Some lens questions - Canon

ajf

ajf

ajf

Soldato
Joined
30 Oct 2006
Posts
3,053
Location
Worcestershire, UK
This might seem an odd question.
If i have taken a photo with for example a 70mm lens.
Is it possible to roughly compare it to an image taken with a 100mm lens by cropping the image?

Scenario:
I have a Sigma 24-70 lens. It doesn't give me the reach i need in some circumstances plus I am not happy with the quality.
My initial though was replace with Canon 24-105, but not sure now much difference the extra 35mm would really make?

On a different line, what is the general consensus on the Canon 85mm f1.8 lens?
 
Yes, you can compare 70mm to 105mm simply by cropping to get an idea of the field of view change (not that much really). The biggest difference you will notice is the stop less aperture.

If you want a lens with more range then going for the canon 24-105mm won't really help you much, but there isn't really much you can do on FF beyond changing lenses when you need more reach. Nikon have a 28-300mm f/5.6 that is reasonably sharp (not like the 24-70 but acceptable given the compromises) and affordable. Canon have a similar ranGe lens but it costs a fortune and isn't that sharp I believe.

The canon 85mm f/1.8 is great for the money, very sharp.
 
Last edited:
Thanks.
How would I be able to work out the amount to crop?
By the way this is an APS-C sensor, not FF. 600d.

That Nikon lens sounds ideal to be honest. Maybe not Canon 24-70 sharp but probably a whole lot better than my Sigma :)
Not sure that's a justifiable reason to change body as well!
I assume this is the lens you mean:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-28-300mm-f3-5-5-6-g-af-s-ed-vr-lens/p1522139

I have seen the Canon 28-300mm but yes price was an issue, plus is it actually still current?

I can lose the extra aperture as I don't use the current lens wide open except for intentional low DOF static shots, which was where i thought I could get the 85mm for.
 
I love my 85mm f1.8 it doesn't get as much use as it should as I don't do a lot of people pictures but it really is a nice piece of kit sharp wide open and lovely bokeh if you don't step it down too far.

I recently moved from a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 as my walk about to a 24-105mm f4 as I realised that nine times out of ten if I was shooting bigger than f4 I was reaching for a prime. The extra length and width of the 24-105mm is pretty noticeable it gives you a proper portrait range and for a general walk about I find the IS more useful than the f2.8 obviously that is subkect to your style, preference and what you shoot.
 
ajf said:
On a different line, what is the general consensus on the Canon 85mm f1.8 lens?
Click to expand...
Cracking lens, light, compact, very quick to focus, nice contrast / colour rendering and sharp. I either reach for it or my 30mm as my 'go to lens'.

If you want a walkabout lens with a bit of range on a crop the general consensus is to ignore the 24-105 (which is makes far more sense on a FF body) and get the 15-85 Canon. It gets consistently raved about and is roughly the same focal length as the 24-105 but built for a crop body.
 
ajf said:
Thanks.
How would I be able to work out the amount to crop?
By the way this is an APS-C sensor, not FF. 600d.

That Nikon lens sounds ideal to be honest. Maybe not Canon 24-70 sharp but probably a whole lot better than my Sigma :)
Not sure that's a justifiable reason to change body as well!
I assume this is the lens you mean:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-28-300mm-f3-5-5-6-g-af-s-ed-vr-lens/p1522139

I have seen the Canon 28-300mm but yes price was an issue, plus is it actually still current?

I can lose the extra aperture as I don't use the current lens wide open except for intentional low DOF static shots, which was where i thought I could get the 85mm for.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the Nikon lens, certainly not worth changing systems for but is one of the few FF options.

If you are on crop then look at one of the 18-200mm lenses, it will be slower and not as sharp but will give you the reach and more importantly something much wider. Not sure why you want a 24-105mm on crop, doesn't make much sense.

Get the 18-200 if you want the tele end, otherwise the 15-85mm is a far better all rounder lens, very sharp and an incredibly useful focal range. 15mm really opens new avenues and the lens is much sharper.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the additional comments.
I guess it depends on usage but not sure why the 24-105mm seems an odd choice?
The very low end of the range is not that important to me for this lens use, but the range is.
The 15-85 is less of a benefit here than the 24-105, which from what I have read is a very good lens quality wise.

When I need wider angles, I have both a 10-22 and 17-40mm lens I can use, at which point I don't also require a high top end range.

I think my ideal lens to replace the 24-70 would be something around 40-200 (or Canon 28-300)!

Actually, looking at purely this scenario buying a Nikon body and that 28-300mm lens actually almost makes sense financially when compared to the Canon 28-300.
 
The thing is the 24-105 doesn't really make much sense even on FF IMO, compared to the 24-70 you are a stop slower but the difference between 105 and 70mm is really minimal and real world use age and is easily replicated by minor cropping or moving forwards. Optically the 24-105mm is not that great either, lots of distortion.

When used on a crop sensor for most people the 24mm end is a right pain to work with for every day shooting and the middle end is not interest for many types of work. Most people like a 10-24mm type lens, then something 40-200 makes the most sense. The 15-85 tends to work because 15-24mm covers most of the everyday wide angle situations and 85mm handles the tele end when not too much reach is needed.

Now you are not interested in the wide end because you can swap lenses, but the point of the 15-85mm is it would allow you to go out with a single lens and not swap which is very handy. When comparing 85mm to 105mm there simply isn't enough difference to be that significant. Likewise with aperture going with the 24-105 you have already committed to a big step down, the 15-85 is mostly about half a stop slower, 1 stop at the long end. These slower zooms pair up well with fast primes.

Maybe you are looking at the wrong type of lens, maybe you need something like the sigma 50-150 or a canon 70-200mm if you want more reach? Or even like the 18-135mm.


Either way if your issues with the sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 are lack of reach and image quality the canon 24-105mm wont solve either issue. You seem interested in reach, so why not just buy one of the 70-200mm lenses?
 
If the Canon 18-200 is anything as good as the Nikon 18-200 then I'd have a look at that.

I've owned both the Nikon 16-85mm VR and Nikon 18-200mm VR and honestly could not tell the difference between them except when viewing the extreme corners at stupid magnifications.

I kept the 18-200mm VR and haven't regretted it.
 
Again thank you for all the comments and suggestions.
I think maybe I need to take stock of what to do next. Especially given the quality comments on the 24-105mm. I had thought it was quite a high quality lens.
The 70-200mm is a bit tight at the low end too!
I might try to hire one though and give it a go.

To show what I am after, these two shots are taken from roughly the same location at Prescott, both with the 24-70mm lens and both at 70mm:

Close to camera. At 70mm doesn't give much room for error as seen here. 40-50mm is about where I need.

sample_70mm_close by ajf.350d, on Flickr

Furthest from camera at some point. 70mm is OK but limits close up detail. I can crop admittedly.

sample_70mm_distant by ajf.350d, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom