Reading mode: Light Dark

Advice on a lens setup

Go to last post
W

Wanderingcannuck

New member
Messages
7
Solutions
1
Reaction score
0
Ok likely another lens thread, and I know there are a pile of these but am looking for some long term advice from people who may have been in my spot in the past and figured out a path forward.

I'm currently shooting on a 600D and after thinking hard about it I am likely to stay with APS-c cameras moving forward (I prefer the slightly smaller bodies and would rather use the cash on better lenses as I feel the gap in bodies will close as tech advances.)

Currently my gear consists of a kit 18-55, a 55-250 IS, a 50 mm 1.8 and a Sigma 18-35 1.8. With adding the sigma I am definitely seeing the benefit of good glass and I'm now planning out the next couple of purchases. Shooting wise I dabble in a lot of different things with the majority being black and white street work (which the sigma and 50 are great for) and some landscape/astro.

I'm torn between something in the 24-105 range for more walk around work or a 70-200 to replace the 55-250 with brighter glass. This last one would have the advantage of being able to add a tc for longer reach on occasions in the near future where I'd want wildlife. I'd have gone for the 50-150 2.8 Sigma but they discontinued it a while back sadly and can't find any copies with OS on the used market right now.

Any thoughts from those of you wedded to APS-c cameras?
 
Wanderingcannuck said:
Ok likely another lens thread, and I know there are a pile of these but am looking for some long term advice from people who may have been in my spot in the past and figured out a path forward.

I'm currently shooting on a 600D and after thinking hard about it I am likely to stay with APS-c cameras moving forward (I prefer the slightly smaller bodies and would rather use the cash on better lenses as I feel the gap in bodies will close as tech advances.)

Currently my gear consists of a kit 18-55, a 55-250 IS, a 50 mm 1.8 and a Sigma 18-35 1.8. With adding the sigma I am definitely seeing the benefit of good glass and I'm now planning out the next couple of purchases. Shooting wise I dabble in a lot of different things with the majority being black and white street work (which the sigma and 50 are great for) and some landscape/astro.

I'm torn between something in the 24-105 range for more walk around work or a 70-200 to replace the 55-250 with brighter glass. This last one would have the advantage of being able to add a tc for longer reach on occasions in the near future where I'd want wildlife. I'd have gone for the 50-150 2.8 Sigma but they discontinued it a while back sadly and can't find any copies with OS on the used market right now.

Any thoughts from those of you wedded to APS-c cameras?
Click to expand...
I would go for one of the 70 - 200 mm lenses, preferably Canon and f/2.8L, if you can afford it.The f/2.8L has greater light gathering ability for shooting at dawn or dusk. However, the f/4L is not a bad lens and the price is much less. Don't get your hopes up for a TC. They reduce the amount of light gathered and generally reduce the quality of the image.
 
Well I'm not married to APS-C but I'm very happy with it; all the options you list are nice, but heavier, the 70-200 also draw a lot of attention. Another route can be a few more primes, the pancakes in particular are very nice, as well as the odd dream lens, like the 135mm f2. You might also try an ultra wide angle like the 10-18 or 10-22.
 
That first lens that I bought for my T3i was a 70-200 f2.8 and I would definitely do it again if I was starting over.

It won't always have enough reach for wildlife, but it's a great start and is also perfect as a portrait lens if you ever start down that path.
 
Y0GI said:
Don't get your hopes up for a TC. They reduce the amount of light gathered...
Click to expand...
Yes, just like cropping to get the same framing as the TC gives.
Y0GI said:
... and generally reduce the quality of the image.
Click to expand...
That is the conventional wisdom, but is it actually true? I did some careful experiments a while back and found that IQ is perceptibly better with a TC compared to a shot from the same lens cropped to the same framing, IF focus quality is controlled. My theory is that people think TCs are bad for IQ not because they actually are (they actually aren't), but because they often have a significant detrimental effect on focus accuracy (less so these days with current generation gear and AF MA).
 
I wouldn't go for the 24-105 if you're sticking to APS-C, I'd get the latest 18-135, or the 15-85 USM if that seems a better fit.

My guess is if you are serious about wildlife and want to stick with Canon lenses, you'll end up with the 100-400 II, so you may as well get the best up front and not waste your time with disappointing compromises.

Another thing to keep in mind is how dangerous it is to follow other people's recommendations. I'm so glad I hired a bunch of highly recommended lenses (400/5.6, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS II, MP-E 65) before deciding whether to buy them. It matters much more that you like using a lens and the images it gives you, rather than it being highly recommended but not what you like, so how about hiring some contenders?
 
About four years before I was using my Canon DSLR cameras and lenses, I used an Olympus system. This is my story. :-)

When I used a 1.4x teleconverter for my Olympus DSLR lens many years ago, I found that I had to stop down the lens a lot before I got a sharp enough picture. I took a number of pictures at different apertures at maximum focal length and compared them later on the computer. Because I stopped down the lens so much I needed a lot of light. Fortunately that day, there was bright sun. I took pictures at the long end with my telephoto lens with this teleconverter of a street sign in Portland, Oregon. I haven't tested other teleconverters. I suppose it depends a lot about the actual lens and the teleconverter that was used.

The best photo out of my samples, was when I used F22 (that surprised me a lot). This was with the Zuiko 70-300mm lens. I have never even attempted to try another teleconverter. Maybe some day I will. The image quality didn't seem too bad. I found that with that lens, the effects of diffraction were almost non-existent at F22. I could never see anything wrong with using that high of a F-stop.

To actually determine if the image quality is degraded with a teleconverter, does anyone else have samples at different apertures and focal lengths so they could demonstrate this? From everything I have heard about teleconverters, is that generally the image quality is degraded. But there could be exceptions. It would be nice to see 100% crop samples.
 
Last edited:
I'm using three Canon Rebel cameras. For wildlife pictures I decided to get a Tamron 150-600mm lens. There are two Sigma 150-600mm lenses and two Tamron 150-600mm lenses that are currently available. Three out of the four are priced below $1400 (USD).

Here are some of my latest samples, that I took also with a Canon T3i (600D) camera and the Tamron 150-600mm lens.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58893965

My other lenses are a Canon 18-55mm and a Canon 55-250mm. Both are non-STM lenses. Later I'm planning to upgrade. But that is what I am using now.

You may want to consider looking at one of those 150-600mm lenses for wildlife too.
 
Last edited:
WilbaW said:
I wouldn't go for the 24-105 if you're sticking to APS-C, I'd get the latest 18-135, or the 15-85 USM if that seems a better fit.
Click to expand...
The advantage of the 24-105 is it is f4 glass, so a stop brighter than the 18-135 option. True it's on a crop so effective depth of field will be more than on a full frame but it would be still faster glass.

WilbaW said:
Another thing to keep in mind is how dangerous it is to follow other people's recommendations. I'm so glad I hired a bunch of highly recommended lenses (400/5.6, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS II, MP-E 65) before deciding whether to buy them. It matters much more that you like using a lens and the images it gives you, rather than it being highly recommended but not what you like, so how about hiring some contenders?
Click to expand...
Would definitely be open to this but being stuck in Ireland my options for decent rental places are limited. I am fortunate enough to have a few decent connections so will likely "try before I buy" but figured I'd check opinions to help reduce the list a bit / see if anyone had any major insight to share.
 
WilbaW said:
I wouldn't go for the 24-105 if you're sticking to APS-C, I'd get the latest 18-135, or the 15-85 USM if that seems a better fit.

My guess is if you are serious about wildlife and want to stick with Canon lenses, you'll end up with the 100-400 II, so you may as well get the best up front and not waste your time with disappointing compromises.

Another thing to keep in mind is how dangerous it is to follow other people's recommendations. I'm so glad I hired a bunch of highly recommended lenses (400/5.6, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS II, MP-E 65) before deciding whether to buy them. It matters much more that you like using a lens and the images it gives you, rather than it being highly recommended but not what you like, so how about hiring some contenders?
Click to expand...
 
Digirame said:
When I used a 1.4x teleconverter for my Olympus DSLR lens many years ago, I found that I had to stop down the lens a lot before I got a sharp enough picture. I took a number of pictures at different apertures at maximum focal length and compared them later on the computer. Because I stopped down the lens so much I needed a lot of light. Fortunately that day, there was bright sun. I took pictures at the long end with my telephoto lens with this teleconverter of a street sign in Portland, Oregon. I haven't tested other teleconverters. I suppose it depends a lot about the actual lens and the teleconverter that was used.
Click to expand...
How did you ensure that all images were focussed with the same accuracy?
Digirame said:
The best photo out of my samples, was when I used F22 (that surprised me a lot). This was with the Zuiko 70-300mm lens. I have never even attempted to try another teleconverter. Maybe some day I will. The image quality didn't seem too bad. I found that with that lens, the effects of diffraction were almost non-existent at F22. I could never see anything wrong with using that high of a F-stop.
Click to expand...
Since diffraction is generally readily apparent from before f/16, I'm guessing that diffraction was swamped by a greater source of blur, like focus error or actual image degradation from the TC (not saying that can't happen, just that it's not always the only cause of perceived degradation).
Digirame said:
To actually determine if the image quality is degraded with a teleconverter, does anyone else have samples at different apertures and focal lengths...
Click to expand...
with variation in focus accuracy controlled to make it a fair comparison
Digirame said:
... so they could demonstrate this?

From everything I have heard about teleconverters, is that generally the image quality is degraded. But there could be exceptions. It would be nice to see 100% crop samples.
Click to expand...
See What's Better - Teleconverter or Not? Jump to part II for a later comparison that eliminates some valid criticism of the original. Click on an image to go to the gallery view and use the arrow keys to flip between the two.
 
Wanderingcannuck said:
WilbaW said:
I wouldn't go for the 24-105 if you're sticking to APS-C, I'd get the latest 18-135, or the 15-85 USM if that seems a better fit.
Click to expand...
The advantage of the 24-105 is it is f4 glass, so a stop brighter than the 18-135 option.
Click to expand...
Only at the long end, at the short end the 24-105 is 1/3 step duller. :-)

No, it's not about aperture. The 24-105 is a fine lens on a full-frame camera but (according to many who have tried it), doesn't suit a crop camera as well, certainly not better than the STM or USM 18-135s. If you need a wide aperture at that kind of length I'd recommend a 100/2.8.
Wanderingcannuck said:
Wanderingcannuck said:
Another thing to keep in mind is how dangerous it is to follow other people's recommendations. I'm so glad I hired a bunch of highly recommended lenses (400/5.6, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS II, MP-E 65) before deciding whether to buy them. It matters much more that you like using a lens and the images it gives you, rather than it being highly recommended but not what you like, so how about hiring some contenders?
Click to expand...
Would definitely be open to this but being stuck in Ireland my options for decent rental places are limited. I am fortunate enough to have a few decent connections so will likely "try before I buy" but figured I'd check opinions to help reduce the list a bit / see if anyone had any major insight to share.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't have many to choose from in Aus but I'm lucky to have a very helpful lens rental guy in Queensland.
 
Y0GI said:
I have the 100-400mm L (I) among my own lenses and have for some time. When priced used, the I version of the 100-400mm is priced comparably to a new 70-200mm f/4 L and is much more useful, especially for wildlife.
Click to expand...
I don't recommend the original 100-400 for Rebel shooters because it often need a significant amount of AF microadjustment. No problem on a 7D, 5D, etc. which have the function to do that.
Y0GI said:
Wilbaw, you'll be happy to know that I removed that ancient reference to your old Tutorial from my Sig. Funny how once something is put in print, it is almost impossible to remove all copies.
Click to expand...
Your link still works and it's still relevant, so it's entirely up to you whether you want to post it. Thanks for the support over the years.

--
Check out the unofficial Rebel Talk FAQ. Sorry it's out of date, but DPReview still won't allow us to edit our articles.
 
Last edited:
WilbaW said:
Digirame said:
When I used a 1.4x teleconverter for my Olympus DSLR lens many years ago, I found that I had to stop down the lens a lot before I got a sharp enough picture. I took a number of pictures at different apertures at maximum focal length and compared them later on the computer. Because I stopped down the lens so much I needed a lot of light. Fortunately that day, there was bright sun. I took pictures at the long end with my telephoto lens with this teleconverter of a street sign in Portland, Oregon. I haven't tested other teleconverters. I suppose it depends a lot about the actual lens and the teleconverter that was used.
Click to expand...
How did you ensure that all images were focussed with the same accuracy?
Click to expand...
I was using autofocus. I carefully braced the lens and camera against a rail also. I had taken thousands of pictures with that lens. I was very familiar with it and felt very comfortable focusing with the same accuracy.
WilbaW said:
WilbaW said:
The best photo out of my samples, was when I used F22 (that surprised me a lot). This was with the Zuiko 70-300mm lens. I have never even attempted to try another teleconverter. Maybe some day I will. The image quality didn't seem too bad. I found that with that lens, the effects of diffraction were almost non-existent at F22. I could never see anything wrong with using that high of a F-stop.
Click to expand...
Since diffraction is generally readily apparent from before f/16, I'm guessing that diffraction was swamped by a greater source of blur, like focus error or actual image degradation from the TC (not saying that can't happen, just that it's not always the only cause of perceived degradation).
Click to expand...
With that lens, I got great photos at F22. One of my favorites was one of a hawk in the tree. I set it to F22 and the branches around the hawk were sharp. Other times I would use that lens to take pictures of insects and I stopped the lens down between F18 and F22 because the depth of field was so narrow. With the Olympus system I was using the crop factor was 2.0x unlike the 1.6x crop factor we have with some of our Canon DSLR cameras.
WilbaW said:
WilbaW said:
To actually determine if the image quality is degraded with a teleconverter, does anyone else have samples at different apertures and focal lengths...
Click to expand...
with variation in focus accuracy controlled to make it a fair comparison
WilbaW said:
... so they could demonstrate this?

From everything I have heard about teleconverters, is that generally the image quality is degraded. But there could be exceptions. It would be nice to see 100% crop samples.
Click to expand...
See What's Better - Teleconverter or Not? Jump to part II for a later comparison that eliminates some valid criticism of the original. Click on an image to go to the gallery view and use the arrow keys to flip between the two.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the details. That's very interesting. Maybe I'll take another look at teleconverters if the opportunity is there and I'll make my own comparisons.
WilbaW said:
--
Check out the unofficial Rebel Talk FAQ. Sorry it's out of date, but DPReview still won't allow us to edit our articles.
Click to expand...
 
Digirame said:
WilbaW said:
Digirame said:
When I used a 1.4x teleconverter for my Olympus DSLR lens many years ago, I found that I had to stop down the lens a lot before I got a sharp enough picture. I took a number of pictures at different apertures at maximum focal length and compared them later on the computer. Because I stopped down the lens so much I needed a lot of light. Fortunately that day, there was bright sun. I took pictures at the long end with my telephoto lens with this teleconverter of a street sign in Portland, Oregon. I haven't tested other teleconverters. I suppose it depends a lot about the actual lens and the teleconverter that was used.
Click to expand...
How did you ensure that all images were focussed with the same accuracy?
Click to expand...
I was using autofocus.
Click to expand...
Phase detection (through the viewfinder)? That's the problem. In my experience, adding a TC usually means you need a quite different AF MA value, so it makes sense that the degradation people see after adding a TCs is about loss of focus accuracy rather than optical quality, since my tests show that a good TC gives a better result than cropping as long as focus is controlled, for instance by using contrast detection.
Digirame said:
Digirame said:
See What's Better - Teleconverter or Not? Jump to part II for a later comparison that eliminates some valid criticism of the original. Click on an image to go to the gallery view and use the arrow keys to flip between the two.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the details. That's very interesting. Maybe I'll take another look at teleconverters if the opportunity is there and I'll make my own comparisons.
Click to expand...
Yeah, just make sure you're not seeing the effects of a loss of focus accuracy (e.g. by using Live View), rather than attributing what you see to a loss of optical quality. :-)
 
Wanderingcannuck said:
With adding the sigma I am definitely seeing the benefit of good glass and I'm now planning out the next couple of purchases.
Click to expand...
What qualities do you most want to improve on? Faster shutter speeds? Better bokeh? Constant aperture? Increased sharpness? Improved color and contrast? Weathersealing? Durability? Zoom range? Fewer lens swaps? Is size or weight an issue? How do you output your images?

It's all about compromises and priorities. As WilbaW recommends, the best way to decide is to try a lens out. Short of that, you'll have to really search your soul for the answers to the above.

Best of luck,

R2

 
WilbaW said:
Digirame said:
WilbaW said:
Digirame said:
When I used a 1.4x teleconverter for my Olympus DSLR lens many years ago, I found that I had to stop down the lens a lot before I got a sharp enough picture. I took a number of pictures at different apertures at maximum focal length and compared them later on the computer. Because I stopped down the lens so much I needed a lot of light. Fortunately that day, there was bright sun. I took pictures at the long end with my telephoto lens with this teleconverter of a street sign in Portland, Oregon. I haven't tested other teleconverters. I suppose it depends a lot about the actual lens and the teleconverter that was used.
Click to expand...
How did you ensure that all images were focussed with the same accuracy?
Click to expand...
I was using autofocus.
Click to expand...
Phase detection (through the viewfinder)? That's the problem. In my experience, adding a TC usually means you need a quite different AF MA value, so it makes sense that the degradation people see after adding a TCs is about loss of focus accuracy rather than optical quality, since my tests show that a good TC gives a better result than cropping as long as focus is controlled, for instance by using contrast detection.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt it had anything to do with focus accuracy. I took the picture of a freeway sign across the Willamette River at full focal length (from the west side to the east side). It was probably almost a mile away in distance. It was over four years ago that I made these tests. I used something like F11, F16 and F22. At that distance and apertures I surely would have enough depth of field. It was when I pixel peeked that I saw the image at F22 was sharper (and the images kept getting sharper as the aperture decreased). A friend loaned me the teleconverter lens to try it out; that's why I only made a few tests. When I used F22 the shutter speed dropped quite a bit but the image quality was better. So thinking it was camera shake didn't make sense either. It was a bright clear sunny day.

I don't know where those tests are without doing a lot of searching on one of my computers. But that was with my 10mp Olympus E-510 and Zuiko 70-300mm lens with a 1.4x teleconverter (and 2.0x crop factor). I would expect it would be different than anything you have used with Canon products. You probably can find some of my samples with that combination on the Olympus DSLR and Olympus P&S forums. I showed lots of pictures on those forums just like I do on this forum with the Show Your Snaps thread. Mostly they would be on the Olympus P&S forum because a lot of us DSLR owners migrated there because there were too many arguments on the DSLR forum (that was before we had moderators). We just liked to show pictures and not argue about silly things. :-)
WilbaW said:
WilbaW said:
WilbaW said:
See What's Better - Teleconverter or Not? Jump to part II for a later comparison that eliminates some valid criticism of the original. Click on an image to go to the gallery view and use the arrow keys to flip between the two.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the details. That's very interesting. Maybe I'll take another look at teleconverters if the opportunity is there and I'll make my own comparisons.
Click to expand...
Yeah, just make sure you're not seeing the effects of a loss of focus accuracy (e.g. by using Live View), rather than attributing what you see to a loss of optical quality. :-)

--
Check out the unofficial Rebel Talk FAQ. Sorry it's out of date, but DPReview still won't allow us to edit our articles.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Digirame said:
WilbaW said:
Digirame said:
WilbaW said:
Digirame said:
When I used a 1.4x teleconverter for my Olympus DSLR lens many years ago, I found that I had to stop down the lens a lot before I got a sharp enough picture. I took a number of pictures at different apertures at maximum focal length and compared them later on the computer. Because I stopped down the lens so much I needed a lot of light. Fortunately that day, there was bright sun. I took pictures at the long end with my telephoto lens with this teleconverter of a street sign in Portland, Oregon. I haven't tested other teleconverters. I suppose it depends a lot about the actual lens and the teleconverter that was used.
Click to expand...
How did you ensure that all images were focussed with the same accuracy?
Click to expand...
I was using autofocus.
Click to expand...
Phase detection (through the viewfinder)? That's the problem. In my experience, adding a TC usually means you need a quite different AF MA value, so it makes sense that the degradation people see after adding a TCs is about loss of focus accuracy rather than optical quality, since my tests show that a good TC gives a better result than cropping as long as focus is controlled, for instance by using contrast detection.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt it had anything to do with focus accuracy. I took the picture of a freeway sign across the Willamette River at full focal length (from the west side to the east side). It was probably almost a mile away in distance. It was over four years ago that I made these tests. I used something like F11, F16 and F22. At that distance and apertures I surely would have enough depth of field. It was when I pixel peeked that I saw the image at F22 was sharper (and the images kept getting sharper as the aperture decreased). A friend loaned me the teleconverter lens to try it out; that's why I only made a few tests. When I used F22 the shutter speed dropped quite a bit but the image quality was better. So thinking it was camera shake didn't make sense either. It was a bright clear sunny day.

I don't know where those tests are without doing a lot of searching on one of my computers. But that was with my 10mp Olympus E-510 and Zuiko 70-300mm lens with a 1.4x teleconverter (and 2.0x crop factor). I would expect it would be different than anything you have used with Canon products. You probably can find some of my samples with that combination on the Olympus DSLR and Olympus P&S forums. I showed lots of pictures on those forums just like I do on this forum with the Show Your Snaps thread. Mostly they would be on the Olympus P&S forum because a lot of us DSLR owners migrated there because there were too many arguments on the DSLR forum (that was before we had moderators). We just liked to show pictures and not argue about silly things. :-)
Click to expand...
There are way too many uncontrolled variables for us to be able to explain what you saw, or for anyone to conclude that the TC you used, let alone TCs in general, need drastic stopping down to give sharp shots because "the image quality is degraded with a teleconverter".
 
And also what you observed with the teleconverter was an isolated case. That is unless you did numerous other tests that you did not tell us with many different cameras, lenses and teleconverters.
 
Thanks all for the advice.

We'll see what the next step holds.
 
Solution
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