Upgrade lens but I can't see a noticeable difference. What do I do?

[spartans]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First of all, newbie here so hello to all! :mrgreen:

I have the Canon XSi with a kit lens and since I'm going to Europe in a few weeks, I decided to upgrade my lens. Read whatever I could find on the net and decided to buy a Canon EFS 15-85.

So this morning I set up my tripod and played around with both lenses (on manual) to see the "dramatic" difference that my $960 bought for me. Well, I was let down. I expected to see a measurable difference and all I got was "look real close to spot the difference". I had to magnify the photo several times to start picking up the slight variations.

So.....a couple of questions....

*Is the difference that small that in normal use? Or is it just me? Or a less then perfect lens?

*The 15-85 is within cost range of the Canon EF 24-105/4L IS lens. If what I saw from the 15-85 lens is normal, does going to one of the best lenses Canon has make a bigger difference? Or is it $1400 for a fairly small difference?

*Last but not least. Paying $960 or $1400 get's me a better camera. Is the money better spend by waiting a year or two and sinking it into a better camera that will give me inherently better quality shots?

I'm eager to hear what you think.

 

[marmots]

it depends on how you use it
i mean if you have perfect lighting, and the right aperture/shutter speed, it should have more improvement.
could i see some of your test shots between the lenses
another thing is that prime lenses will always be sharper than zoom lenses

 

[spartans]

it depends on how you use it
i mean if you have perfect lighting, and the right aperture/shutter speed, it should have more improvement.
could i see some of your test shots between the lenses
another thing is that prime lenses will always be sharper than zoom lenses

How do I post large images?

 

[marmots]

 

[WesternGuy]

I am a bit confused - I thought that the XSi came with the 18-55 IS lens as part of the kit - Canon EOS Rebel XSi SLR Digital Camera Kit (Black) 2756B003 B&H , so I am not clear what kit lens you mean and which lenses you are comparing. Could you clear up my confusion?

As far as the 24-105 L IS goes, it is a great lens in my opinion and is my "walking around lens" on my 5D Mk I. On a Rebel XSi, it will yield a field of view equivalent to a 38 to 168 mm lens on a full frame. This lens will give you a small telephoto to carry around in case you want to get a "little" closer.

As far as spending money on camera vs. lens, I will always, well almost always, go for the glass - lasts longer and is a better investment...personally, I would wait a couple of years for the "better" camera (whatever that is) and spend the money on glass - when the "better" camera comes along, you have the better glass to go with it.

My 0.02¢.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Sometimes the reason more expensive equipment is more expensive isn't because of the optics.

Why you got the 15-85, i'm not sure. It's just more of the same (optically). The 15-85 SHOULD be optically close to the 18-55. The f/stops are the same, so the ONLY reason you'd buy it is for faster AF and an extra 30mm on the long end..

If you want a seriously noticeable difference in optics, do yourself a favor and return the 15-85, to buy a 50mm f/1.8.

 

[analog.universe]

Agreed, the 15-85 is not optically that impressive. Even the 24-105 pales in comparison to most decent primes.

So... what kind of shots are you trying to get? Perhaps we can suggest a lens that will show an improvement. Lenses that are designed as "all-around" type products tend to do everything alright and nothing particularly well. If quality and optical performance is your goal in upgrading, you'll almost always get better results from a prime than a zoom, but of course you sacrifice some flexibility.

 

[TheBiles]

You should return that sucker and
get the 24-105.

--
Sent from my HTC Pyramid.

 

[BJF]

Agree with some comments above. The Canon 18-55mm and 15-85mm are not much optically different. The focal length ranges of the two lenses overlap a lot. You may need some knowledge of lens selection before you buy any add-on lens. Recommend a blog post, Know Digital SLR in 5 Minutes - Lens Choice.

 

[EIngerson]

I agree with everything above also. The 15-85 isn't giving you much of an upgrade if any. If price is the issue, look at some off brand lenses like Tamron or Sigma. They won't compare to an L series lens from canon, but if you've never spoiled yourself with the "L", you'll find some pretty nice glass in the off brands.

 

[oldmacman]

I would suggest finding a camera store that will allow you to attach a couple different lenses and then take some shots in the store. I am in Canada as well and Henry's staff have always allowed me to do this. Take the results home and do the comparison. For me, the differences in lenses are most noticeable when you are using lighting gear. I posted a thread a while back about how sharp and detailed my 70-200 is compared to all my non L lenses. I hadn't noticed that difference until I started using it for portraiture under strobes.

 

[DerekSalem]

You should return that sucker and
get the 24-105.

--
Sent from my HTC Pyramid.

This. The 24-105 is a fantastic lens. The EFS you bought is barely above a kit lens in terms of quality. Throw a 24-105 on there and you'll be amazed by the quality.

 

[dakkon76]

Agree with the above. If you're spending that much on a lens, get something with a better aperture. Canon makes a great EF-S lens with a wide aperture (17-55), but it's $1100. I agree with others, if you don't need that wide of angle (17mm), then you're better off going with the 24-105L for a little more than what you spent. It's f/4 and has image stabilization.

Also keep in mind, when new to photography we (at least I was guilty too) tend to think that buying better gear is going to help us take better pictures - this is only true if you already KNOW how to take a good picture. That's like saying you can take the camera out of a wedding photographer's hand and give it to one of the guests and achieve the same results. If it worked that way, the world would suck.

Moral? Practice with what you have until you can pinpoint the limitation you're reaching. Otherwise you'll spend money on something you don't need, or something you'll regret once you actually know what you're doing.

 

[KmH]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First of all, newbie here so hello to all! :mrgreen:

I have the Canon XSi with a kit lens and since I'm going to Europe in a few weeks, I decided to upgrade my lens. Read whatever I could find on the net and decided to buy a Canon EFS 15-85.

So this morning I set up my tripod and played around with both lenses (on manual) to see the "dramatic" difference that my $960 bought for me. Well, I was let down. I expected to see a measurable difference and all I got was "look real close to spot the difference". I had to magnify the photo several times to start picking up the slight variations.

So.....a couple of questions....

*Is the difference that small that in normal use? Or is it just me? Or a less then perfect lens?

*The 15-85 is within cost range of the Canon EF 24-105/4L IS lens. If what I saw from the 15-85 lens is normal, does going to one of the best lenses Canon has make a bigger difference? Or is it $1400 for a fairly small difference?

*Last but not least. Paying $960 or $1400 get's me a better camera. Is the money better spend by waiting a year or two and sinking it into a better camera that will give me inherently better quality shots?

I'm eager to hear what you think.

Upgrading the photographer's technical/artistic knowledge, and camera/lens/light use skills are the keys to better image quality, not spending money to upgrade gear.

 

[Derrel]

The 15-85mm focal length range is designed to compensate for the penalty that a 1.6x crop-frame sensor imposes on the photographer and on the camera...the 15-85mm is the equivalent in angle of view of a 24mm lens on the short end, and a 136mm lens on the longer end. THe 24-105 f/4 L is a "good lens"; I own one and shoot it a lot on my 5D, and much,much less-frequently on my 20D. It is not really a superb optic; it has a lot of compromises in image quality and distortion, but it is super-convenient. Still, it's a compromise, as are almost ALL wide-to-normal-to-short-telephoto lens designs! If you have a 1.6x body, forget about the 24-105 f/4 L and the large price. The loss of the wide-angle focal lengths on the 24-105 when used on a 1.6x body is a huge loss in usefulness, especially indoors. As mentioned in Post #6, perhaps you ought to buy the Canon 50mm 1.8 prime lens if you are looking for something "better" or "different". On APS-C, virtually all of the consumer-oriented lenses offer decent performance, and with their slow maximum apertures, you're almost always shooting at f/5.6 at the widest, and as a result of that, there is a huge amount of "looks the sameness" and "blah" to the images; the consumer lenses do not open wide enough to offer shallow depth of field, and at their telephoto settings, at distances over 20 feet, the camera-to-subject distance is so long, and the capture format so small, that the images you make are almost ALL GOING TO BE VERY CLOSE TO PAN FOCUS, which makes the images look, well, "blah". At f/8, a $1499 professionally oriented zoom lens and a $159 consumer zoom are going to offer VERY SIMILAR image quality in most respects. And I mean that in all seriousness; the price difference between a $1499-$2000 f/2.8 "pro" zoom lens and a moderately specified f/4.5~5.6 consumer zoom lens is mostly in the ruggedness and build quality, not in the basic optical performance. The "pro" lens usually has a better build quality, more-rugged components, and is designed to operate for years, with heavy use, and still perform well. It will often have weather sealing, and might also have special coating that cut down internal flare and minimize steep angle of incidence stray light, like the Nano-Crystal coating Nikon invented; however, in "simple" shooting situations, the optical performance of a pro lens and a good consumer lens when both are shot at say f/8 in decent light...well...it can be very difficult to tell the shots apart based on any kind of major image characteristics. Subtle differences, like lower levels of chromatic aberration, lower levels of distortion, or higher image contrast and more-saturated color, are the kinds of areas where there will be differences between the "pro"-priced lenses and the APS-C or consumer lenses. A 10% increase to a 20% increase in image quality is often accompanied by a 75 to 90 percent increase in price of the lens that gives the better IQ.