Canon General Purpose/Event Lens

inevitablyissie wrote:

That is a good point about the crop sensor, could someone clarify whether EF-S lenses are affected by the crop as well? Because I was originally under the impression they were built around the crops, so a 55-250 is a 55-250 not an 88-400, but I've been told otherwise. I'm just a little confused...

-- hide signature --

Your Camera is Your Companion

Focal length is focal length. Canon does not label its EF-S lenses with a mathematically-adjusted figure. Canon's EF-S 24mm lens will "see" the same angle-of view as a Canon EF 24mm lens. The smaller sensor of the APS-C camera body effectively crops the images, which are then effectively magnified when viewing at any given image size, whether it be on the camera's LCD, or on a monitor.

On the original topic, well, the only EF-S-spec lens I bought new is my EF-S 10-22mm, which is a wonderful optical instrument, but must be used carefully at events populated by human subjects, as the rectilinear effect, that keeps vertical lines true, will distort rounded, 3D things, such as human heads and bodies, near the borders of the image.

I preferred a 35mm prime lens at events, perhaps supplemented by the 10-22mm, until I added a pre-owned 5D, and later, D700 cameras, which are full-35mm-frame sensor cameras, with no crop factor. I have not, however, been "the" photographer at an event, expected to produce "the" images, so my lack of a general-purpose/mid-range EF-S zoom was not a problem for me. (A Nikkor 24-70/2.8G lens is my current "event" lens, though, of course, on a Nikon full-35mm-frame-sensor camera.)

Rexgig0 wrote:

Focal length is focal length. Canon does not label its EF-S lenses with a mathematically-adjusted figure. Canon's EF-S 24mm lens will "see" the same angle-of view as a Canon EF 24mm lens. The smaller sensor of the APS-C camera body effectively crops the images, which are then effectively magnified when viewing at any given image size, whether it be on the camera's LCD, or on a monitor.

On the original topic, well, the only EF-S-spec lens I bought new is my EF-S 10-22mm, which is a wonderful optical instrument, but must be used carefully at events populated by human subjects, as the rectilinear effect, that keeps vertical lines true, will distort rounded, 3D things, such as human heads and bodies, near the borders of the image.

I preferred a 35mm prime lens at events, perhaps supplemented by the 10-22mm, until I added a pre-owned 5D, and later, D700 cameras, which are full-35mm-frame sensor cameras, with no crop factor. I have not, however, been "the" photographer at an event, expected to produce "the" images, so my lack of a general-purpose/mid-range EF-S zoom was not a problem for me. (A Nikkor 24-70/2.8G lens is my current "event" lens, though, of course, on a Nikon full-35mm-frame-sensor camera.)

Thank you for clarifying that in simpler terms, I have a much better understanding of it now!

Do you think a prime lens would be a better choice for a primary lens? I've heard the sharpness on them is incredible, perhaps they're a lot sharper on crop sensors than zoom lenses are? But I could be wrong.

Steve Balcombe wrote:

If it's only a very occasional requirement then I guess you could use your 10-18, but a solution that depends on regular lens swapping is probably not a good one. Also it leaves you with a gap in a very tricky place - a *lot* of indoor event shots would be taken in that 18-24 range. And don't forget the 10-18 is only an f/4.5-5.6 - very slow for use indoors.

That's true, my 10-18 has been useful for some events but the aperture is a little tricky in low light.

Yes I'd rather not be frequently changing lenses. Is there is a particular prime that I could use as a walk around lens? I think the 60mm or the 85mm might be too far...

Lovely picture of a Grey heron by the way, using the 100-400 I wish I had! 

MikeJ9116 wrote:

inevitablyissie wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 will fill your gap very well. I have used this lens on a 60D for several years and the combination has delivered a lot of wonderful photos. This lens delivers the IQ of many L lenses. Plus, the price point on this lens is very good right now. Much better than when it was initially released.

Keep in mind that an EF lens with a 24mm wide end is only 38mm on a crop camera. This will be very limiting to your shooting conditions, IMO.

It's good to hear your experience with that lens, it definitely sounds like a good option.

That is a good point about the crop sensor, could someone clarify whether EF-S lenses are affected by the crop as well? Because I was originally under the impression they were built around the crops, so a 55-250 is a 55-250 not an 88-400, but I've been told otherwise. I'm just a little confused...

Cameras with an APS-C sensor (aka crop sensor) is smaller than a full frame sensor. The crop factor for the 60D is 1.6 which means the stated focal length of any lens (EF or EF-S) is multiplied by 1.6 to get the effective focal length on a camera with an APS-C sensor. A camera with a full frame sensor has a factor of 1.0 or the lens operates at its stated focal length. Nearly every lens for every camera is stated as being relative to a full frame sensor. Sometimes the term "equivalent" is used to state the adjusted focal length after the sensor's crop factor is applied. Basically, the smaller the sensor the higher its crop factor.

The 17-55mm operates like a 29-88mm lens on the 60D. A 24-70mm lens operates like a 38-112mm lens on the 60D. IMO, a 38mm wide end is just not wide enough for taking group shots in confined spaces. As mentioned in other responses, it is better to have a wider lens because moving closer to the subject is almost always an option where moving farther away is not. I am not a professional photographer but have shot several weddings and for this type of shooting I would not want anything more (numerically) than 17-18mm on the wide end for a crop camera.

A 24mm lens on a full frame is considerably wider than 17mm on an APS-C camera. This is why lenses of this range are EF mounts and mostly intended to be used on a FF camera.

I see, that's interesting. I'll keep it in mind while looking.

If I get the opportunity to I might pop into a camera shop with my 60D and try on any available lenses, it might be easier to judge whether the 24mm will be wide enough.

Thank you!

inevitablyissie wrote:

Thank you for clarifying that in simpler terms, I have a much better understanding of it now!

Do you think a prime lens would be a better choice for a primary lens? I've heard the sharpness on them is incredible, perhaps they're a lot sharper on crop sensors than zoom lenses are? But I could be wrong.

-- hide signature --

Your Camera is Your Companion

I think a prime lens can help a beginner learn some principles of photography more quickly. Whether a prime lens is a "better" choice than a zoom for one's primary lens is not so easy to answer. I believe a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, and then a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 lens, really helped me understand photography. Part of it was that both were of better optical performance than the "kit" lens. The Tokina macro lens was part of the bag of pre-owned gear my wife bought from a co-worker, and I bought the 50mm f/1.8 soon afterward.

A zoom lens tends to be a compromise, optically, except perhaps at one 'sweet' spot. This is true of my zooms. Some have broader areas of high image quality than others. A fixed-focal-length lens, a.k.a. prime lens can, probably, therefore be "sharper" than a zoom with equal-quality glass elements, except perhaps at the zoom's best setting. To be clear, I may be saying this in overly-simple terms, perhaps to the point of error. I am not an optical engineer, or any kind of expert.

There is, also, more to image quality than "sharpness," and a skilled photographer can produce amazing images with a rather mundane lens.

I use my 24-70 Sigma HSM on both a 70D and 7DII.  Would I call it a GP lens, NO its not a GP lens but I find the FL range perfect for event work.  I wont use wider then a 24 for 1 person, more then 2 yes.  I also use the 70mm end, the whole range is useful.  Lenstip.com finds the Sigma 24-70 HSM a very good lens.  My copy is very sharp at 24 and falls off as you move to the long end where its not so sharp at 2.8.  The focus is very good and the colors are great, sharpness is not the only thing you look for in a lens.  I see them on craigslist for around $500.

When I shoot an event indoors I use the 18-35/24-70 hsm and when outside I use my 24-70 hsm/50-150 OS.

Best of luck

inevitablyissie wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

Sort of. When I migrated to full-frame 12 months ago, I bought a Nikon D750. As much as I enjoyed Canon, it just offered more value for my money. The kit zoom 24-120 f/4 is decent and extremely useful, but right now I am loving my new prime, a Tamron 35 f/1.8.

Thank you, very insightful!

At the moment, I'm reluctant to increase my budget and buy high-end equipment (e.g. FF bodies) because I'm concerned I won't need it if I decide to concentrate on other hobbies.

I completely agree you should either be fairly committed to photography or not feel to restrained financially. Full-frame offers two obvious benefits, that only you can decide whether or not they are worth it: greater control of DOF, and greater low-light performance. The viewfinder experience is also like moving from a classic TV to a widescreen.

The negatives are the increased weight, not to mention much bigger lenses on average, and cost.

Do you find your new prime covers all-round photography (e.g. events, casual walks etc)? I've heard some raving reviews about the Canon 85/1.8 and of course the nifty fifties and while I love to move around as I compose a shot, I'm not sure if I'll like not being able to zooooooooom...:-P

I sympathize, but the zooming with one's feet is not a big issue to me, as I am a fairly dynamic shooter even with a zoom. To be brutally honest, I sometimes am just not fast enough with my zooming with my feet (the moment can be lost in a flash), and therefore will also find myself 'zooming with my crop' if you get my drift. That said, being able to shoot f/1.8 is very liberating in itself, providing plenty of creative options, and the lighter weight is much more pleasant.

The 35 is a fairly special lens IMHO, though I am still far from mastering it. Yes, I think it can do pretty much all, except where longer focal lengths are really needed. It does portraits very well, shoulders with head, and is wide enough to capture a variety of scenes.

Right now I am shooting pretty much exclusively with it, as I want to not only master it, but see what it brings to my game in general.

Steve Balcombe wrote:

The 60 would be good for head and shoulders portraits. The 85 would often be too long. I'm generalising of course but I wouldn't choose either as my main lens to cover an event. I'm sticking by what I said - an f/2.8 zoom is the solution.

That makes sense, I have also been drawn to the 60 for its macro quality. But I agree an f2.8 zoom would cover a lot more especially during events. The 17-55 seems to be a very good option at the moment, one reviewer even said it was worth the red ring!

Thank you A few years ago I had a 400D and a 75-300 - sometimes described as Canon's worst lens and with good reason. You're already ahead of that!

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/

That's good to hear!

Rexgig0 wrote:

I think a prime lens can help a beginner learn some principles of photography more quickly. Whether a prime lens is a "better" choice than a zoom for one's primary lens is not so easy to answer. I believe a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro lens, and then a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 lens, really helped me understand photography. Part of it was that both were of better optical performance than the "kit" lens. The Tokina macro lens was part of the bag of pre-owned gear my wife bought from a co-worker, and I bought the 50mm f/1.8 soon afterward.

That's interesting, I'd definitely agree that a prime lens would help me develop my understanding of and techniques in photography. The 50mm does seem to be going up on my list simply because of how frequently it's used and recommended (also it's bargain price). I've previously used it for a video and I remember being mesmerised by my first encounter with an extremely wide aperture lens and I found myself moving around to grab some beautiful shots, something I think I rather.

A zoom lens tends to be a compromise, optically, except perhaps at one 'sweet' spot. This is true of my zooms. Some have broader areas of high image quality than others. A fixed-focal-length lens, a.k.a. prime lens can, probably, therefore be "sharper" than a zoom with equal-quality glass elements, except perhaps at the zoom's best setting. To be clear, I may be saying this in overly-simple terms, perhaps to the point of error. I am not an optical engineer, or any kind of expert.

There is, also, more to image quality than "sharpness," and a skilled photographer can produce amazing images with a rather mundane lens.

-- hide signature --

I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

That does make more sense, thank you for your input!

davel33 wrote:

I use my 24-70 Sigma HSM on both a 70D and 7DII. Would I call it a GP lens, NO its not a GP lens but I find the FL range perfect for event work. I wont use wider then a 24 for 1 person, more then 2 yes. I also use the 70mm end, the whole range is useful. Lenstip.com finds the Sigma 24-70 HSM a very good lens. My copy is very sharp at 24 and falls off as you move to the long end where its not so sharp at 2.8. The focus is very good and the colors are great, sharpness is not the only thing you look for in a lens. I see them on craigslist for around $500.

I agree, sharpness isn't always what to look for so I'm making sure I've heard and read as much as possible about a lens before I buy it. The Sigma 24-70 sounds interesting, I had considered the Tamron version over it because I've worked with Tamron before but I've actually never heard of Tamrons being loads better than Sigmas so I certainly won't dismiss this option.

When I shoot an event indoors I use the 18-35/24-70 hsm and when outside I use my 24-70 hsm/50-150 OS.

Best of luck

-- hide signature --

"Just one more Lens, I promise....."
Dave

Thank you!

Albert Silver wrote:

I completely agree you should either be fairly committed to photography or not feel to restrained financially. Full-frame offers two obvious benefits, that only you can decide whether or not they are worth it: greater control of DOF, and greater low-light performance. The viewfinder experience is also like moving from a classic TV to a widescreen.

The negatives are the increased weight, not to mention much bigger lenses on average, and cost.

Ah okay, yes I've noticed my 60D struggles with low light unfortunately, it could just be my settings though! I find even at a low ISO I can see noise on the shot (particularly video work) which doesn't look too great when enlarged on a computer. Perhaps its the trouble with worked with lenses that don't have particularly wide apertures?

I sympathize, but the zooming with one's feet is not a big issue to me, as I am a fairly dynamic shooter even with a zoom. To be brutally honest, I sometimes am just not fast enough with my zooming with my feet (the moment can be lost in a flash), and therefore will also find myself 'zooming with my crop' if you get my drift. That said, being able to shoot f/1.8 is very liberating in itself, providing plenty of creative options, and the lighter weight is much more pleasant.

The 35 is a fairly special lens IMHO, though I am still far from mastering it. Yes, I think it can do pretty much all, except where longer focal lengths are really needed. It does portraits very well, shoulders with head, and is wide enough to capture a variety of scenes.

Right now I am shooting pretty much exclusively with it, as I want to not only master it, but see what it brings to my game in general.

That's a good idea, I'm seriously considering picking up a nifty fifty or other prime right now and sticking with it!

It's certainly at a good price and I've seen so many sharp, beautiful images taken with it.

Do you think it would be a good buy?

inevitablyissie wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

I completely agree you should either be fairly committed to photography or not feel to restrained financially. Full-frame offers two obvious benefits, that only you can decide whether or not they are worth it: greater control of DOF, and greater low-light performance. The viewfinder experience is also like moving from a classic TV to a widescreen.

The negatives are the increased weight, not to mention much bigger lenses on average, and cost.

Ah okay, yes I've noticed my 60D struggles with low light unfortunately, it could just be my settings though! I find even at a low ISO I can see noise on the shot (particularly video work) which doesn't look too great when enlarged on a computer. Perhaps its the trouble with worked with lenses that don't have particularly wide apertures?

I sympathize, but the zooming with one's feet is not a big issue to me, as I am a fairly dynamic shooter even with a zoom. To be brutally honest, I sometimes am just not fast enough with my zooming with my feet (the moment can be lost in a flash), and therefore will also find myself 'zooming with my crop' if you get my drift. That said, being able to shoot f/1.8 is very liberating in itself, providing plenty of creative options, and the lighter weight is much more pleasant.

The 35 is a fairly special lens IMHO, though I am still far from mastering it. Yes, I think it can do pretty much all, except where longer focal lengths are really needed. It does portraits very well, shoulders with head, and is wide enough to capture a variety of scenes.

Right now I am shooting pretty much exclusively with it, as I want to not only master it, but see what it brings to my game in general.

That's a good idea, I'm seriously considering picking up a nifty fifty or other prime right now and sticking with it!

It's certainly at a good price and I've seen so many sharp, beautiful images taken with it.

Do you think it would be a good buy?

I do, but just remember that it is VERY different from a 35 on a FF. 50mm on a Canon APS-C is like 80mm on a full-frame camera, so a small tele-prime. You should enjoy it and have fun, but just be aware it won't be as flexible as a 24 to 35 on your camera.

Albert Silver wrote:

inevitablyissie wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

I completely agree you should either be fairly committed to photography or not feel to restrained financially. Full-frame offers two obvious benefits, that only you can decide whether or not they are worth it: greater control of DOF, and greater low-light performance. The viewfinder experience is also like moving from a classic TV to a widescreen.

The negatives are the increased weight, not to mention much bigger lenses on average, and cost.

Ah okay, yes I've noticed my 60D struggles with low light unfortunately, it could just be my settings though! I find even at a low ISO I can see noise on the shot (particularly video work) which doesn't look too great when enlarged on a computer. Perhaps its the trouble with worked with lenses that don't have particularly wide apertures?

I sympathize, but the zooming with one's feet is not a big issue to me, as I am a fairly dynamic shooter even with a zoom. To be brutally honest, I sometimes am just not fast enough with my zooming with my feet (the moment can be lost in a flash), and therefore will also find myself 'zooming with my crop' if you get my drift. That said, being able to shoot f/1.8 is very liberating in itself, providing plenty of creative options, and the lighter weight is much more pleasant.

The 35 is a fairly special lens IMHO, though I am still far from mastering it. Yes, I think it can do pretty much all, except where longer focal lengths are really needed. It does portraits very well, shoulders with head, and is wide enough to capture a variety of scenes.

Right now I am shooting pretty much exclusively with it, as I want to not only master it, but see what it brings to my game in general.

That's a good idea, I'm seriously considering picking up a nifty fifty or other prime right now and sticking with it!

It's certainly at a good price and I've seen so many sharp, beautiful images taken with it.

Do you think it would be a good buy?

I do, but just remember that it is VERY different from a 35 on a FF. 50mm on a Canon APS-C is like 80mm on a full-frame camera, so a small tele-prime. You should enjoy it and have fun, but just be aware it won't be as flexible as a 24 to 35 on your camera.

That's true, I understand it won't be particularly flexible, I suppose having a 50mm could encourage me to use my 10-18 more frequently for when I need wider angles.

I'm currently considering the EF 35mm f2, 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8 STM, I'm sort of torn between the 35mm and STM 50, but surprisingly there is a big price difference between them. Hmm...

inevitablyissie wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

inevitablyissie wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

I completely agree you should either be fairly committed to photography or not feel to restrained financially. Full-frame offers two obvious benefits, that only you can decide whether or not they are worth it: greater control of DOF, and greater low-light performance. The viewfinder experience is also like moving from a classic TV to a widescreen.

The negatives are the increased weight, not to mention much bigger lenses on average, and cost.

Ah okay, yes I've noticed my 60D struggles with low light unfortunately, it could just be my settings though! I find even at a low ISO I can see noise on the shot (particularly video work) which doesn't look too great when enlarged on a computer. Perhaps its the trouble with worked with lenses that don't have particularly wide apertures?

I sympathize, but the zooming with one's feet is not a big issue to me, as I am a fairly dynamic shooter even with a zoom. To be brutally honest, I sometimes am just not fast enough with my zooming with my feet (the moment can be lost in a flash), and therefore will also find myself 'zooming with my crop' if you get my drift. That said, being able to shoot f/1.8 is very liberating in itself, providing plenty of creative options, and the lighter weight is much more pleasant.

The 35 is a fairly special lens IMHO, though I am still far from mastering it. Yes, I think it can do pretty much all, except where longer focal lengths are really needed. It does portraits very well, shoulders with head, and is wide enough to capture a variety of scenes.

Right now I am shooting pretty much exclusively with it, as I want to not only master it, but see what it brings to my game in general.

That's a good idea, I'm seriously considering picking up a nifty fifty or other prime right now and sticking with it!

It's certainly at a good price and I've seen so many sharp, beautiful images taken with it.

Do you think it would be a good buy?

I do, but just remember that it is VERY different from a 35 on a FF. 50mm on a Canon APS-C is like 80mm on a full-frame camera, so a small tele-prime. You should enjoy it and have fun, but just be aware it won't be as flexible as a 24 to 35 on your camera.

That's true, I understand it won't be particularly flexible, I suppose having a 50mm could encourage me to use my 10-18 more frequently for when I need wider angles.

I'm currently considering the EF 35mm f2, 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8 STM, I'm sort of torn between the 35mm and STM 50, but surprisingly there is a big price difference between them. Hmm...

The Canon 35 f/2 IS is one of Canon's little gems, so it isn't really that surprising. Furthermore, the 35 becomes 55 on a crop sensor which is still considered 'standard'.

Unfortunately a cheaper fast normal for APS-C is one area where Canon has fallen behind Nikon - there is on good <$250 28mm f/1.8 or similar lens.

Personally I think the 35mm is a bit too long and the 50mm much too long on APS-C to be good GP lenses.

If you are seeing noise in your 60D images, perhaps you are magnifying far too much on your computer display. What ISO are you using? Try viewing only the whole image on the full screen, or if you are printing poster size, view a crop of the image at the same magnification as the poster would print. Or consider some NR software - LightRoom is very good for quick NR, I use Topaz Labs DeNoise for more serious efforts.

A good copy of the 15-85 is as sharp or nearly as sharp in all the areas it overlaps in focal length and aperture with the 17-55, and of course takes pictures at focal lengths you couldn't get at all with other choices. I still think you should consider it, depending on lighting at your events.