Canon Pro Lenses

DDG1 · May 9, 2015

I wanted to get a couple Canon pro lenses, or more, over the years. I understand a few basics in that there are macro lenses and telephoto lenses and!!! they can have IS, or not, etc. I am into hunting tests and field trials with pointing dogs. I also fly fish. I have a Canon Rebel XS dslr camera. I was told that a pro lenses would greatly increase the quality of my pics. I'm not certain what a "pro" lens is. I found a lens that has IS and zooms to 250mm...it's an EF, I think. I'm not certain if that is good enough to take a high quality photo. Any info would be appreciated. Try to explain it simply. I am new to this, but want to get a good start with the right lens.

Buckster · May 9, 2015

It's a myth that better or "pro" lenses will greatly increase the quality of your pics.

The way to greatly increase the quality of your pics is to get a REALLY good handle on how best to use the basic gear of your camera body, aperture, shutter speed, ISO and your lens, and to get them as steady as possible when shooting, or to compensate with faster shutter speeds and / or larger apertures when that's not possible.

No lens can correct the many mistakes new photographers make with all the rest of that stuff, which is 99% of the REAL problems new photographers think they can solve with better "pro" lenses.

DDG1 · May 9, 2015

Thanks, Buckster. I'll read the manuals that came with it and see what I can learn. Any online classes or info for free that you would recommend for noobs?

raventepes · May 10, 2015

I really agree with Buckster on this.

Certainly, professional lenses can help get you sharper images, shoot wider, or shoot farther. But here's the thing, and this is ONLY personal opinion. Depending on your camera (Your Canon XS for example as it's APS-C or "Crop Sensor", meaning it has a smaller imaging sensor), I really would advise against many full frame lenses, especially in the 24-70mm range. To put it in layman's terms, you have to factor in what's known as a crop factor. Rather than explain it, a picture is worth 1000 words. The red squares represent the image with a full frame body and lens set up. The blue squares represent an APS-C body with a full frame lens. I like this example because it gives Canon's crop factor (they change between companies. Nikon, for example is 1.5)

As you can see from the example, a full frame lens on an APS-C body gives you a tighter field of view to the end image. This effect can be very desirable, depending on what you're after, such as shooting wildlife. Full frame lenses on Crop Sensor bodies work very well for that because of this property, however, shooting wider becomes very problematic at the same time simply because the lens essentially crops out part of the image.

Unfortunately, Canon and Nikon have really dropped the ball on giving us "pro-grade" and "fast" APS-C lenses to work with. In most respects, especially in zooms, f/2.8 or f/4 is the standard. If you look at Canon's website at the EF-S lenses, There are very few marked f/2.8. The majority of them are what's known as variable aperture, generally ranging in the f/3.5-5.6 range, which means that the more you zoom out, the smaller the aperture gets. The majority of the variable aperture lenses are riddled in compromises, some which only may be that they're variable aperture, however, in most of them, there are inherent optical flaws both to the trained eye and sometimes even to the typical viewer of a photograph. These flaws include, but are not limited to fringing, chromatic abrasion, soft corners, vignetting, and just a soft focus all around. Again, these are just SOME examples. Unfortunately for Nikon APS-C (or DX in Nikon's terms), Canon has a better selection of "pro grade" zooms, and with Canon and Nikon, most of the time, you really do get what you pay for.

Things aren't all gloom and doom for APS-C users though. Companies like Tokina, Sigma and Tamron understand us. Yes. I'm currently an APS-C shooter, and even when I get a full frame body, I'll continue to use APS-C for telephoto work. At any rate, they have some very good lenses designed for crop sensor bodies. Though I don't have any experience with Tamron's offerings, I have used a small variety from Tokina and Sigma, and they make some very good lenses, however, they seem to not have the same quality control standards that Nikon and Canon have. Some of them can be a crap-shoot. A lens may be very good, or it may be bad sample. When it's possible, I would HIGHLY recommend you go into a brick and mortar store and test a variety of the same lens and get the best you can. Now don't get me wrong, sometimes a bad lens can slip through the cracks through either Nikon and Canon, but it's not nearly as common with third party lenses.

Some of Sigma and Tokina's offerings that I like are:

Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 PRO II (They have a new 11-20 f/2.8 that I'm interested in, but haven't heard much about yet)
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8
Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 (I think this model is now discontinued, but I could be wrong)

The Sigma's give a rough equivalent to the full frame 24-70 and 70-200, respectively in terms of field of view. The Tokina's closest equivalent is Canon's 16-35, however at the long end, it comes up very short, coming in at roughly 25.5mm by comparison to the 35mm long end. The new 11-20 version corrects this by coming in at about 32mm in comparison to 35mm.

Many people wouldn't even bother with anything like the 50-150 from Sigma. Many would just use a combination of the 17-50 (Canon and Nikon DO offer a version of this lens) and jump to full frame lenses with a 70-200 of some sort, and at the ultra-wide end, use something like the Tokina, or another lens that'll most likely be variable aperture, but do keep in mind that generally, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR from Canon and Nikon. Again though. Sometimes like I said earlier, the only real fault is that it's variable aperture. I use a Nikon 70-300 VR II that I really like, but I'll say first and foremost that I know it's not the "best" lens out there, and certainly not at 300mm where it's very soft, even in the centre of the frame.

I hope that helps some.

P.S. If you're looking for "Pro" results, I would strongly urge you to resist the temptation of super-zooms. They're BAD!!! Most of them have a million optical flaws that can't even be fixed in Photoshop, especially if you pixel-peep. They often have very heavy barrel and pin-cushion distortion (even the best zooms have this to a degree), chromatic abrasion and fringing and the rest that I listed above. If you're wanting the best possible results, DO NOT USE SUPER-ZOOMS!!!!!

Have a good day

Derrel · May 10, 2015

Canon's pro lenses are the ones that "pinch" a bit when it comes to prices...think Sage...think Orvis...not Shakespeare or even Lamiglas.

table1349 · May 10, 2015

It is true that top quality glass won't make you a better photographer. The advantages to good glass can't be discounted once you have the photographic background to use it.
Top quality lenses will have better optics. Top quality glass, top quality coatings, better materials all the way around.

Top quality glass will usually be faster. That doesn't mean that because you own an f1.2 lens, you have to shoot at f1.2. It gives you the ability to do so if you need to, but does not require that you do so.

Top quality glass can if taken care of last for years. L glass generally is large heavier and built like a tank. It's designed to stand up to day to day use.

While there is some merit to what is said about FF lenses on Crop frame bodies, keep in mind that every lens, no matter what it is, is a zoom lens. That's why god gave you feet. I own the Trifecta of Canon L glass and have no issues with either my 16-35 or 24-70 on either my FF bodies or my crop body. About a step an a half back gives me the same perspective on my crop frame as I would have on a FF.

Microbois · May 11, 2015

In a nutshell, a pro lens is usually recognizable with 3 main characteristics : quality of construction which is more durable through the use of more metal instead of plastic, larger and brighter glass (f/2.8 or less) with a constant aperture along its entire zoom range, and a zoom ratio under 3 or 4. While sharpness is pretty much a given on pro lenses, it's usually not a problem on non-pro lenses either. You just have to find the sweet spot on your lens, and even on the worst ones ever made, you may find sharpness to be very acceptable at say f/8 or f/11. As far as the quality of construction, if you take care of your lenses, it won't make much of a difference.

Where a pro lens comes into play and yields better results than non-pro lenses, is mostly in low light conditions. Having 1 or 2 extra stops can help to either use a faster shutter speed to freeze action in poorly lit areas, or to lower the ISO and get less noise in your pictures. If you take your pictures outside during day time, you will have more than enough light to make great pictures even with the crappiest lenses. The other side benefit of having a lens with a wide aperture like f/1.8 is that it will make it a little easier to isolate your subject and blur the background, but depending on what you are doing, that capability may not be useful.

Pro zoom lenses often have a ratio under 3 or 4. Divide the longest focal length by the shortest one. Example 70-210mm : 210 divided by 70 equals 3. When the ratio of a zoom lens is over 3 or 4, such as a 18-200mm zoom lens, you get into all sorts of design compromises that will just make the lens much less performant in some ranges.

As far as image stabilization is concerned, it gets increasingly more useful as the focal lenght increases. That being said, and depending on your needs, it's not always true though. If you are taking pictures of static subjects at great distances, say a bird sitting still on its nest, and you want to take that picture hand held, IS will become handy as you will be able to get a sharp picture at lower shutter speeds. On the other hand, if you are shooting a soccer game and want to freeze the action, you will use much higher shutter speeds, and IS will become useless. Actually, I have to turn off IS on my 70-200mm f/4 zoom when I shoot at a higher speed than 1/500s, otherwise I get the opposite effect! You might want to read Thom Hogan tips on IS or VR on this very specific subject.

Good luck!

Big Mike · May 11, 2015

I agree with Buckster.

The best way to improve your photography, is to improve the photographer. It's usually the cheapest option as well.
There are some good books that get recommended quite often, there are plenty of good websites but my suggestion would be to look for a local class or tw, that you can take in-person.