Canon L Lenses

Renegrenade · Dec 28, 2009

I wrote the title cringing, thinking, 'This is going to be one of those thread where regulars will go, "Ah, not another one!"'. Fingers crossed I sound semi-coherent.

I'm considering (and can afford) buying a 24-70 2.8 L lens. (Okay, I was thinking the 70-200 or 16-35 as well but I'm not sure if I'm just pushing it now - probably not the 16-35 as I'm not shooting full-frame, maybe a Sigma 10-20 3.5-5.6 instead?) I currently have shot almost all of my photos using Sigma's 18-250 IS USM which has been great as a one-lens-fits-all product but I'm eager to find out exactly why it's so easy to catch "L disease".

My question here is two-fold:

- Were I to take an identical photograph at f/8 (or similar) at 50mm on both lenses, would I genuinely notice a wealth of difference in photo quality?
- What do you recommend is a good online resource to compare images such as the hypothetical example I give above?

Many thanks in advance ^.^;

Josh66 · Dec 28, 2009

Renegrenade said:
... as I'm not shooting full-frame, ...

But you might one day. Also, film bodies are cheap now, you might pick one up after a while...

I, personally, avoid lenses that will not work on full frame/film bodies.
I do still shoot a little film here & there though, so I only want lenses that will work on both of my bodies.

Renegrenade said:
My question here is two-fold:

- Were I to take an identical photograph at f/8 (or similar) at 50mm on both lenses, would I genuinely notice a wealth of difference in photo quality?

Depends on the lenses... Keep in mind too that 50mm on one lens will not necessarily be 50mm on another lens. One may be a little longer or shorter.
The focal lengths on the lenses are not exact...

Renegrenade said:
- What do you recommend is a good online resource to compare images such as the hypothetical example I give above?

I don't have the link handy (maybe someone knows what I'm talking about), but I have seen a website that does just that.

Renegrenade · Jan 1, 2010

Anyone else have any opinions?

I'm now leaning more towards the 10-22 3.5-4.5 but am aware that if I upgrade to full-frame I won't be able to use that lens anymore. Perhaps I'd keep it with a non-ff body to do landscapes...

Overread · Jan 1, 2010

If you like landscapes the 10-20mm lens options are very popular on the crop sensor bodies - simply because most fullframe wideangle lenses are just not quite wide enough when used on a fullframe body. If you do upgrade to a fullframe body it will be one lens that has to hang behind but since its giving you something that you can't otherwise get with the crop sensor body I would say its worth investing in.
Many of the other crop sensor only lenses have focal lengths which can be used on a fullframe camera and are mostly a cheaper and lighter option over fullframe compatable options - and so they are more of a waste if you move up to fullframe at a later date.

If landscape is your aim then the 10-20mm would be the right choice to make since it will give you a wide lens to work with.

As for shots taken at f8, whilst many lower end lenses might be able to achive similar levels of sharpness (certainly most should achive avery usable level of sharpness) as L grade lenses when used at f8 its not what you are paying for with an L lens. You are paying for the abilty to take shots at apertures like f2.8 (or even wider if you go for primes) for when you just don't have the light to allow for f8 to be an option.

bigtwinky · Jan 1, 2010

I had the same questionning when i bought my 10-22. I was (and am) shooting with an XSI and wondering if it would be worth it as I might be shooting full frame. My next upgrade for my body will be in the 50D / 7D realm, which is still crop sensor so I should be good.

When comes to the point where i am making more money to buy a 5D MK II or whatever is out at the time, I'll upgrade my lens as well.

I really do not regret my decision... I've loved my 10-22. Friend of mine who has had a 40D and a 50D for the last few years decided on getting the 16-35 for when he moves to full frame. 2 years and still no full frame...although he does plan on getting it this year.

Dao · Jan 1, 2010

Personally, I will not worry about it too much regarding buying a lens that will not work with FF body in the future. If the lens is the best in terms of price and quality for you now, why not?

Unless like Josh mentioned, he need to have the lenses that will work on both of his digital and film based cameras.

Renegrenade · Jan 2, 2010

Many thanks to all of you. I've bitten the bullet, and gone:

24-70 f2.8 L
70-200 f2.8 L IS
10-22 f3.5-4.5 EF-S

Time to acquire some skill with which to use these! :lol:

Onwards and upwards!

chip · Jan 2, 2010

Seems to me the EF 24-70 f2.8L USM is a bad match for a crop frame camera. I would go with the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM instead. 24 is to narrow for a crop frame camera. But perhaps you are planning to migrate to full frame soon?

Renegrenade · Jan 2, 2010

chip said:
Seems to me the EF 24-70 f2.8L USM is a bad match for a crop frame camera. I would go with the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM instead. 24 is to narrow for a crop frame camera. But perhaps you are planning to migrate to full frame soon?

After thought and consultation with a friend who uses the same lens on a crop camera, I decided the 24-70 would still be the workhorse for most everyday situations. I do indeed plan for my next major purchase to be a 5DMkII or similar, but in the mean time I'm finding it to be the lens that stays attached to my camera most of the time.

(I also use my DSLR as a point and click when with friends - a good choice of bag makes that convenient - perhaps this makes it a bit clearer why I use it so much)

fokker · Jan 2, 2010

I have the canon 24-70 2.8L and it's a great lens, though it's pretty big and heavy to carry around all the time, and people always think you're a professional photographer if they see you with it. I don't find it to be too narrow at 24mm on the crop body. Actually that was one of my concerns when I first got it but it has hardly posed a problem.

Interesting point about the sigma 10-20mm, I have one of these and even though they aren't supposed to work on full frame, we tried it on my friend's 5D mk2 and at about 14mm it gives a full fisheye effect, so it is really a lens that you could hang onto if you upgraded to full frame.

Renegrenade · Jan 3, 2010

fokker said:
Interesting point about the sigma 10-20mm, I have one of these and even though they aren't supposed to work on full frame, we tried it on my friend's 5D mk2 and at about 14mm it gives a full fisheye effect, so it is really a lens that you could hang onto if you upgraded to full frame.

That's an interesting one. I thought the EF-S mount meant it simply could not fit on a full frame camera at all?? How is it that you can get that lens to fit?

Incidentally, please take note the 10-22 is different from the 10-20 - two different lenses. I have the 10-22 as it gives a larger aperture in case I want to take some shots in low light.

mrdemin · Jan 3, 2010

That musta been a big chunk of cash

bigtwinky · Jan 3, 2010

mrdemin said:
That musta been a big chunk of cash

great contribution, Captain Obvious :thumbup:

chip · Jan 6, 2010

fokker said:
I have the canon 24-70 2.8L and it's a great lens, though it's pretty big and heavy to carry around all the time, and people always think you're a professional photographer if they see you with it. I don't find it to be too narrow at 24mm on the crop body. Actually that was one of my concerns when I first got it but it has hardly posed a problem.

Well guess I must be a wide angle junkie then. I have the same lens on a 5D2 and I often wish I could zoom out more. On a crop frame body 24x1.6=38.4mm which is way too narrow for me. I am glad you are happy with the lens though.