80D Lens Recommendation

[Jondile]

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?

[RobertTheFat]

A popular lens with the denizens of this forum is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It doesn't have the reach of the 24-105, but it goes wider at the other end. And it's one stop faster. It's a better match for the angle of view of an APS-C camera than the 24-70, and it has IS. It's built pretty well, and its image quality is excellent. So if you aren't planning to go full-frame in the foreseeable future, I recommend it.

[ebiggs1]

I also suggest the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens as the lens for you. To get first anyway.  It has more advantages than just a stop or two from what you currently have.  The main one is it is a 'constant' aperture.  Much preferable to the variable aperture you have now.  Not to mention its IQ is better.

"I am looking into the 24-105 ii and the 100-400 ii lenses so I have that wide range covered"

I do not understand that comparison.  Those are two totally different lenses. You actually want both of them not either of them!

I can not say enough goodness about the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens.  It is simply a fantastic lens.  It is the best there is. That lens goes with me everywhere I go.  I am never without mine.  

I don't currently own a 100-400mil but I did in the past.  I prefer the Sigma 150-600mm offerings to it, especially the S model.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Jondile wrote:
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?

---

The lack of IS should not be an issue when you use a fast shutter.  With a crop body, I recommned using a minimum speed of the inverse of twice the Focal Lenght, 1 / ( 2*FL ).  With that lens [24-70], using 1/200, or faster, and employing best practices when holding the camera, should give you sharp photos.

If you are interested in video, then you will want a wide angle, wide aperture lens, for sure.  The suggested EF-S 18-55mm f/2.8 IS STM will make a great walk around lens, and will shoot great video.  It is the best choice to upgrade the kit lens, which is no slouch, BTW.

If you are wanting to shoot video, then you will want an even faster wide angle lens than f/2.8.  But, I would stick with the suggested zoom for now.  A good lens to have in your bag is the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM.  It will feel a little long on your 80D, but it will do a great job of photographing cars.

[EDIT]

[TCampbell]

A “normal” focal length (one that looks neither wide-angle nor telephoto) for any camera is the one where the focal length of the lens is equal to the diagonal measure of the sensor size.   For your APS-C camera that’s about 27mm.  Anything shorter gives you a wider angle of view... anything longer gives you a narrow (telephoto) angle of view.

Based on this, you can see how the 18-55 is a combination wide + tele in that 18 is 2/3rds of 27 and 55mm is about double 27mm.

But if you use a 24-105 or the 24-70 this means you’ll have just a few mm shy of normal (so it really wont seem “wide”) and then all the rest of the focal lengths are longer.  

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is the high-end general purpose lens for your camera (general purpose in that it offers a bit of both wide + tele in the same lens) but can provide an f/2.8 focal ratio at all focal lengths in the range (it’s not a variable focal ratio lens like your kit 18-55 lens).  This means it’s gaining just shy of an extra stop on the short end and a full 2 stops on the long end.  A “stop” is a doubling of light.  So 1 stop means it collects double the light... two stops means it collects double of double (or 4 times more light — which it does at the long end).

It’s definitely THE general purpose working lens for the APS-C bodies.  

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM II will work on your camera but it was mostly designed with full-frame camera bodies in mind due to it’s range (on a full-frame camera, the diagonal measure of the sensor is about 44mm... so that lens offers a nice wide through moderately tele range if used on a full frame body such as a 1D series, 5D series, or 6D series body.

With that said... I bought the 24-70 for my old T1i... but with a different rationale.  I had been shooting film and wanted to “dip my toe” into the digital market to see if the camera were finally ready to replace my film camera.  But I didn’t want to break the bank on a premium camera ... at least not just yet.  Once I realized I was pretty happy with the T1i... I decided I wanted to move back to full-frame cameras (a “full frame” DSLR is one where the sensor size is the same size as a frame of 35mm film) and that probably meant a 5D series body for me ... and you cannot attach an EF-S lens to a full-frame body (the image it projects into the camera body isn’t large enough to fill the sensor).  So I didn’t want to buy the premium EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and then not be able to use it on a full-frame body.  I ended up buying the 24-70 f/2.8L (the original... the version II wouldn’t come out for years) and used that until I switched to full-frame bodies.

While this might sound like I’m trying to talk you out of the 24-70 (I’m not.. I just want you to know what to expect) the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L version II... is basically the best 24-70 on the market (including lenses made for 3rd party bodies).  It’s that good.

Of the EF-S lenses... those that shine above the rest are:

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro

Those are probably the most impressive EF-S lenses there are (and frankly they compete with the Canon “L” series lenses in many ways.  Canon has a rule that no lens can get an “L” designation unless it can work on every EOS body (film or digital) and that automatically disqualifies all EF-S and EF-M lenses from getting an “L” designation (“L” series lenses are Canon’s top-end glass).  However... just because the EF-S lenses are not “L” series lenses does not mean they aren’t extremely very good.

The 100-400mm version II is extremely good and does exceptionally well in all reviews.   In fact it does so well... that if you pair the 100-400mm II with a 1.4x teleconverter (making it an effective 140-560mm lens) and then compare it to the 150-600mm offerings on the market, it STILL beats the other lenses (it’s that good - which is really impressive considering that you usually get a degradation in optical quality whenever you attach a teleconverter).  So I don’t think you need to worry that you’ll like that lens.

The other distinguished lens in the lineup is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II.  That’s another lens that ranks pretty much as the best-in-class among any lens with similar focal length range (by any brand, for any camera system.)

[Jondile]

Thank you this really helped. I really am interested in the 17-55 now. I think I want to buy the 17-55, 24-105, and 70-300 L. A friend lended me his 24-105 mk I for the day and I was amazed. The focal length is perfect. But I want the wider 17-55 and telephoto 70-300 because I do a lot of shooting where I need those ranges. But I can’t see my self with the 24-70 2.8, it’s expensive and I like the extra 35mm with the 105

[ebiggs1]

Everybody needs to get and do what they think is right but I want to strongly push you into the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens in favor of the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens (actually a 38-168mm).  Don't get me wrong here I think the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens is a best buy in Canon "L" lenses. I had two of them and used them for years.  But the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM on a cropper is far superior.  By far !

Now if you are intending on buying the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens (the white one) remember it is actually going to show you a 112-480.  Some pretty serious focal length.

If I am not successful in changing your mind, there used to be 'white box' versions of the Canon EF 24105mm f/4L IS USM Lens.  They were in the $700 +/- range.  They are brand new and have a full Canon USA warranty.  Perhaps they are not out there any longer since Canon has released a version II of that lens.  But you might do a little searching.  Could save you a couple hundred bucks.

[Jondile]

I really want to buy the 17-55 and 24-105. 17-55 is a great length for most of what I do, and at f2.8 it’s amazing. But 24-105 is also amazing length for me too. I used one at an event where I needed mainly zoom but some wide and i didn’t have to take the lens off for a telephoto. If I used my 18-55 I would have had to pop it off at times. And as far as the 70-300 I really need a high quality telephoto lens. I have the 75-300 and it lacks in the quality department at times. And the lack of IS is an issue too

[ebiggs1]

You know your situation better than I.  It is best to go with what you deem right for you.  Otherwise you will never know!

However I would very much like to hear your feelings a year or so after your purchase.

All the best to you.

[Jondile]

Ok will do and thanks for this advice!