Lens upgrades for crop body

Genoma

Genoma

Genoma

Associate
Joined
5 Mar 2006
Posts
2,355
Location
Shropshire
As a begginer I ended up with some budget glass which I woud like to upgrade. I'm considering what to save up for an upgrade now. I'm mainly interested in increasing IQ.

I currently have the nifty fifty for portraits / some low light stuff which I will keep and:

18-135 EF-S lens which I use all the time, love the range
70-300mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM which I'm not too in love with yet

So I'm looking for recommendations on what I should be saving for to replace these two.

I'm thiking:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM or Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

What does the panel think / recommend?
 
Hi

We have the 17-55 f2.8 on the 600d and its a monster lens....in fact it stays on the camera all the time so sold the kit lens and the nifty fifty, which though being faster just wasn't used any more.

It really is a jack of all trades, perfect when out and about, portraits and when the light gets low it's still good. The only other thing we do use with it is a speedlite 430 for when you need some help shooting into bright light or in darker conditions.

I don't know that much about photography but did lots of research on the lens and many said it was L quality glass even bettering similar L lenses.... It does feel abit plasticy though and not sure on long term resistance to dust. Make sure you get a hood with it as it can get a lot of glare when outside.
 
If you ever plan on going FF in the future, I would reccomend buying regular lenses over the EF-S counterparts.

The 24-105 is probably the best all rounder, and can be picked up new for £569 or they go for about 450 second hand. It wont be as wide but you can always take a step back :).

I have the 70-200 f4 and it's a cracking lens, but I think my next purchase will be the 24-105.
 
sHo0sH said:
If you ever plan on going FF in the future, I would reccomend buying regular lenses over the EF-S counterparts.

The 24-105 is probably the best all rounder, and can be picked up new for £569 or they go for about 450 second hand. It wont be as wide but you can always take a step back :).

I have the 70-200 f4 and it's a cracking lens, but I think my next purchase will be the 24-105.
Click to expand...

This makes no real sense though. If you are going to buy a FF camera then just go ahead an buy it and buy the lenses. If you are not going to switch to FF immediately then you need to buy glass that works well on the system that you own and use.
Suggestions like the 24-105 are just not a direct replacement for the 17-55mm f/2.8. Why on earth would you want a lens that is a stop slower and only begins at 24mm making it horrible to use on crop as a general purpose lens?


My Advice, buy the 17-55mm 2.8 IS, or the Tamron counterpart. If you ever go FF sell the 17-55 and buy your FF lens of choice, would have to be 24-70mm f/2.8 really. The loss in selling in minimal, you can also just buy second hand and then you might even make a profit when it comes time to sell. Even if one was to loose 150-200 quid over say 2 years of owner ship, that is like 20-25pence a day and you might have taken 10-20,000 photos in that time with that lens costing you like 1 pence per photo to use a lens that has a better focal length and is a stop faster.

And I say this as a warning, I made that mistake myself. I purchased a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 because I saw a price that couldn't be beat (it was actually a pricing error which the website adhered to, got it 30% cheaper than anywhere online including HK). At the time I was putting money away each month to buy a D700 and estimated within 3-4 months I would own one and the 24-70 would be perfect. 6 months later I had a load of other expenses and I changed my mind on the D700 realizing I want a camera with high pixel density for landscape and nature. Nearly 3 years later I still haven't bother purchasing a FF camera, and not for financial reasons. My 24-70 is beautifulk and render gorgeous photos, but I almost never, ever use it because the focal length is ghastly on crop except under a few circumstances. It is just no where near wide enough for general use, and the tele end is far to short for other uses. I use my 16-85 f/5.6 literally 100x more often than the 24-70mm f/2.8 because of the focal length differences. I can count the number of times the 24-70 has been out properly on the fingers of 1 hand!
 
Last edited:
JRJ said:
The 55-250 is a cracking lens if you didn't want to drop a lot of cash on the zoom side of this.
Click to expand...

I don't want to sound bitchy :) but the OP has the 70-00 IS so the 55-250, although a fair lens for the money, would be a downgrade.
 
Genoma said:
I'm thiking:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM or Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

What does the panel think / recommend?
Click to expand...

All exceptional lenses. I've owned the 17-55 and the 70-200 f/4L IS and loved both of them. I only got rid of them to upgrade to the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II respectively.

The 70-300 is also a very good lens by all accounts although I have no direct experience of it. Whether it's better getting that over the 70-200 depends on exactly what you plan to shoot with it - basically additional range but slower aperture and the 70-200 will be a bit sharper.

JRJ said:
The 55-250 is a cracking lens if you didn't want to drop a lot of cash on the zoom side of this.
Click to expand...

It is a good lens for the money but both the ones the OP mentioned are in a different league.
 
Thanks guys.

So far great advice. I'm generally with D.P. on this one, the 24-105 L was on the list but I talked myself out of it on a crop. If I ever go FF it's either going to be ditch and sell everything or a second body but at the moment I simply can't justify it and don't think I'll like lugging around the weight and size of a 5D.

The zoom I'll be using for birds, zoo visits, maybe the odd airshow.
 
Yeah the 24-105 would be a bit limiting on a crop. I moved from the 17-55 to 24-70 mainly for the build quality and weather sealing but wouldn't have done so had I not already got the 10-22 to cover the wide end.
 
D.P. said:
This makes no real sense though. If you are going to buy a FF camera then just go ahead an buy it and buy the lenses. If you are not going to switch to FF immediately then you need to buy glass that works well on the system that you own and use.
Suggestions like the 24-105 are just not a direct replacement for the 17-55mm f/2.8. Why on earth would you want a lens that is a stop slower and only begins at 24mm making it horrible to use on crop as a general purpose lens?


My Advice, buy the 17-55mm 2.8 IS, or the Tamron counterpart. If you ever go FF sell the 17-55 and buy your FF lens of choice, would have to be 24-70mm f/2.8 really. The loss in selling in minimal, you can also just buy second hand and then you might even make a profit when it comes time to sell. Even if one was to loose 150-200 quid over say 2 years of owner ship, that is like 20-25pence a day and you might have taken 10-20,000 photos in that time with that lens costing you like 1 pence per photo to use a lens that has a better focal length and is a stop faster.

And I say this as a warning, I made that mistake myself. I purchased a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 because I saw a price that couldn't be beat (it was actually a pricing error which the website adhered to, got it 30% cheaper than anywhere online including HK). At the time I was putting money away each month to buy a D700 and estimated within 3-4 months I would own one and the 24-70 would be perfect. 6 months later I had a load of other expenses and I changed my mind on the D700 realizing I want a camera with high pixel density for landscape and nature. Nearly 3 years later I still haven't bother purchasing a FF camera, and not for financial reasons. My 24-70 is beautifulk and render gorgeous photos, but I almost never, ever use it because the focal length is ghastly on crop except under a few circumstances. It is just no where near wide enough for general use, and the tele end is far to short for other uses. I use my 16-85 f/5.6 literally 100x more often than the 24-70mm f/2.8 because of the focal length differences. I can count the number of times the 24-70 has been out properly on the fingers of 1 hand!
Click to expand...

Totally agree, but a second hand 17-55mm f2.8 and sell it for a tiny loss if you go full frame better to have the best lenses now than compromise for no gain.
 
The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is on my want list. Its good to see it being talked about in here.

sHo0sH said:
If you ever plan on going FF in the future, I would reccomend buying regular lenses over the EF-S counterparts.
Click to expand...

Personally I favour candid photography and find too many benefits from the EF-S stabiliser in hand held work to go elsewhere. Whats the marketing, about 4 steps faster in the same lighting conditions? Yes please :)
 
Last edited:
Plenty of EF lenses have stabilisation. The bigger issue is that there aren't really any good EF lenses of the same focal range as the 17-55 or 15-85 as they're more designed to provide the right field of view on a FF sensor. The 24-70 provides the f/2.8 aperture whilst the 24-105 provides IS. The 17-55 obviously provides the best of both worlds and offers comparable image quality but the downsides are the inferior build quality and lack of weather sealing plus you'd need to change it if you went FF in the future.
 
From experience, the 17-55 is an absolute cracker of a lens. I actually miss having it, but when I upgraded to full frame it had to be replaced.

As said above, buy one second hand and you should easily be able to sell it on again for a minimal loss should you ever go the FF route. I have the 24-105 now, and from the brief use on my 7d before selling, it is nowhere near wide enough for a general purpose zoom on crop, in my opinion.
 
I regret buying my 17-55. I know that's against popular opinion but I do. My reasons:

I bought it never expecting to go FF. I'm now in a position to go FF and to get a lens of similar performance is going to cost me the price of a FF camera plus a 24-70. I should have gone 24-70 from the start even on a crop for the amount of times I have gone below 24mm.

Dust, people for little rational reason get hung up on a few tiny specs of dust. The 17-55 if you use it, will get it. More than most but for some reason people expect you to give the lens away if it has any. Yet every single lens is full of dust. Get an LED torch, shine it through a brand new 70-200 or other zoom and it's there and lots of it. Don't do that if you are slightly ocd.

My 17-55 has a couple of specks of dust and now I'm in a position to sell it people will expect a £100 off because of it, for no good reason at all. It doesn't mater that it's been serviced, calibrated and is an excellent lens :D

I'd never advertise as dust free because that situation just doesn't exist.

The 17-55 is a brilliant lens for the money but If I had my time again I'd only buy a good one second hand because you are unlikely to keep it years like other lenses.
 
Get a 24-105. Firstly you should be able to get one used for much the same as your 17-55 is worth so cost to change should be minimal. Secondly it also preserves the IS if that's important to you.

It may be f/4 rather than f/2.8 but the effective DoF at f/4 on FF will be much the same as f/2.8 is on a crop. Of course you'll lose a stop for low light work too but the FF sensor should make up for that by allowing you to push the ISO more.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Get a 24-105. Firstly you should be able to get one used for much the same as your 17-55 is worth so cost to change should be minimal. Secondly it also preserves the IS if that's important to you.

It may be f/4 rather than f/2.8 but the effective DoF at f/4 on FF will be much the same as f/2.8 is on a crop. Of course you'll lose a stop for low light work too but the FF sensor should make up for that by allowing you to push the ISO more.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have a FF camera!;)
 
dannyjo22 said:
I regret buying my 17-55. I know that's against popular opinion but I do. My reasons:

I bought it never expecting to go FF. I'm now in a position to go FF and to get a lens of similar performance is going to cost me the price of a FF camera plus a 24-70. I should have gone 24-70 from the start even on a crop for the amount of times I have gone below 24mm.

Dust, people for little rational reason get hung up on a few tiny specs of dust. The 17-55 if you use it, will get it. More than most but for some reason people expect you to give the lens away if it has any. Yet every single lens is full of dust. Get an LED torch, shine it through a brand new 70-200 or other zoom and it's there and lots of it. Don't do that if you are slightly ocd.

My 17-55 has a couple of specks of dust and now I'm in a position to sell it people will expect a £100 off because of it, for no good reason at all. It doesn't mater that it's been serviced, calibrated and is an excellent lens :D

I'd never advertise as dust free because that situation just doesn't exist.

The 17-55 is a brilliant lens for the money but If I had my time again I'd only buy a good one second hand because you are unlikely to keep it years like other lenses.
Click to expand...
A the end of the day you have owned the fantastic 17-55mm and made great photos for a rental cost of like £100-150. Go to lens rentals and see how much you saved.
Also, did you see how much money your camera has devalued in the same length of time if you were to sell and move to FF? Camera depreciation always swamps lens depreciation so buy the right lenses and don't worry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom