24-70 dilemmas

DB_Cro · Nov 4, 2015

reneecook3 said:
a previous commenter (Derrel) said "Yes, the Canon EF-S line of lenses is pretty much useless on anything except a Canon APS-C body." I think I misunderstood him. So I do have the APS-C sensor in mine. Where is the incompatibility? Or is it just that if I were to ever get a full frame camera, the lenses would function differently?

Not differently, they'd be unusable at the beginning of the range (huge black circle on the image) if you can mount them at all, and most you
can't (the literally can't be attached.)

reneecook3 said:
DB - thanks! that's super helpful!!! didn't realize some of the D lettered camera models were still crop body. I'm sure I would never need a camera nicer than the 7D! like you said, it's a beast. Probably quite good, even for an amateur photographer who does some portrait sessions here and there, right?

All of them have a "D" in their names.

The Rebel line, or, better labeled in EU as the 3 digit models (500D, 550D, 600D, 650D...) are entry level crop models, all of them.
The 2 digit models are better, let's call them semi-pro crop bodies, the current one is 70D.
And then there's the single digit ones which can be full frame (1Ds in various generations and the current 1DX, 5D, 6D), 1.3x crop
(1D mark2,3,4.. without the "s") and 1.6x crop, which is the top of the line 7D and newer 7D mark II.

Since you're not aware of the differences and what your needs will be in a few years, it's hard to tell if you'd be better off with a 6D or 7D.
6D's image quality is significantly better then any of the crop models, even the top of the line 7D-2.
6D will produce usable images at ISO 10.000, and the 7D will start falling apart at 3200, much like your T3i.

That's just it. What do you need? 7D focuses faster, has a lot more focusing points, works amazing for action, fast moving subjects (kids apply!)
sports etc. Crop sensor is a bonus for sports since it turns your 200mm lens into a 300mm+ = more reach etc. However, going from a T3i to a
7D m2 will result in such a small improvement regarding image quality that you'd probably think you're doing something wrong. It would help
you to capture the image faster/easier, but won't give a significantly better image. 6D would.

How about something in-between?
70D is exactly in the midle re: features and speed between your T3i and a 7D markII and costs just a bit more then what you paid for a T3i.

But then there's new Rebel models..

Both 70D and 7D markII use the same 20mpix sensor, and there's a newer 24mpix sensor available in T6i and T6s.

Better image quality, but not as good at high ISO as 70D/7d markII. Bare in mind these high ISO differences between
all the crop body Canons mentioned are very small. Nikon has been kicking Canon's ass in this department for years now.

Anyways, the reason I jumped in here is that I notice a lot of people not being aware of the crop vs FF differences and end up
buying a 24-70 and then don't understand why can't they zoom out more, and the PRO photographer who usually recommends
this lens forgets about the 1.6x crop since he's been shooting full frame for years probably.

Bottom line, 17-55 Canon is 95% perfomance of the 24-70 Canon and better suited to the crop body.
If you insist on 24-70 (which is what I'd pick if I was going to upgrade to FF soon), you'll likely be in the market for another lens,
the ultra wide stuff like the 10-20 sigma f/3.5 that's also great.

Thinking about it, you might even buy the 10-20 sigma and the 17-50 sigma for the price of 17-55 canon alone.
Something to think about.

sabbath999 · Nov 4, 2015

I understand money doesn't grow on trees, but...

IMHO the whole reason of choosing your camera system is because you want to own the lens family that company makes. One chooses Canon to shoot Canon lenses, Nikon to shoot Nikon lenses, etc.

If I wanted a Sigma lens, I would buy a Sigma camera (I don't, by the way).

You chose Canon, IMHO this means save up your pennies and buy L glass. L glass is what Canon is all about.

DB_Cro · Nov 4, 2015

L lenses on a crop body, especially the wide end stuff doesn't make much sense.

He might consider the 17-40L F/4, but again, the 17-55 is a better lens in every single way and the
only reason it's not sporting a red line (L lens stuff) is marketing & politics.

I was choosing between Canon and Nikon (not Sony, Olympus etc) because I knew there were good
lenses available for those 2 brands, and not only the original brand stuff because I knew I couldn't
afford those.

Suggesting that an amateur photographer with the cheapest plastic crop-sensor body should need and/or
want L glass only is not something I'd agree with.

Most Rebel shooters don't even know (or care) what "L" glass is.

So, yeah, he doesn't need to spend $5000 on 2-3 lenses right now.
If he WAS someone who needs that, he wouldn't be asking
about it here.

sabbath999 · Nov 5, 2015

DB_Cro said:
Suggesting that an amateur photographer with the cheapest plastic crop-sensor body should need and/or
want L glass only is not something I'd agree with.

Most Rebel shooters don't even know (or care) what "L" glass is.

So, yeah, he doesn't need to spend $5000 on 2-3 lenses right now.
If he WAS someone who needs that, he wouldn't be asking
about it here.

You don't have to spend $5000 to get 2-3 L lenses, and frankly the off-brand stuff we are talking about is not significantly superior to the kit lenses. Yes, it's a bit faster, but image-quality wise absolutely not.

For example, one of the lenses I most recommend is the used 100-300 f/5.6 L. I bought mine used for $56 off the Bay. You can often catch the 17-4o f/4 L on the Bay for $450, and it is VASTLY superior to the off brands.

I've shot the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 17-50 both via swapping with friends at events, and they are (IMHO) not worth buying... I'd rather shoot the kit lens, or better yet the nifty 50.

EDITED TO ADD: If you were to use my plan, pay $100 for the 100-300 L, buy the Nifty 50, and pick up the 17-40L f/4 for $500, that gets you set with almost all of the range you are likely to use for $700... the only thing left to add would be a fast 85mm for portraits down the road.

DB_Cro · Nov 5, 2015

I have no experience with the 100-300, but have used most other L lenses on the exact body the original poster
is asking about. I more or less disagree with everything you said. Yes, the 17-50 Tamron and Sigma aren't "all that"
but they're A LOT better then the kit lens and the 17-55 2.8 Canon (non-L) is also better then the 17-40L IMHO.

Also, there's plenty of reviews that compare the 70-200 2.8 lenses out there and (Nothrup's video is interesting)
which finds that both the Tamron and Sigma do some stuff even better then the Canon version and while the
Canon IS the best of them all (for other reasons, not image quality) it's just a lot of money.

I'll be buying the 70-200 sigma for 40% of the price of the canon version.
I've used them all, the Canon is better, but not THAT better. The money I save will be used to replace the
17-50 tamron with a 17-55 Canon where the difference IS bigger and worth spending extra IMHO.

Bottom line, again, considering what the OP is shooting and that he has a few hundred $ worth cheapo body
and is not a PRO, every lens worth more then the body IMHO is overkill.

sabbath999 · Nov 5, 2015

DB_Cro said:
Bottom line, again, considering what the OP is shooting and that he has a few hundred $ worth cheapo body
and is not a PRO, every lens worth more then the body IMHO is overkill.

Choices are good.

I just think one is best served by buying the best glass she or he can afford. To each their own, I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it... but that's OK, we offer two different approaches and perhaps the conversation will inform folks about both points of view (I think both have valid points to consider).

DB_Cro · Nov 5, 2015

I agree that the Canon stuff is better then off-brand (but virtually everyone will tell you that the 17-55 non-L is better then 17-40L too),
but even me, making money with my shots daily can't justify the huge price difference between the Sigma 70-200 and Canon 70-200
for example.

An amateur with $1k to spend would likely benefit more from buying 10-20 and 17-50 Sigma lenses then a single, good canon, 17-40 or 17-55,
since all of these are a lot better then the kit lens, but yeah, you don't even agree with that.

If I could afford this stuff I wouldn't even read reviews and try out all these lenses, I'd go out, buy a mid range FF Canon or Nikon with the
original 24-70 and 70-200 and would be able to do 99% of what I need and do it at the quality level that I'd like to have.

But I'm working with 1/4 the budget and still getting at least 80% of that quality just by knowing how to use the stuff that I have.
Sux living in a 3rd world country, all this gear costs a lot more then in USA and we earn A LOT less.

Been saving up for the 70-200 Sigma for 6 months now working 2 jobs and having virtually zero living expenses. :-/
That lens will allow me to do a LOT more then my current 55-250IS because of the F/4-5.6 aperture.

I've had the original 70-200 Canon here more then once for various jobs (fashion show/casting, BMX/Inline skate show/competition etc)
and it's amazing, but I need the stabilization. Tried the 70-200 F/4 IS from Canon, it's again - great, but I can't live with "only" F/4 on a
body that starts falling apart over ISO 800, which is the same body the OP has, so, again, this makes the Sigma a better choice.

DB_Cro · Nov 5, 2015

Oh, also, don't forget the new Sigma ART line of lenses.
Their primes are kicking Canon's ass at the moment.

reneecook3 · Nov 5, 2015

DB_Cro said:
Anyways, the reason I jumped in here is that I notice a lot of people not being aware of the crop vs FF differences and end up
buying a 24-70 and then don't understand why can't they zoom out more, and the PRO photographer who usually recommends
this lens forgets about the 1.6x crop since he's been shooting full frame for years probably.

DB (and others who chimed in on the 24-70 questions) - Thanks, yes, I didn't realize that!! I want the range of 24-70 so now i understand on my crop body, i'd be better off with the 17-55. plus it's cheaper! win!

Also, Thanks for the explanation of the whole D lettering thing. Looks like (right now on Amazon) 6D and 7D Mk ii are about the same price. So, for that price point, the 6D is better (except sports, which I don't need...)?

Can I use my canon prime lenses (50/1.8 and 35/2.0) on that 6D?
Also, am I correct in understanding the downside would be if I bought the 17-55 before upgrading to a 6D, then I wouldn't be able to use the 17-55 on the 6D? (probably could resell for 50-70% of value...)

Punisher911 · Nov 5, 2015

Correct... On all accounts.

Rob5589 · Nov 5, 2015

If you move to the 6D, check out Canon refurb's. Mine was had for 1099 and cannot tell the difference between it and a new one. Same warranty as well.

reneecook3 · Nov 6, 2015

Why is the sigma 17-70/ f 2.8-4 cheaper than the sigma 17-50/f 2.8?

weepete · Nov 6, 2015

It's not a constant f2.8 throught the focal range. It is a lens well worth considering IMO with a very useful focal range on a crop sensor camera. Sharpness is pretty good too, though its not a patch on the L glass. I was just about to recomend you look at the sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 "contemporary" lens along with the canon 15-85mm if you are not going to upgrade to full frame soon.