Great body/lens pairs

Timothy Hood wrote:

You read the reviews of great lenses like the Sigma 50mm Art and start imaging it being in your kit. But does that make sense?

I have a T4i (650d) and am looking at adding or upgrading a lens or two this year. I don't see a FF body anywhere in my future,

Ok.

so it seems overkill to consider such high-end lenses like the esteemed 50mm and 85mm Art lenses, as my T4i is the limiting factor here.

That is just wrong. Your T4i is very capable of capturing what is projected by any lens.

Maybe it is not the fastest sports photography camera, sure.  Or the best video DSLR, sure.  You also will not be able to get as shallow a DOF as you can with a FF body.

But will it limit somehow these lenses? Of course not. Only thing that happens is that the crop factor makes the FOV more narrow than it would be on a FF camera.

The 50mm f1.4 on a T4i will be like a 80mm f2.2 lens on FF, the 85mm f1.4 on a T4i will be like a 135mm f2.2 lens on FF.

There is NOTHING wrong about wanting a certain FOV, and getting a good lens for it. It does not matter if it is a T4i.

The limiting factor is you, not the camera.

So, I'm curious what owners of similar bodies consider great lens pairings. I currently have the Canon 10-18mm which seems like a great match for the T4i and has yielded great results for me. I also have the two infamous kit lenses, 18-55mm IS II (the silent AF) and the 55-250mm IS II. These are decent, but I have found the aperture to be most limiting, so I am considering the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 as an upgrade for the 18-55mm.

The Sigma is a good choice, in my opinion. But so will FF primes be.

Tell is about the lenses you think pair well with our more pedestrian bodies.

Your so called pedestrian body outperforms older so called "professional" bodies by some margin. The T4i is a very capable tool, and good photographers can make great photos with it, also with the mentioned Sigma lenses. Choose the focal length and shallow DOF you want, and select an appropriate lens to achieve that.

I have some excellent images on my wall at 20x30 that came from the T4i. I am happy with its abi.ities and aware of its limitations. Fortunately for me (or, as a result of my careful research) the camera's limitations are in areas that generally do not matter to me. For example, I've never shot 6fps bursts and never filled the buffer.

That said, the basis for my point about the camera (sensor) being a limiting factor was looking at DxOMark ratings for lenses with different bodies. Take, for example:

Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM A

Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM

Canon 50mm f1.8 IS II

On a T5i/700d, the Art has a sharpness of 15 P-Mpix, the regular Sigma 11 and the Canon 12. On a 5DS R, those numbers rise to 40, 19 and 21, respectively. Thus, the Art has a lot more to give a high-end body, but maybe not such a significant difference on a 700d. (Unfortunately, there are no tested with the short-lived T4i/650d, so this is the closest comparison.) Looking at the total score, which includes other factors such as distortion and aberration, there is a similar substantial difference between bodies: 44, 35, 34 respectively on the 5DS R and 24, 20, 18 on the 700d.

Thus, we are back to the original point: sure the Art improves on the lowly Canon on a 700d, but it really shines on a better body. Is it really worth 10x the price when attached to a 700d (or in my case, a T4i)? In my case, I think not.

I'm looking for others thoughts on what they have found to be good lens choices that get you most of the way toward the image quality of a far more expensive lens. The 80/20 rule, if you will. And maybe throw in a little discussion about other attributes that were nice improvements over a lesser lens.

Timothy Hood wrote:

I have some excellent images on my wall at 20x30 that came from the T4i. I am happy with its abi.ities and aware of its limitations. Fortunately for me (or, as a result of my careful research) the camera's limitations are in areas that generally do not matter to me. For example, I've never shot 6fps bursts and never filled the buffer.

That said, the basis for my point about the camera (sensor) being a limiting factor was looking at DxOMark ratings for lenses with different bodies. Take, for example:

Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM A

Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM

Canon 50mm f1.8 IS II

That lens does not exist

On a T5i/700d, the Art has a sharpness of 15 P-Mpix,

The mpix ratings from DXO are nonsense anyhow. They do not "measure" that, and many numbers seem to be pulled out of dark places.

Will a 50mm f1.4 Art give significantly better IQ on APS-C than a Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM? For sure. And than a Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM? Yes. When you shoot wide open. When you close down a lot, it really does not matter which lens one uses, really.

the regular Sigma 11 and the Canon 12. On a 5DS R, those numbers rise to 40, 19 and 21, respectively. Thus, the Art has a lot more to give a high-end body, but maybe not such a significant difference on a 700d. (Unfortunately, there are no tested with the short-lived T4i/650d, so this is the closest comparison.)

There are no tests on the 700D either, DXO makes them up. They test on one body, really. In reality, it is best to ignore DXO lens "tests" and look at other sources.

Looking at the total score, which includes other factors such as distortion and aberration, there is a similar substantial difference between bodies: 44, 35, 34 respectively on the 5DS R and 24, 20, 18 on the 700d.

Thus, we are back to the original point: sure the Art improves on the lowly Canon on a 700d, but it really shines on a better body. Is it really worth 10x the price when attached to a 700d (or in my case, a T4i)? In my case, I think not.

That is upto the photographer to make that kind of decision. Price, rendering, weight, AF accuracy, it all comes into play.

I'm looking for others thoughts on what they have found to be good lens choices that get you most of the way toward the image quality of a far more expensive lens. The 80/20 rule, if you will. And maybe throw in a little discussion about other attributes that were nice improvements over a lesser lens.

In my opinion, expensive big aperture lenses are only worth it when you actually plan on using the big aperture. And in my opinion, FF's main reason is possible more shallow DOF.

Thanks for those ideas. I think the discussion got derailed there.
I have the 50mm f/1.8 (I didn't mention that in the original post).
I find I am using the Canon 10-18 and 18-55 a lot. I've been quite pleased with the results I have achieved with the 10-18. I thought people had griped about the 18-135, but if it is on par with the 18-55 and 55-250 (at least in the 55-135 range), I would have considered it if I was starting my kit today, but for this situation I'm looking for the faster lens.

Some may wonder why buy the kit lenses if they are only going to be replaced later. Well, for one, I got a killer deal on Amazon that had both kit lenses in the bundle among other things. Also, in my opinion, some lens is better than no lens, and there wouldn't have been a budget to get these better lenses at the same time as everything else.

Any thoughts on the Sigma 17-50 vs. 17-70 and giving up some f-stop on the longer side? (17-70 is f/2.8-f/4 vs. constant 2.8 for the 17-50). If the 17-70 holds up, it might be a good option.

I can't agree with your claims about dxomark, but we can leave it at that, because the point of my original post is that there are lenses that exceed the limitations imposed by the APS-C sensor, and to a lesser extent, the version in the T4i. It's like putting 175SR15 tires on a Ferrari. I think there are some good lenses that will match well with  the capabilities of the Canon APS-C cameras as well as meet that 80/20 performance/cost trade-off. I'm looking forward to hearing people chime in with their personal experiences.

Timothy Hood wrote:

I can't agree with your claims about dxomark,

Of course you can agree, if you know what you are talking about.

But, allow me to show you.

Lets take a lens we KNOW how it performs, so we can catch DXOmark's lies.

Lets look at the Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM II. It is known for not being sharp in the corners wide open. And that things gradually improve when you stop down. Everyone knows that. Well, everyone with some knowledge.

Now lets have a look at what DXOmark says. Sharpness 16mm wide open, on a 5D mark III:

Wow, really? Seriously? That does not look right. Where are those soft corners?

Lets stop down to f5.6, the next available result.

Oh look! There are those soft corners. Clearly something has gone very wrong in 2012, when they first "tested" this lens.

Lets look at their tests on newer camera bodies. A 5DS-R for instance. Wide open at 16mm:

Uhmmm...

Woah, the same nonsense results, years later.

Ok, then lets just look at APS-C.

Wide open at 16mm:

Ok... and at f5.6?

Right. There you go. Not only is their "mpix" "measurement" a nonsense number/calculation, but they do NOT do measurements of lenses on different bodies. They just do a measurement once on one camera, and "calculate" "results" for other bodies from that.

And the results from the actual tests are HIGHLY unreliable, to say the least.

but we can leave it at that, because the point of my original post is that there are lenses that exceed the limitations imposed by the APS-C sensor,

That point is wrong. The APS-C sensor has very high resolving power, compared to most FF sensors. The 18mp sensor in your T4i is comparable to a 46mp FF sensor. It is the sensor that exceeds the abilities of a lens, not the other way around.

and to a lesser extent, the version in the T4i. It's like putting 175SR15 tires on a Ferrari. I think there are some good lenses that will match well with the capabilities of the Canon APS-C cameras as well as meet that 80/20 performance/cost trade-off. I'm looking forward to hearing people chime in with their personal experiences.

photonius wrote:

I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle.

You have to first ask yourselves:

What focal length and aperture do I want/need?

You have already the 50mm f1.8. So, what can you not do with it? And could you achieve that with another lens?

Then you look for suitable lenses. You will get a list, and then choose based on price and performance. It's not an issue of "great body/lens pairs". A better lens will give better results on recent bodies, no matter what.

Thanks for the thoughts. I wanted to make this thread more than just about my specific needs. So, even though I am currently considering lenses in the wide angle to short telephoto range, I'm also interested in others' experiences with lenses in other lenses, and I figured other owners like me would be as well.

Ok, so, coming back to the DxoMark scores, I also chime in there that one has to take these single scores with a huge grain of salt.

I don't look at scores as an absolute. In fact, I always look at the "scores within the scores". This thread had the unfortunate result of going off-tangent in a discussion about whether there are or are not lenses that are able to outperform the Canon APS-C sensors. I still believe there are. Looking at the resolving power of,the Sigma 85mm Art, for example, one sees that it hits 4,000 lines on a top Canon FF body, the 5DS R, it can't get half that on a 7D. My point was to highlight the difference with an extreme case. But there are still substantial differences in lesser bodies. The 5D MkIV bests 2500. (In the interest of brevity, I am referring to just one measure,ent at one setting, but the rest of the data validates the point.)

I guess a better way to express it is to say who would but a $9000 lens on a $500 body? Or, on a lower-end (but still quite good) camera, there may be some incremental improvement with a very high-end lens, but most of what the lens has to offer is wasted on the less-capable body, so why bother? This the question is about good lens/body pairs.

The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 looks like a nice upgrade over the Canon kit 18-55. I have found that I am doing a large amount of shooting with the 10-18 and 18-55. The 10-18 seems to acquit itself well against the Sigma 10-20 and the 12-24 Art doesn't have the wider reach or pair as well with the 18-55 and similar mid-range zooms and at 5x the price, doesn't seem to justify itself on an APS-C body when Lightroom does a great job correcting the Canon's deficiencies with one click.

One lens I would seriously consider would be an EF lens in the 24-85mm range, plus or minus, with an f/2.8 or so maximum aperture that performs very well. A lens like that would justify its purchase by becoming my daily-use lens if I upgraded to a FF body. Such a lens would be worth its seemingly astronomical price (for an APS-C body pairing).

txsizzler wrote:

So, I'm curious what owners of similar bodies consider great lens pairings. I currently have the Canon 10-18mm which seems like a great match for the T4i and has yielded great results for me. I also have the two infamous kit lenses, 18-55mm IS II (the silent AF) and the 55-250mm IS II. These are decent, but I have found the aperture to be most limiting, so I am considering the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 as an upgrade for the 18-55mm.

Yes, the 17-55 would be a tremendous upgrade from the kit. Also recommend the Canon 10-18 (or even better, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8), and perhaps the Canon 85mm f/1.8 (since you already have the 50mm prime).

I will check out the Tokina as a possible future upgrade to the 10-18. I will admit I had (possibly outdated) views that Tokina was second-rate (going way back to my 35mm days), so I haven't really given their products any consideration previously.

I thought I would be using the 50 more for portraits, but that hasn't happened.

brightcolours wrote:

Timothy Hood wrote:

but we can leave it at that, because the point of my original post is that there are lenses that exceed the limitations imposed by the APS-C sensor,

That point is wrong. The APS-C sensor has very high resolving power, compared to most FF sensors. The 18mp sensor in your T4i is comparable to a 46mp FF sensor. It is the sensor that exceeds the abilities of a lens, not the other way around.

and to a lesser extent, the version in the T4i. It's like putting 175SR15 tires on a Ferrari. I think there are some good lenses that will match well with the capabilities of the Canon APS-C cameras as well as meet that 80/20 performance/cost trade-off. I'm looking forward to hearing people chime in with their personal experiences.

Cramming more pixels per square inch makes a worse sensor, not a better one (disregarding some incremental improvement in technology with newer generation sensors.

Timothy Hood wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Timothy Hood wrote:

but we can leave it at that, because the point of my original post is that there are lenses that exceed the limitations imposed by the APS-C sensor,

That point is wrong. The APS-C sensor has very high resolving power, compared to most FF sensors. The 18mp sensor in your T4i is comparable to a 46mp FF sensor. It is the sensor that exceeds the abilities of a lens, not the other way around.

and to a lesser extent, the version in the T4i. It's like putting 175SR15 tires on a Ferrari. I think there are some good lenses that will match well with the capabilities of the Canon APS-C cameras as well as meet that 80/20 performance/cost trade-off. I'm looking forward to hearing people chime in with their personal experiences.

Cramming more pixels per square inch makes a worse sensor, not a better one (disregarding some incremental improvement in technology with newer generation sensors.

That is what you took away from my post? Wow. And your point is nonsense.