topic Re: What lens to buy next? in EF & RF Lenses

What lens to buy next?

CgRay — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 13:25:24 GMT

I've had my DSLR for about a year and I'm hooked. I take it everywhere with me. I'm looking to replace the kit lenses I have with something that's going to keep me happy for a long time. I've been eyeing off an EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM. Or possibly also the cheaper non L version. I've since had a friend recommend that instead, I buy the EF 70-200 f2.8 L USM. Cause its so fast. Which I'm now kind of leaning towards. But then I think that for that price, I could get the non L series 70-300 along with a couple of wider primes. I'm thinking that if I get the 70-200 f2.8 L, then that's that range sorted for some time to come, whereas if I buy the cheaper one with other primes, then I'm thinking I might always be wanting a more serious telezoom. I want to do all sorts of photography in the future, all the way from wildlife, to family occasions, to macro insects, galleries, street art, hdr spherical captures for lighting in 3d projects, long exposure star shots, moon shots. Can anyone share any experiences that might make this a little less overwhelming?

Cheers,
Cg.

Re: What lens to buy next?

ScottyP — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 15:31:55 GMT

What is your budget, and which one or two types of photography are most important to you?

You list almost every kind of photography as being of interest to you, but it might be hard to afford good quality lenses for all of those. You would probably do better getting one good quality lens than 3 or 4 lower quality ones.

Re: What lens to buy next?

TCampbell — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:18:48 GMT

Lenses with low focal ratios -- such as the f/2.8 zooms -- are great for a couple of things: (1) they collect a lot more light so you can shoot in cirumstances where there's less light available without having to push up the ISO. (2) the lower focal ratio will let you decrease the depth of field and use selective focus with a beautiful background blur.

An f/2.8 focal ratio is collecting four times more light than an f/5.6 focal ratio. That's a noticeable difference in shutter speed if you're shooting action subjects.

The downside of f/2.8 zooms is that they are always expensive. Since the aperture has to be larger to collect more light, each lens element has to be larger. When the elements get larger they increase dispersion issues and create "chromatic aberration" (aka "color fringing" -- a bad thing). To compat that, they have to introduce extra elements and/or use low-dispersion glass such as florite crystal (which has to be "grown' very slowly in a kiln over many months -- although not every low-dispersion glass element is made out of florite crystal.) Anyway... it definitely drives up the cost of the lens as well as results in a larger and heavier lens. But the image character is usually fantastic.

Re: What lens to buy next?

CgRay — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 05:32:47 GMT

@scottyP, Thanks for your reply, my budget at this stage will allow me to buy one of the L series that I listed. Or 2 -3 of the non L.

I guess that macro photography will be the last on the list for now, so I'm not looking for a macro lens for a while. My plan was to replace my kit telezoom to start with and then buy some primes on the wider range later on. I really like my little 40mm pancake for everyday usage. It's small, light and fast. And it seems that you can get some really nice fast fixed lenses at a lot less cost than a fast telezoom so that's why I thought I'd concentrate on the longer end of the range now while I have the money available. But I'm unsure if the L lenses are overkill for me or not. If it is, I can then get the non L series 70-300 and maybe a nice prime and an ND filter with some step down rings. But the more I think about it, the fast 70-200 is feeling like the way I probably want to go.

Cheers,
Cg.

Re: What lens to buy next?

CgRay — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 00:12:48 GMT

@TCampbell. Thanks for replying. So you're saying that the only downside is cost?

Re: What lens to buy next?

amfoto1 — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 05:17:21 GMT

Cost is one factor with large aperture lenses.

There is also size and weight.

The 70-200/4L IS is about 3/4 lb. lighter and maybe 20-25% smaller than the 70-200/2.8L IS, for example. It might not seem a lot on paper, but when you are carrying a lens around and shooting with it all day, size and weight can make a big difference... such as whether you happily take the lens with you all the time or are tempted to leave it at home because it's a bit of a hassle to lug around. A top of the line lens that you leave at home isn't going to do a lot for you.

All the Canon EF 70-200s are excellent lenses.... real workhorses built for many years use, with top image quality and fast focus. I do recommend the IS versions, it's very helpful to have stabilization on these, especially when using them on a crop sensor camera such as yours. But, of course, IS adds some cost.

Another consideration is using teleconverters. You can't use one on your 55-250mm. You could use a 1.4X teleconverter on a 70-200/4 and still have autofocus with your camera (probably the center AF point only). With a 70-200/2.8 you could use either a 1.4X or a 2X. The reason is that teleconverters reduce the amount of light passing through to the camera. A 1.4X "costs" one stop and a 2X reduces by two stops. Your camera can autofocus up to f5.6 lenses. An f4 lens with a 1.4X on it becomes an effective f5.6, so will still be able to AF. The same f4 lens, if you added a 2X would become an effective f8, so wouldn't autofocus (there are tricks to try to make it try to work, but it will be slower, more likely to hunt and your viewfinder will be dimmer to try to manual focus). Meanwhile, the f2.8 lens with 2X on it is an effective f5.6, so is able to focus. Note that there is always some loss of image quality to teleconverters too...more to the stronger ones. You'd have to be the judge if the image quality of an f2.8 lens with a 2X on it gives acceptible quality or not (teleconverters generally work best on prime lenses, rather than zooms).

In some cases, too, a lens that's got a large aperture has to compromise a bit on image quality. An f2.8 lens is more difficult to keep from flare than an f4, may not be as sharp wide open, may be more prone to chromatic aberrations, etc.

So, it's not just cost differences. If you are interested in a 70-200, I'd suggest going to a store and checking them out in person, to decide if you feel comfortable using the larger/heavier f2.8 or prefer the f4. If you opt for the larger lens, one think that might help is using a batter grip on your camera. That can help the camera balance better, with the larger/heavier lens on it.

You have a very wide range of interests and might need to do some prioritizing, to best decide what lens(es) you need now vs. what might wait until later. For example, for wildlife you are likely to want a longer telephoto such as a 100-400 zoom or a 300mm + 1.4X or 400mm prime. If you want to shoot a lot of macro, an EF-S 60mm or EF 100/2.8 macro lens might be a priority.

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Re: What lens to buy next?

CgRay — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 10:58:14 GMT

Thank you amfoto1, that's given me a lot more to think about.
You say that IS is important. What is more important between IS and speed? Say comparing an f2.8 without IS to an f4 with IS. From my limited experience I would have thought that the faster lens would be preferable. My reasoning is that its no good having a stabilised image if there wasn't enough light to avoid noise in the first place. And a faster lens also allows faster shutter speeds to reduce both camera shake and motion blur. Or am I not understanding?

Re: What lens to buy next?

amfoto1 — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:37:09 GMT

You are correct... having a larger aperture lens can allow for faster shutter speeds, which makes for steadier shots and to help stop moving subjects (IS can't do anything to stop subject motion).

But...

You can't always use f2.8... sometimes it's just too shallow depth of field. Those times it can be helpful to be able to use slower shutter speeds, thanks to IS.

And, IS can give the equivalent of two or three or even four stops of handholdability (vs the one stop difference between f4 and f2.8 in the 70-200mm lens examples).

And, using a telephoto on a crop sensor cameras such as our APS-C amplifies any camera shake, making IS even more useful (for example, if you can handhold a 50mm lens at 1/50 on a so-called full frame camera, that's reduced to 1/80 on a crop sensor Canon... or with 200mm, you'll need 1/320 on a crop, where you could use 1/200 on full frame).

Of course, the ideal would be to have both at your disposal... f2.8 and IS. But, of course, that makes for a more expensive lens.

I've been using various IS lenses for over ten years now. In fact, IS was a key reason I switched to the Canon system in 2001. Canon was the only manufacturer offering stabilization SLRs or their lenses, at the time.

I can safely say I've been able to get a lot of shots with them, that very likely would not have been possible without IS. I also use both the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS (first version) and the 70-200/4 IS (as a backup, or when I want a lighter lens). It's one of my most used lenses, hence the backup. Eventually I will upgrade to the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II, but I haven't done so yet. I've used the non-IS f2.8 lens... not sure if I've ever used the non-IS f4.

There are some differences, probably mainly due to age and Canon's continuing development of the line.

The non-IS 70-200/2..8 is the oldest of the bunch (1995) and by a small margin the weakest optically, most of the difference when wide open at f2.8. Now, the differences aren't a lot, but they are there.

The non-IS f4 is the bargain of the bunch, tends to be a bit sharper throughout than the older f2.8 lenses, and is a little newer (1999).

The 70-200/2.8 IS is the next version, dating from around 2001, and saw some optical improvements, along with the addition of two or three stops worth of IS. My copy of this lens has been a real workhorse. I usually stop it down to f4 or f5.6 when possible, for a little extra depth-of-field, pershaps some extra fudge against any slight focus error... and for max sharpness edge to edge. f2.8 is perfectly usable, just ever so slightly less sharp than when stopped down a bit. This 70-200mm version has now been discontinued, while all the others remain in production.

The 70-200/4 IS is the next to the newest version (2006), with an improved IS that can provide three or four stops of assistance, as well as some optical tweaks that until recently made it the sharpest of the bunch at all apertures and focal lengths. Of course, the f2.8 lens can give a little more background blur that might offer more subject separation from the background.

But now the latest and greatest 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II (2010) has taken over as the sharpest, best stabilized (also approx. 3 or 4 stops worth), nicest background blur, and - of course - the most expensive.

Another difference... the f2.8 lenses come with the matching tripod ring. With the f4 versions it's an optional accessory - sold separately. Of course, you might not need the tripod ring, might be more inclined to only use the f4 lenses handheld... Or, to look at it another way, you might be more inclined to put the larger/heavier f2.8 versions of the lens on a monopod or a tripod.

All the Canon 70-200s are L-series, with top quality build and durability. The lenses themselves and the controls on the barrels are pretty well sealed... relatively resistant to dust and moisture intrusion. The latest three models also have a rubber sealing o-ring on the bayonet mounting ring, to further help seal the lens-to-camera connection against dust and moisture. They all also come with a matched lens hood (the f2.8 hoods are "tulip" shaped, the f4 lenses' are not).

Really, if you want/need a 70-200, any of these lenses are top quality and capable of doing you proud. Just pick the size, weight and features you want, along with the price your budget can handle.

For me, the extra cost of IS on a telephoto lens (anything over, say, 70 or 100mm) is nearly always worth it. You'll have to decide for yourself if it's worth it to you. IMO, it's one of the best things since sliced bread. I am less enthralled with IS on shorter focal lengths... Sure. It's nice to have... especially if it adds little or no cost... or if there is no choice with a particular lens that best meets all my other needs. But I wouldn't go out of my way to get IS on, say, a lens that's 50 or 70mm or shorter focal length.

Re: What lens to buy next?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:00:37 GMT

The lens for you is the Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM. It is a truly fantastic professional level lens. It won't break the bank as badly as the Canon. Check it out. You will love it.

You will still have some money left for some other lens, too!

You are really not upgrading if you stick in the f3.5-5.6 consumer lenses market. They simply do not compare to a lens in the Sigma EX, or Canon "L" glass catagory.

Re: What lens to buy next?

TCampbell — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:32:37 GMT

I definitely minded the weight of my f/2.8 lenses when I used the factory neck-strap and carried the camera all day. I eventually bought a sling-type strap (mine is a Black-Rapid strap, but the Carry Speed strap is also pretty nice) and it makes it MUCH more enjoyable to have a camera all day long.

As for the difference between low focal ratio for "speed" vs. image stabilization... these both fix completely different challenges.

IS keeps the camera stable to avoid blur when YOU are moving.

Faster shutter speeds help you freeze images to avoid blur when YOUR SUBJECT is moving but also help when YOU are moving.

Image stabilization doesn't do anything to help stabilize a moving subject. Faster shutter speeds can help stabilize both. Just keep in mind that while the low focal ratio increases light collection through the lens -- thus giving you a faster shutter speed -- it ALSO narrows your depth of field. If you need a broad depth of field, then the low focal ratio wont be helpful.

Even though I have mostly f/2.8 lenses, I often use f/4 or higher for the depth of field and to control how much blur I get in the background. At f/2 or f/2.8 the background might be so heavily blurred that there's a lot of color but no definition so the view has no idea what's in the background. At f/4 it's still a pleasant blur, but it starts to get enough definition that the viewer gets a suggestion of what's back there (even though it's very soft)... and sometimes I want that.

Re: What lens to buy next?

ScottyP — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 17:35:00 GMT

I found the 70-200 2.8 IS mk2 to be an incredible lens but a little awkward on a 1.6x crop body. The 70 was just a little too long in most general purpose shooting situations. Very sharp, beautiful bokeh. A desire to use the lens more was a factor in deciding to go full frame. It seems to fit the shooting environment more often on the full frame.

I understand the f/4 is extremely sharp, not very expensive. But again you would not get the 2.8 aperture. If I was going to make a budget compromise I think I might seriously consider it though.

You might consider the 17-55 f/2.8. It is the ultimate general purpose zoom for a crop.

Re: What lens to buy next?

CgRay — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 02:53:35 GMT

Wow, I never expected this much input. This community is awesome. Luckily I'm on holidays from work and have all the time to digest all this information and investigate all your suggestions.

@scottyP, the17-55 that you mention. I'm assuming you mean the efs 17-55 f2.8? I'm trying to not buy lenses specifically for the cropped sensor as I'm hoping one day to own a full sensor body. Even if its a second hand 5d. And I can't imagine the resale value on an efs lens would be very good.

On the other end, I'm still very undecided on a nice telezoom. I figure that if I can't afford to get the 70-200mm f2.8 IS at $2600, then I'm likely looking at the f4 IS or f2.8 non IS both at about $1600. But the f2.8 is heavy and lacks IS.Then if thats the case then the 70-300 f4-5.6 might give me more range for the same price and a bit lighter than the f2.8. Then I'm back thinking that why spend $1600 on that if I could get the non L version and just spend $500. I mean is it really going to be more than 3 times better? And if I do get the cheaper one, it leaves money for other lenses/filters/flash etc etc. Do you all go through this back and forth when you want to buy lenses? Or is it that when you have more experience, its easier to decide because you have more of an idea where your needs/wants lie? I have some experienced friends that I've also been asking opinions of. Some say that fast glass is definitely the way to go even without IS and the weight hasnt been an issue for them. Others are saying you really shouldnt forgo IS with lenses that long. So all in all, I'm a lot more educated than I was a week ago, but I'm still no closer to deciding what to get. Hehe.

I was up til 4am this morning investigating, reading reviews, calculating costs etc.

I am really enjoying this journey so far,
Cg.

Re: What lens to buy next?

ebiggs1 — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:05:06 GMT

Again, IMHO, you should stay away from any of the consumer line of lenses. You already have them!

You need to start looking at "L" glass or for instance EX in the Sigma line.

If on the other hand you are pleased with the photos you are getting right now, maybe other accessories would be more valuable to you.

The choice of shying away from crop body only lenses is yours to make but the Sigma I recommended in my first post take a backseat to very few lenses out there. Plus you can use it right now and not be waiting for something you might never do.

Buy the lenses that fits your needs now not tomorrow.

Re: What lens to buy next?

ScottyP — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:30:34 GMT

I would go with any 70-200 L (except maybe the 2.8 IS mk 1) over any 70-300, even the "L" one. It is plenty long on the crop body right now and the IQ is much better. If you do go FF later you can keep the crop body for long outdoor shooting.

If you really really want a long tele, I'd seriously consider a 400 f/5.6. Better IQ from this fixed length lens than you get from a long zoom (under like $10,000 anyway) and it is bright enough since most things you'd typically shoot at that distance would be daytime targets anyway., and the price is a comparative bargain.

Re: What lens to buy next?

CgRay — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 01:37:48 GMT

I think I've found the lens for me. It has all the features of the $2600 70-200 f2.8 IS, but is only $1100. It's the sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex dg os hsm. Granted its sharpness towards the corners isn't right up there with the canon, and it doesnt have the weatherproofing of the canon, but from what I've read, it is a very good lens. Especially for the price range. I felt that if I bought one of the canon 70-200s , I would have been compromising on features. Either buying an f4 with IS, or f2.8 without. This way I get f2.8 with OS. (Sigmas version of IS). Does anyone have experience with this lens?

Re: What lens to buy next?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:07:17 GMT

"Does anyone have experience with this lens?" Yes!

It is a fantastic lens and a very good choice. Of the lenes you have mentioned it is probably the second best, to the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II, which, BTW, is the best lens I have ever owned.

Re: What lens to buy next?

fasteddiehawaii — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:56:26 GMT

Aloha! I think the " best next lens" is the one you absolutely have to buy for your next project or hobby event; but only after reading as many reviews as you can and comparing the MTF charts on each lens. I bought a 16-35 F4.0 many years ago and it is just sitting there-now there is a faster version out there and I would take a great loss selling it just to take it out of my equipment bag but at the time, it was a great lens to have and recommended by many pros and magazines.

Re: What lens to buy next?

Bill-Emmett — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 22:44:20 GMT

Now you can get rid of all that EF-S glass in one big swoop. Aquire a Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM lens, that lens will cover all you bases with good glass. Once you experience Canon "L" quality glass you will never go back. You may want to look at the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM, or the f4 version with IS. Both are great lenses. I don't recomend a lens with out overlap of the upper and lower mm. Usually this is where the most distortion exists, so in your case I recommend the

24-105mm f4 IS USM lens. On the lower end you have the Sigma to cover that mm size. Once you decide to go full frame, you will have all the lenses you may need in your bag, as far as zooms. Oh, when you mention shooting wildlife, you better start thinking expensive. The price of those lenses will humble you. You may want to look into some extenders for your Sigma 70-200, Kenko makes pretty good ones at 1.4, and 2X. Don't think your crop factor will add you any more tele, it just adds angle of view. With a tele-extender you do get 1.4 magnification of your subject, or with 2X you will magnify by two the subject. Also, you will loose one or two f stops when using a converter. Keep in mind, putting more glass between the camera and lens will degrade the image quality. For you daylight work, be sure to add a good quality CP filter, it will remove glare from water, shiney objects and darken the blue sky.

Re: What lens to buy next?

fasteddiehawaii — Sun, 21 Jul 2013 05:06:56 GMT

aloha! Besides thinking about this before you buy, and weighing the different options you might want to consider (weight, low light availability, MTF chart studies, focal length, etc) what I have always tried to do is to buy the best lens I could get for what I needed. I never bought non-"L" lenses and have never been sorry. The wait it took to accumulate the funds often gave me more time to think about it and make a commitment to my choice. It also gave canon time to come out with a new model sometimes, but one thing is for sure-you never want to purchase the same lens twice-one" L" lens later and one **bleep**ty or off brand one in the beginning. You may, as time goes by, want to upgrade the body as well, and I don't think I would want a canon top of the line body with a sigma or someother lower grade lens. Not ony that-I never mix ford and chevy parts so to speak and have never been sorry in over 25 years of taking pictures. thanks-just a thought!

PS: it is much easier to sell an "L" lens with less loss if you take care of it!!

Re: What lens to buy next?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 21 Jul 2013 15:00:57 GMT

If you are still reading this column, there seems to be some mis-information posted.

A hard concept for some to understand is the 1.6x crop factor. Although it does not change the actual focal length of a lens, it does change the “effective” focal length. No matter what you may call it a 100mm lens will act like a 160m lens on a crop body, for instance. Your 70-200mm will act like a 112-320mm. You do get free tele for nothing.

Now about lens quality, there is no doubt Canon makes some of the best lenses in the world. A best example is my 70-200mm f2.8 II. But Canon, photographers and most people know for a fact Canon does not make the best lens in every one of it's offerings. Sigma and Tamron, Leica Summicron and others make some very good glass. Some of them are at the top of their class and charts. A glowing example is Sigma's new 35mm f1.4 “Art” series lens. Tamron's 24-70mm f2.8 is also a best buy. Just for a couple examples. There are many others.

Any piece of glass you put between your camera and lens will degrade the quality of the photo. You must decide whether it is worth the effort. Remember in photography there is no free lunch. You give up something to get something. If do decide to get an extender for instance, get the one made by the lens maker.

I don't know what this has to do with car parts but it is always good to stay with a lens makers accessories. This goes for the screw on filter. I do recommend you get a Sigma UV filter for your new baby. It just makes sense to have a $35 dollar protector on the $1200 lens!?!?

I don't buy lenses for what I might sell them for in the future; I buy lenses that fit my needs, now. That certainly includes initial cost as a factor. The lens you wish you had won't take a better picture than the one you do have.

Have fun with your new "baby"!