Reading mode: Light Dark

My lens kits for crop body. What's yours?

Go to last post
beerguy said:
I'm leaning towards the 24-105/4 L IS.
Click to expand...
I've considered this, but have read about poor barrel distortion at 24mm in many reviews.

@1.6 crop it's not wide anyway, so to shoot wide ideally with that lens would be at 30mm which is even less wide.

I'm opting at the moment to keep a 17-55 f/2.8 mounted all of the time, and switch to a 70-200 f/4 for longer focal length. Or get a second body to avoid switching...

-rich
 
These go with my 450D:

EFS 10-22 (latest addition, haven't used it that much yet)
EFS 17-85 (like it despite the bad press, my main walkaround lens)
EFS 55-250 (default kit tele zoom, but no complaints from me)
EF 50/1.8 (don't use it nearly as much as the 85 for portraits)
EF 85/1.8 (this is my absolute favourite lens right now)

Next addition will be a Sigma 30/1.4 for indoor photo, and I'm debating whether to bite the bullet and get a 24-105 or a 70-200/4 IS next. Most of my photography is done outside, and I tend to stay on the long end so I'm not afraid of putting a 24-105 on my crop camera, but I'm also much tempted by the apparently awesome sharpness of the 70-200.

Either way, I'll probably try to trade the 17-85 for an 18-200 at some point to get a light-weight hiking kit (10-22 + 18-200).
 
40d Kit
Canon 24-105L Walkaround
Canon 50/1.8 low light/DOF
Canon 70-300 IS USM tele

XTi Kit
Canon 18-55 IS
Sigma 70-300 DG

Wishlist
Canon 10-22 wide angle
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS USM tele
Canon 2x TC
 
Used with a 400d (with grip)

Canon 10-22mm
Canon 35mm f2
Canon 70-210mm f4

plus a Tamron 200-400mm f5.6 (needing a service) and a Canon 18-55mm

The first three lenses are my normal kit, and cover pretty much everything I need, wide angle, low light and general stuff, and a medium telephoto, the only changed I would like to make owuld be to switch the 70-210mm for a new 70-200mm f4 IS for the faster focus and IS, and possibly replacing the 35mm for a 28mm f1.8 for the better focussing (though I am unsure as the 35mm is reportedly slightly better qualitywise.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/narcosynthesis
http://www.illaname.deviantart.com
 
my crop kit for 40D:

EFS 10-22 - the views where I live are forever (Slartibartfast eat your heart out), and this lens gets it ! (lovely crinkly edges).

EFS 17-85 - kit lens. I shoot RAW, and process in DPP. I have always been very happy with the resulting IQ. But judging from some opinions I've read, I must be easily pleased. SO... I have just ordered the Canon EFS 18-200IS ! Apparently its pretty close in IQ to the 17-85, and I'm hoping it will make an even more versatile walk about for this non-descriminating enthusiast

EFS 55-250 - like it - certainly can't complain abou the value ! But maybe it's about to become redundant (when 18-200 arrives, tomorrow)

EF 35/2 - to play and learn about shallow depth of field. Also thought it might be usefull for low light indoor stuff, but as it turns out the combo of 17-85 with IS and bounce 420EX flash is all I need for most of the stuff I shoot indoors (basically family snaps).
 
18-200 is very useful for non-photographic travel, i.e., when photography is not the prime purpose for the trip. I often go to various cities for conferences, etc. and carry only my Sigma 18-200 OS. I may get only half a day to see the place and take some pictures. These pictures are not critical, more of a memorabilia for the place I visited. Here are two pictures taken more or less from the same spot, one at 18mm and another at 200mm.

Copenhagen city hall



Statue of Bishop Absalon, legendary founder of the city, on the wall of the city hall



--
Gautam
 
richj20 said:
beerguy said:
I'm leaning towards the 24-105/4 L IS.
Click to expand...
I've considered this, but have read about poor barrel distortion at 24mm in many reviews.
Click to expand...
Those were full frame reviews probably.

On crop, the distiorsion of the 24-105 is 1.8%, less than your 17-55 (2%). Always consider reviews within context...
richj20 said:
@1.6 crop it's not wide anyway, so to shoot wide ideally with that lens would be at 30mm which is even less wide.

I'm opting at the moment to keep a 17-55 f/2.8 mounted all of the time, and switch to a 70-200 f/4 for longer focal length. Or get a second body to avoid switching...

-rich
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bogdanmoisuc/
 
jasonpoly said:
The polariser seemed to work well when looking at the lcd, but when I got back I regretted having it, as most shots with it had reduced contrast and were slightly off focus. Either that, or the 24-105 is rather dissapointing in sunlight!
Click to expand...
A poor quality polarizer will do that... I know, I've been there too. You should pair only the best filters with the best lenses.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bogdanmoisuc/
 
I have the XTi body and the following lenses, and am pretty content:

18-55 non-IS (never used after the first month and a half)

Sigma 18-200 OS (good walk around lens and perfect for me when I was starting out - this took over from the kit lens)

50 1.8 (fun to play with for portraits and low light, but I don't tend to use it much)
60 macro (love it for macro and portraits)
Sigma 18-55 (my current carry lens)

None of my lenses are particularly high-end, but they do the job and I don't consider myself technically proficient enough to justify L glass.

If I DID buy L glass, it would probably be a telephoto or a fast prime for portraits. I'm more likely to upgrade body than glass at this point though. It would be nice to have live view when I'm trying to make funny faces at my infants and snap their pictures at the same time.
 
Phil_F said:
EFS 17-85 - kit lens. I shoot RAW, and process in DPP. I have always been very happy with the resulting IQ. But judging from some opinions I've read, I must be easily pleased. SO... I have just ordered the Canon EFS 18-200IS ! Apparently its pretty close in IQ to the 17-85, and I'm hoping it will make an even more versatile walk about for this non-descriminating enthusiast
Click to expand...
Please do tell what you think once you've got it, I'm considering the same thing (and have the same view of the 17-85 too). An 18-200 for packing light, or when someone else is using the camera it would be the perfect thing to mount for those who are more used to a P&S.
 
Bogdan_M said:
On crop, the distiorsion of the 24-105 is 1.8%, less than your 17-55 (2%). Always consider reviews within context...
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the crop factor, and reviews often state that distortion is most pronounced on full frame bodies, but I didn't find exact figures in this case. Where did you get your figures?!

But as I alluded in my post, my principal concern is the focal length at the wide end. My preference for the EF-S 17-55 is that for shooting street festivals and fairs, I use the wide end more often. In my film camera days, my Nikon 24mm was my most used lens, but here, I would have to purchase a full frame body to make 24mm=24mm for the EF 24-105.

-rich
 
richj20 said:
Bogdan_M said:
On crop, the distiorsion of the 24-105 is 1.8%, less than your 17-55 (2%). Always consider reviews within context...
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the crop factor, and reviews often state that distortion is most pronounced on full frame bodies, but I didn't find exact figures in this case. Where did you get your figures?!
Click to expand...
Most (serious) test sites publish these figures, but in this case I looked at http://photozone.de/
richj20 said:
But as I alluded in my post, my principal concern is the focal length at the wide end. My preference for the EF-S 17-55 is that for shooting street festivals and fairs, I use the wide end more often. In my film camera days, my Nikon 24mm was my most used lens, but here, I would have to purchase a full frame body to make 24mm=24mm for the EF 24-105.
Click to expand...
That would be a really good idea ;)
richj20 said:
-rich
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bogdanmoisuc/
 
For my 40D I have

10-22
17-40L
24-105L
70-200f4L
60EFS Macro
1.4 converter

The lens I least like is the 24-105. It DOES distort quite badly at wide angle and it is not wide enough to use as a walkabout lens. I keep reverting to the trusty 17-40
--
jwhig
 
For my 50D I have

New Sigma 10-20 f3.5

24-105 f4 L

70-200 f4 L
--
ChrisC
 
40D, a few kits, depending on whether I'm taking a camera along on a business trip, hiking, etc.

Travel light and small:
Sigma 30 or Canon 17-85IS

Hiking/Biking
10-22 + 55-250 + 17-85IS or Sigma 30/1.4
OR
17-85IS or Sigma 30/1.4 + 70-200/4L

Photo trip:
EF-S 10-22
Sigma 30/1.4
Sigma 50/2.8 Macro
EF 70-200/4L
EF 400/5.6L
 
Body: 40D

10-22
24-105 f4
70-200 f4 IS
17-55 f2.8
60mm f2.8 macro
(waiting for newer version of 100-400 and 100mm macro to add)
 
Re> I like 35mm pov but there is no 22mm prime with f/1.8.

Sigma's 20mm f1.8 lens is sitting in the store waiting for you to come in with your money.

This may, of course, be old info in this thread.

BAK
 
A Sigma 18-50, 2.8 macro and a Canon 100-400L. I do so much long range shooting, the Canon is almost always on the camera.
 
jwhig said:
The lens I least like is the 24-105. It DOES distort quite badly at wide angle and it is not wide enough to use as a walkabout lens. I keep reverting to the trusty 17-40
--
jwhig
Click to expand...
If that was a reply for me, it's quite far from the truth. The 17-40mm distorts way more, it's at 2.5% at 17mm.

Of course, 24mm is not the most mainstream FL to start with for landscape. For people, 38mm equivalent is perfect, it's the point where perspective distorsions become negligible if you avoid framing too tight...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bogdanmoisuc/
 
I've also got a 40D, I will list my lenses according to focal length, widest first:

Sigma 10-20mm
Sigma 20mm f/1.8
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Canon 50mm f/1.8 (Mk I)
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L
Sigma 100mm f/2.8 macro
Canon 200mm f/2.8L
Canon 300mm f/4L IS

--
Brian
http://www.pbase.com/thelund
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top