. I think the lens is soft at both ends of the focal range and really wished I had just had the body and stepped up on a better lens.

This is how I feel about this lens as well. I'm not saying you can't get great shots from it. It's not a horrible lens like the Canon 75-300. But a lot of people see it as an "upgrade" from the 18-55 kit and I just don't think it is image quality wise.

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

I found this thread wildly interesting too. I have the holy trinity of lenses 18-55IS, 55-250IS, and the nifty fifty 50mm 1.8. I know I know beginners lenses and all relatively cheap. I will get lens envy every once in awhile but I hold off on that $$$ temptation and just rent a lens to see how it feels. I keep coming back to the 10-22 to rent while on vacation and its really a fun lens but one that I don't feel like I would use too much at home.

I then was awarded, scratch that, gifted a Canon 60d and the kit lens 18-135IS. I think the lens is soft at both ends of the focal range and really wished I had just had the body and stepped up on a better lens. The one good thing is that I still have my old camera and I hope the kids will start playing with me and they can use the old kit lens on it.

I know your on the way to get your new lenses but the 55-250 is such a wonderful telephoto lens for the money. I get some great shots with it.

As far as for me I just don't know which way to go. I think I need to keep renting for awhile as money is tight with my oldest heading to College and my taste for vacations a definite road block into any new gear. A 300mm sounds good right now. Or maybe an "L" lens? Oh the humanity.

Oh the humanity indeed!

the 55-250mm is $260 or so new...vs the $560 for the 70-200mm f/4. that $300 diff I'm ok with to get the USM, build quality, and of course the sharpess and contrast improvements.

then again, there's no IS on 70-200mm at that price. Now here is an interesting question: how the heck can Canon offer a 55-250mm lens for $260 with IS and yet if you want to move from non-IS 70-200mL to the IS version you must pay $540 more (the 70-200mm f/4 w/IS is $1100) ????

that bothers me.

Also, there was a thread started by I think BirdsofPrey in which he upgraded to the 24-105L (from the 18-135mm I think) and was not, I believe, as impressed as thought he would be. I'm going to dig that up and see if he has an update...

I think I even posted in that thread that I was happy with my 18-135 compared to the 17-55 2.8 I sold. Look at me now! lol

finally, dunno if you've seen THESE tests. I found them helpful.

This is how I feel about this lens as well. I'm not saying you can't get great shots from it. It's not a horrible lens like the Canon 75-300. But a lot of people see it as an "upgrade" from the 18-55 kit and I just don't think it is image quality wise.

I concur. I went though lost of my old photos and my 18-55 kit did as good if not better than my 18-135. for me, it was worth the upgrade for the reach. the 55-250 would be another option there.

 

[KCmike]

Thanks for the "testing" link. Interesting.

 

[photo_chick]

the 55-250mm is $260 or so new...vs the $560 for the 70-200mm f/4. that $300 diff I'm ok with to get the USM, build quality, and of course the sharpess and contrast improvements.

Another difference is the ring motor USM that's in the 70-300 allows for full time manual focus. This is a feature I personally will pay more for (now that I can afford more) since I've killed an AF motor because I'm bad about forgetting to switch that m-af button.

Just a note here for those that don't know... not all USM motors are equal. There are ring and mirco-motor. Only the ring type have full time manual focus which are usually found in Canon's mid grade and up lenses.

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

I'm really anxious to hear what you think of your new lenses.

[snip]

Promise to give us all a review?

So it's been a long time but I figured I'd give an update -

Caveats: I'm an amateur. nuff said.

I swapped out my Canon 18-135 for the 24-105L f/4and also added a 70-200L f/4IS.

I absolutely love both lenses.

First off if you are considering a 70-200mm imo you MUST get the IS. I am getting vey sharp photos at 180mm+ and shutter speeds at 1/80, 1/100 etc and that just isn't possible off tripod without IS. I tried to save a few bucks by getting the non-IS and I promptly returned it and got the IS. Don't waste time, just get the IS.

That 70-200mm is amazing but that's no secret I guess. All 4 of the 70-200mms from Canon are super highly regarded and so that's that. If you need/like this focal length just do it and you'll be thrilled.

Both lenses are sharper than any other non-L zoom Canon makes...even the 17-55 2.8 IMO (non-L primes may very well compete though). You can see this, objectively, on the test site linked above. Whether or not you will see this in your own photos is subjective of course but I have for sure. to me, the 24-105 is a much better lens than the 18-135 in both sharpness and color.

when I was thinking about all this I tended to downplay "build quality". I just figured I wouldn't care all that much. Well I can say now that these lenses make other lenses feel like plastic toys. They are solid and substantial, they look nice (red ring, LOL) and they focus silently and quickly with nary a zzzzt or whir to be heard. Very satisfying. The 70-200mm focuses internally and doesn't change length so even nicer.

I will say if you are in the 18-23mm range a lot, you will miss it, but that's obvious.

As for being at f/4 max...well first off it's nice to have on the zoom end for sure. I personally have really started to use moderate ISO/bounce flash indoors with nice results so I haven't missed the f speed (work in progress though, sometimes my lighting is uneven but to me it's much better than higher ISO no flash or, *gasp*, direct flash). I'm starting to get addicted to photos with that flash twinkle where a casual viewer does not even know a flash was used.

I also enjoy the dof...when I was trying to avoid flash I was using my nifty fifty or my since sold 17-55 2.8 and opening it all the way up and it was hard to get everyone around a table in sharp focus. Plus even wide I was at 1/60 or 1/30 and again it's harder to be sharp. Stop down, crank up to ISO 400/800, go 1/100 or higher, bounce a flash and I'm in happy mode indoors.

So yeah, I'm thrilled.

Is it worth the $$$ to buy these lenses? Well that's a super duper subjective question. It was to me.

 

[nbaresejr]

Is it worth the $$$ to buy these lenses? Well that's a super duper subjective question. It was to me.

I am happy to hear the end result of this. I agree with Photo_Chick and others who said that better glass is worth it, its just justifying the expense. I purchased the 70-200L IS f/4 also and its amazing the quality of the L glass. The colors just pop!

I have also toyed with getting the 24-105L but just cant pull the trigger. On 1 hand it will make the jump to FF easier having 2 FF lenses. On the other hand for me 24 is just not wide enough on that end and i would be switching to my 10-20 more and more and its just not as sharp corner to corner as my Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS.

I am pretty happy with my current lineup and if the 70D is all that canon rumors say it is i will probably say with a crop sensor for the long term.

 

[mom2rtk]

So it's been a long time but I figured I'd give an update -

Caveats: I'm an amateur. nuff said.

I swapped out my Canon 18-135 for the 24-105L f/4and also added a 70-200L f/4IS.

I absolutely love both lenses.

First off if you are considering a 70-200mm imo you MUST get the IS. I am getting vey sharp photos at 180mm+ and shutter speeds at 1/80, 1/100 etc and that just isn't possible off tripod without IS. I tried to save a few bucks by getting the non-IS and I promptly returned it and got the IS. Don't waste time, just get the IS.

That 70-200mm is amazing but that's no secret I guess. All 4 of the 70-200mms from Canon are super highly regarded and so that's that. If you need/like this focal length just do it and you'll be thrilled.

Both lenses are sharper than any other non-L zoom Canon makes...even the 17-55 2.8 IMO (non-L primes may very well compete though). You can see this, objectively, on the test site linked above. Whether or not you will see this in your own photos is subjective of course but I have for sure. to me, the 24-105 is a much better lens than the 18-135 in both sharpness and color.

when I was thinking about all this I tended to downplay "build quality". I just figured I wouldn't care all that much. Well I can say now that these lenses make other lenses feel like plastic toys. They are solid and substantial, they look nice (red ring, LOL) and they focus silently and quickly with nary a zzzzt or whir to be heard. Very satisfying. The 70-200mm focuses internally and doesn't change length so even nicer.

I will say if you are in the 18-23mm range a lot, you will miss it, but that's obvious.

As for being at f/4 max...well first off it's nice to have on the zoom end for sure. I personally have really started to use moderate ISO/bounce flash indoors with nice results so I haven't missed the f speed (work in progress though, sometimes my lighting is uneven but to me it's much better than higher ISO no flash or, *gasp*, direct flash). I'm starting to get addicted to photos with that flash twinkle where a casual viewer does not even know a flash was used.

I also enjoy the dof...when I was trying to avoid flash I was using my nifty fifty or my since sold 17-55 2.8 and opening it all the way up and it was hard to get everyone around a table in sharp focus. Plus even wide I was at 1/60 or 1/30 and again it's harder to be sharp. Stop down, crank up to ISO 400/800, go 1/100 or higher, bounce a flash and I'm in happy mode indoors.

So yeah, I'm thrilled.

Is it worth the $$$ to buy these lenses? Well that's a super duper subjective question. It was to me.

I was really happy to see you post your feedback on your new lenses. I'm so glad you have a kit you're happy with.

After reading that, I'm probably more tempted than ever before to reconsider my lineup. For me though it comes down to a couple issues:

1) wide end of the focal length. I really do shoot a lot between 17 and 24, especially at Disney. But I've been mighty tempted to give up those 7mm's on the wide end to get a little more zoom.

and

2) the wider aperture. I love having the 2.8. I'm downright spoiled by it. So much that I just sold my Canon 10-22 to buy back the Tokina 11-16 that I sold to GET the Canon......... just because I wanted the 2.8 back. Maybe others can get by with losing a little in that regard. For me though, I just miss it too much. I think it's because I have incredibly unsteady hands. I'm thinking I just need to accomplish a little faster shutter speed than most.

I do totally agree with needing to have IS if I get a 700-200. It's what has been holding me back. To get that one with IS in a 2.8 creates a beast I just don't want to carry. I rented the version 2 of that Canon lens for my son's High School graduation last month. And while I LOVED what it can do, I just don't think I'd want to carry it along in most situations. Soooooo...... you do have me wondering if I might want to reconsider maybe the f/4 version. If I'm not mistaken it's a decent amount lighter than it's 2.8 sibling.

My current zoom is the Sigma 50-150 without IS. It was not available with IS when I bought it. And it really is a problem for me. Sharp as can be when I can get the shutter speed up fast enough. They have now come out with a version with IS, but it's almost as heavy as the Canon 70-200 2.8 I rented.

You give me a lot to think about. Remind me where you bought your lenses?

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

I bought both used from Canon POTN marketplace. Good luck with your decisions!

I'm gonna add the 10-22 or 11-16 at some point. I hear you on the 2.8 indoors at say BOG but bouncing a flash works wonders...I'm sure you've seen Neil Van Something's website and/or the Strobist.

 

[Boo Bear]

My perspective is if you have a certain type of image that you're wanting to capture, but your lens won't allow you to achieve that goal, get the new lens if its affordable.

In regards to your question about "needing" a 200mm zoom... can you get closer to your subject more often than not? If so, then no, it's a want.

If you keep getting new lenses, then something about photography and image composition can get lost. Have fun with what you already own. Try to become an expert at what you have. That way you'll know what is the best investment to make.

I'm a professional photographer and I only keep two lenses in my main bag at all times. My 24-70 2.8 and my 70-200 2.8. I have others, but those give me what I need for just about any circumstance. Whenever I need a new lens for a job, I either rent one and try it out or trade in what I don't use much for a new lens.

It sounds like you really enjoy photography and know quite a bit about manual functions. Enjoy the ride!

 

[Experiment_626]

I'm pretty fortunate; between what I own myself and what my employer has supplied, I've got too much gear to carry at any one time. A Nikon D300 (mine) and a D7000 (work), and lenses: Rokinon 8mm fisheye*, Sigma 10-20 UWA*, Nikkor 35mm f/1.8, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8*, Nikkor 18-135*, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, Nikkor 55-300 & those with an asterisk are mine. I have the 18-135 in semi-retired status, and I typically use the 70-200 only for posed portraits because it lacks stabilization and is too heavy to hand-hold except in bright light, but that's a pretty full kit. I use the D7000 most of the time unless the weather is bad; the D300 has better weather-sealing. Still waiting on Nikon to release a D400, which I still believe will eventually happen.

I also have (through work) a D50 and 18-55mm lens; I never use either one. They stay at work just in case I'm not there and someone really needs a photo.

Most of the time if I'm in the parks, I pack a sling bag with D7000, the short Tamron, the 55-300, the 10-20; the 35mm and 50 mm primes can fit one top of the other in a single lens slot. There's not room in any bag I have to hold everything unless it is just for transport, and that much is more weight than I'd want to carry for extended periods anyway. But I have no interest in Micro 4/3s; I like the size of the D300; the D7000 is smaller than I'd ideally prefer.

My employer has no issue with me using the equipment for personal use, because they know it makes me a better photographer when I'm working because I know the equipment well and my skills are sharp from frequent practice.

Qapla'

SSB