What’s Your Preference?

rvpals · #1 (**permalink**) 02-26-2011, 01:06 AM

Hi Everyone,

I've been saving up money on my first L lens.

My question is: if you could buy only 1 L lens for Canon EOS Rebel camera. What would it be?

For me personally, I am looking for an all around lens that you would most often use; that has great focus; even in low lightning; fast; sharp picture; Preferrably usable in wide angel to some telephoto range. Currently, I'm using my 18-55mm kit lens most frequently and I would like to be able to go just a bit more wide angle, if possible better zoom than 55mm.

Thanks for your insight.

Jason

dalmorloson · #2 (**permalink**) 02-26-2011, 01:12 AM

I think for a walking around lens it would have to be the 24-70. If it was the ultimate "wish" lens then the 500.

ChrisBrn · #3 (**permalink**) 02-27-2011, 10:26 AM

I highly recommend Canon EF 24-105/4L IS.

Mind, with your crop sensor camera it would work as a 38,4- 168 mm (which is a very nice range).
It is lighter than 24-20 too.
Both are excellent lenses though.

Elmo · #4 (**permalink**) 02-27-2011, 06:45 PM

The question should be what I feel is best for me. First look an see what FL's you use. If you shoot a lots of wides (17-24) then a 24-105 is not for you. On the other hand if you find lens always too short (shoot at 50 all the time) then 24-105 would be a good choice.

There might be some better choices if you are willing to forgo the "red ego ring"

inkista · #5 (**permalink**) 02-27-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvpals

My question is: if you could buy only 1 L lens for Canon EOS Rebel camera. What would it be?

Not an L. I'd probably go for the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's the closest crop-body equivalent to the EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. I shot with my 24-105 on my XT and 50D, and I still enjoy using it on crops, but it's made for my 5D Mark II and is considerably more usable on a full-frame. The not-wide-enough on a crop thing? It's real.

Ls are all full-frame bodies. So going wide-on-a-crop with one is kinda tough.

Quote:

I am looking for an all around lens that you would most often use; that has great focus; even in low lightning; fast; sharp picture; Preferrably usable in wide angel to some telephoto range.

Wow, don't ask much, do you? No, you're not going to get all that in one lens, even an L. Ls are more about image quality, not so much all-in-one convenience. For that, the majority of them have a 3x (or smaller) zoom range, and the ones that have a larger zoom range will be slower. Ls are still just lenses. Sure they're 3x more expensive than their gold-ringed USM counterparts, but that doesn't mean they're 3x the lens and will work miracles.

I suppose the EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM might be your closest bet, but an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM might also work for you. But expecting to go faster than f/2.8, to have really quick autofocus AND telephoto range is expecting a bit much. dSLR lenses are more special purpose tools. They kinda suck at being all-in-ones: c.f., 18-200 superzooms. And it's not like the 28-300L is going to be fast enough.

rvpals · #6 (**permalink**) 03-03-2011, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inkista

Not an L. I'd probably go for the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's the closest crop-body equivalent to the EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. I shot with my 24-105 on my XT and 50D, and I still enjoy using it on crops, but it's made for my 5D Mark II and is considerably more usable on a full-frame. The not-wide-enough on a crop thing? It's real.

Ls are all full-frame bodies. So going wide-on-a-crop with one is kinda tough.

Wow, don't ask much, do you? No, you're not going to get all that in one lens, even an L. Ls are more about image quality, not so much all-in-one convenience. For that, the majority of them have a 3x (or smaller) zoom range, and the ones that have a larger zoom range will be slower. Ls are still just lenses. Sure they're 3x more expensive than their gold-ringed USM counterparts, but that doesn't mean they're 3x the lens and will work miracles.

I suppose the EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM might be your closest bet, but an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM might also work for you. But expecting to go faster than f/2.8, to have really quick autofocus AND telephoto range is expecting a bit much. dSLR lenses are more special purpose tools. They kinda suck at being all-in-ones: c.f., 18-200 superzooms. And it's not like the 28-300L is going to be fast enough.

Thanks for the good advice. After reading your post, I think I just have this wrong impression that L series lens would give me the best picture.

In your opinion, if I am to make a substantial investment in a good lens. I think focus and sharp picture is my biggest need; then have ability to focus and get good picture in low light; probably have little more range on either end than kit lens I had (18-55mm). What would be your first recommendation. (doesn't have to be a L lens)

Thanks.

RichardTaylor · #7 (**permalink**) 03-04-2011, 02:05 AM

I think you are looking at more than one lens.

Re shooting in low light;
Will you be shooting hand held or will you be using a tripod?
If you are shooting longish exposures on a tripod or hand held static subjects in city streets etc the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens may meet your needs. It gives you a bit more on either end and the IS will help with the slower shutter speeds.

(1) You can get shots similar to this.

Camera Canon EOS 5D
Exposure 0.067 sec (1/15)
Aperture f/5
Focal Length 24 mm
ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Flash did not fire

(2) This is about the limit of what you can achieve hand held with a slowish zoom.

Camera Canon EOS 5D
Exposure 0.077 sec (1/13)
Aperture f/4.0
Focal Length 45 mm
ISO Speed 3200
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

Are the subjects you a shooting in low light moving and if so do you want to "freeze" the action.

If so then you will need a fast lens (around F2)
That means a prime unless you are willing and can use F2.8 and then you have more choice including zooms.

(3) And when the light is real low

Camera Canon EOS 40D
Exposure 0.003 sec (1/400)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 135 mm
ISO Speed 1600
Exposure Bias -2/3 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

The bottom line you can't get one lens that is good at everything.
You can get superzooms that are fair at a lot of things except low light when shooting hand held or when you want extreemly high IQ.

Depend on how far you want to take your photography you may end up with more than one lens.
You just need to prioritise.

From personal experience - and I shoot with booth full frame and crop bodies.
24-105 on a 5D meets most of my general purpose/vacation shooting needs (this combination is almost always with me)

12-24 on a 40D when I want to go wide or are shooting in tight spaces

70-200 F4 L on a 40D when I cover events in reasonable lighting and is great for head shots and a longish landscapes as well.

100-400 when I want reach (birding & motor sport). It is too big & hevy for a general purpose walk around tele lens, for that I have a 70-300)

For low hand held available lighting I have fast primes, however I sometimes use these for just casual shooting. .
(35 F2, 50 F1.8, and a 135 F2 L)

I also have an 18-250 super zoom, however I only use this when I have to travel really light, do not know what I will be shooting, and will be in good light.

Re IQ,
I feel
(1) The photographer has most control over the IQ, through good technique
(2) The lighting has a large part to play in it.
(3) as does PPing skills
(4) lastly it may be the lens although this can be helped, up to a point by shooting at optimum apertures.

However, very good lenses can make life a lot easier as the better ones do have better IQ (especially wide open), better bokeh, and will focus a lot faster.

wsbII · #8 (**permalink**) 03-04-2011, 02:31 AM

I'm no expert so take my advice for the 2 cents that it is. What I can offer is I am also shooting a crop body camera and was carrying a tamron 18-250. Liked it, but the sharpness and speed just wasn't there. So I just bought the 24-105L. I really do like it, but it is not wide enough for much of what I shoot. Again that's me. I tend to shoot mostly landscpaes and my most often shot FL is 18mm. So the 24 is not wide enough. I can say the 24-105 is extremely crisp and I am by no means sorry I bought it. I also fiugured in the near future I'll jump to a full frame body and then the lens should be just about perfect as a walk around.

inkista · #9 (**permalink**) 03-04-2011, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rvpals

Thanks for the good advice. After reading your post, I think I just have this wrong impression that L series lens would give me the best picture.

It kind of depends on what your definition of "best" picture is, and how you plan to get there. An L can sometimes be worth the money, but they're extraordinarily expensive, and they're still lenses, not magic air. An L glass can help with chromatic aberration, contrast, colors, and sharpness. But so can technique and post-processing capability. Chances are, if you can't get ANY good pictures with your current gear, then an L lens won't help.

IS doesn't make up for bad handholding technique. L glass doesn't make up for bad composition.

I own three Ls. I'm still a hack.

Ls don't make you a better photographer. Ls open up possibilties to pictures you may not have had before, but that's all: just possibilities. Not certainties. And often, the USM lenses are just as sharp. It's not only about sharpness at 100% crop. If that's what you're going for, an L might be a disappointment to you.

Quote:

In your opinion, if I am to make a substantial investment in a good lens. I think focus and sharp picture is my biggest need; then have ability to focus and get good picture in low light; probably have little more range on either end than kit lens I had (18-55mm). What would be your first recommendation. (doesn't have to be a L lens)

I have six recommendations, none of which you're going to like.

Recommendation #1: Make sure it's your glass and not your technique that's robbing you of sharpness. A LOT of different factors come into play when it comes to sharpness. Make sure that you know:

a) how to hold your camera properly. (Go ahead, laugh. But 80% of the dSLR shooters I see every time I go to the zoo get this one wrong).

b) How to stop down for sharpness. And to reduce chromatic aberraton. And to reduce vignetting. And increase depth of field. Bonus points if you know your lens' sweet spots.

c) What shutter speeds you need to a) freeze the action, and b) mitigate camera shake blur (1/focal_length or faster). Or conversely, when to use a tripod. And cable release, remote, or timer. And mirror lock-up.

d) How to sharpen properly in post-processing. Also how to adjust exposure, white balance, reduce noise, and adjust saturation, too. Preferably with RAW files.

e) How to tell the camera what AF point to use, and how to check which point actually was used.

The thing is, if your technique is bad, it's going to follow you no matter what gear you use.

Recommendation #2: Set a budget. Stick to it.

How much you can spend is definitely going to be the single largest determining factor on what lenses you can consider. Ls tend to start around $1000 apiece. If that's really your budget, then you've got a lot more freedom. But start with that number.

Recommendation #3: Figure out what's frustrating you most about your current gear. Aim your thoughts around that. As Richard says, I think you want to split up your two requirements: more range, and low-light performance.

A fast prime can do the low-light for less cost. And the more range can be handled by another walkaround zoom.

Recommendation #4: Read about lens basics: like what focal length and max. aperture, and other lens features mean.

more reach => longer focal length
available light => larger max. aperture (probably f/1.4-f/2.8), and with non-moving subject matter a tripod/monopod/IS (however with moving subjects, you'll get blur because you're stil shooting with slower shutter speeds).
faster autofocus => USM

Recommendation #5: Consider whether you need a new lens or a different type of gear.

Low light can be tackled by more than a new lens: a tripod or a flash are other routes to the same goal.

Recommendation #6: Consider that it may be knowledge or practice you need instead of gear.

Lens reach may simply be about learning how to get closer to your subject. Maybe a book or a class is a better way to spend money than a new lens. Something as simple as reading Bryan Peterson's Learning to See Creatively, taking a class, or joining a local camera club may be what you're really looking for to boost your pictures up to that next level. A lens is just a tool. Yours is still the guiding head and hand.

One last recommendation: You're going to get a lot of good advice, and a lot of different lenses named at you. Keep in mind: you're not looking for The Best Lens Evah. Seriously, you're not. You're looking for The Best Fit For You. This is like going clothes shopping: there's no absolute right or wrong here, but keep in mind that different people enjoy different styles of shooting. What could be the right fit/style/cost for one person might not be right for you.

The reason you see Ls touted and pushed on online boards and reviews a lot is because a lot of folks discussing gear are professionals who require top-notch gear that can take heavy use & abuse, and they can write gear off on their taxes. A marginal improvement for a hefty premium is far more worth it to a pro than to a hobbyist who's on a budget.

CaptivatedByBeauty · #10 (**permalink**) 03-04-2011, 05:26 AM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Subscription Options

Join Over 871,000 Subscribers

What’s Your Preference?

Daily Digest

Weekly Summary