cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

80D Lens Recommendation

Jondile
Contributor
Hello! I currently have a Canon 80D with the 18-55 kit lens. I usually shoot cars and also do a fair amount of work inside and occasionally do low light, maybe some video. I am looking into the 24-105 ii and the 100-400 ii lenses so I have that wide range covered. However I don’t know how that f/4 will perform in lower light, especially on a crop sensor. I like the 24-70 2.8 ii but I don’t know how the lack of is will affect my shots. Anyone have any suggestions as to what I should buy?
16 REPLIES 16

Agree with Ernie. 24-105 f/4 is a good kit lens for full frame. For crop it is often not wide enough and the loss of a stop of light Vs f/2.8 is felt hard on a crop sensor, which likely lags by 1.5 to 2 stops in low light/high ISO performance vs full frame.   Zoom with your feet to make up the difference, it makes your photos more interesting anyway.  Go 17-55 f/2.8 unless you plan to go full frame soon. 

 

Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?

Jondile
Contributor
I definitely think I’ll go with the 17-55, but for those times when I can’t zoom with my feet what lens do you recommend. Would the 24-105 be good?


Jondile wrote:
I definitely think I’ll go with the 17-55, but for those times when I can’t zoom with my feet what lens do you recommend. Would the 24-105 be good?

The true mission of the 24-105 is as an outdoor walkaround lens for a full-frame camera. I'd be inclined not to buy it unless I were planning to go FF in the foreseeable future. (When I was in that situation, I did buy one for my 7D's, but used it only sporadically. I now use it regularly on my 5D Mk III.)

 

Possibly the best lens for your purposes is a 50-150mm f/2.8, but Canon doesn't make one of those. Sigma used to; but the last time I looked, it was out of production. It's too bad, because I think it's probably the ideal general-purpose telephoto for an APS-C camera (basically the functional equivalent of a 70-200 on a FF camera).

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Jondile
Contributor
Ok, well thank you. It’s hard shopping for a APS-C


@Jondile wrote:
Ok, well thank you. It’s hard shopping for a APS-C

Sigma currently makes a 50-100mm f/1.8 Art Series lens.  The Sigma Art Series are their highly regarded, flagship series of lenses.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


@Waddizzle wrote:

@Jondile wrote:
Ok, well thank you. It’s hard shopping for a APS-C

Sigma currently makes a 50-100mm f/1.8 Art Series lens.  The Sigma Art Series are their highly regarded, flagship series of lenses.


A fine lens, no doubt. But if I were in Jondile's shoes, I'd sacrifice the 1½ stops for the additional reach of a 50-150 f/2.8. I think it's a conspicuous omission from Canon's product line and tends to make their support for the 7D Mk II seem a bit half-hearted. Now I realize that we all have some version of the 70-200, and I suppose that somebody (you? Ernie? Tom?) may wonder why a 70-200 wouldn't be perfectly fine on a 7D2. But I had a 70-200 at work and concluded that it was too long on a 7D, even in the big City Council chamber where I did a lot of my event photography. That was really the main reason I finally bought a 5D3.

 

Just for clarification: For events, I usually used two 7D's, one with the 70-200 and the other with a 17-55. What bothered me was the 15mm gap between the two lenses.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA


@RobertTheFat wrote:

@Waddizzle wrote:

@Jondile wrote:
Ok, well thank you. It’s hard shopping for a APS-C

Sigma currently makes a 50-100mm f/1.8 Art Series lens.  The Sigma Art Series are their highly regarded, flagship series of lenses.


A fine lens, no doubt. But if I were in Jondile's shoes, I'd sacrifice the 1½ stops for the additional reach of a 50-150 f/2.8. I think it's a conspicuous omission from Canon's product line and tends to make their support for the 7D Mk II seem a bit half-hearted. Now I realize that we all have some version of the 70-200, and I suppose that somebody (you? Ernie? Tom?) may wonder why a 70-200 wouldn't be perfectly fine on a 7D2. But I had a 70-200 at work and concluded that it was too long on a 7D, even in the big City Council chamber where I did a lot of my event photography. That was really the main reason I finally bought a 5D3..


i agree with you about the lens choices for an APS-C body being limited.  It is why I would often times not carry my 7D2 as a second camera body.  I would get “stuck between clubs” too often.  I would carry a 1D4, instead. 

Just about the only time I would carry the 7D2 would be on sunny days when I was carrying long lenses, looking to shoot wildlife.  For that, I would carry my 6D w/70-200, and 7D2 w/100-400. No matter what, a 16-35mm and a 50mm were in my bag.  I like to always have a fast prime handy.

Two of the more useful zoom ranges on a full frame body are 24-70mm, and 70-200mm.  The EF-S 18-55mm lenses are roughly equivalent to a 24-70.  But, you are correct.  There is nothing in the Canon lineup that is equivalent to 70-200mm on a full frame.

There is a gap in the Canon lens lineup for APS-C bodies, which third party manufacturers seem happy to fill.  It is too bad that Sigma’s 50-100mm f/1.8 DC Art does not fit a full frame body.  I like the range and speed of it.  It could be great on a crop body, to fill the niche of a 70-200mm equivalent lens.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."
Announcements