Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Lens range


KatieR 10 6.2k 6
15 Aug 2010 12:45PM
I'm looking to increase and improve my range of lenses...

I use crop-sensor Canon and don't have a particular photographic speciality. I have a couple of primes, a 17-40mm and a 100-300mm. I can't afford, nor carry, the top end f2.8's, but I'd like to get the better quality lenses where I can.

After adding a wide angle (10-20mm), I would like to replace my 17-40mm. I find it limiting in extent, though it is really well made and good to use - perhaps the 17-55 f2.8 IS would be a bit more flexible, but also of decent quality.

My 100-300m needs upgrading for something brighter and I'd like IS/ OS. I see a few options from Canon and Sigma but I'm not sure what's right for me - it's a balance between cost and weight at this end. Would you bother bridging the gap between 55mm and 100mm?

What set of lenses do you use on your crop-sensor Canon? Do you have a seamless progression from wide to tele?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
15 Aug 2010 1:32PM
The Canon 70-200mm f4 is one option, with an optional Canon 1.4X extender to increase it's versatility. A superb lens and bitingly sharp, with, and without the extender.
KatieR 10 6.2k 6
15 Aug 2010 1:34PM
Thanks. It's not too heavy and bulky too, which is a bonus for me.

what about gaps in the range? Do you really miss twenty mm's or so?
justin c 11 4.6k 36 England
15 Aug 2010 1:39PM

Quote:Do you really miss twenty mm's or so?


Fortunately I've got from 17mm to 400mm covered seamlessly but I used to own the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 and the Canon 24-105mm f4 (which I still own) and I certainly prefer having the extra 35mm that the 24-105mm gives.



Quote:Would you bother bridging the gap between 55mm and 100mm?


Yes I think I would, but if you did go for the 70-200mm I don't think you'd find the missing 15mm between 55mm and 70mm a major problem.
ge22y 6 115 12 Wales
15 Aug 2010 1:46PM
I've got a Nikon D300s which has a 1.5 crop factor, I only have 3 lenses that I use; Sigma 10-20 3.5, Nikkor 60mm 2.8 Macro and Sigma 70-200 2.8. I have a Sigma 18-55mm but it never goes on the camera.


Quote:what about gaps in the range? Do you really miss twenty mm's or so?


That's what legs were invented for Wink
KatieR 10 6.2k 6
15 Aug 2010 1:47PM
It's really tricky to get a seamless set on EFS without serious overlap... annoying. But I do wonder if I'm being a bit pedantic for no good reason!

It would be great to have a 17-55mm equivalent (quality wise) in the medium telephoto range.
KatieR 10 6.2k 6
15 Aug 2010 1:48PM
legs? What are they? lol!
BigRick 9 2.1k 3 United Kingdom
15 Aug 2010 8:36PM

Quote:I'm looking to increase and improve my range of lenses...

I use crop-sensor Canon and don't have a particular photographic speciality. I have a couple of primes, a 17-40mm and a 100-300mm. I can't afford, nor carry, the top end f2.8's, but I'd like to get the better quality lenses where I can.

After adding a wide angle (10-20mm), I would like to replace my 17-40mm. I find it limiting in extent, though it is really well made and good to use - perhaps the 17-55 f2.8 IS would be a bit more flexible, but also of decent quality.

My 100-300m needs upgrading for something brighter and I'd like IS/ OS. I see a few options from Canon and Sigma but I'm not sure what's right for me - it's a balance between cost and weight at this end. Would you bother bridging the gap between 55mm and 100mm?

What set of lenses do you use on your crop-sensor Canon? Do you have a seamless progression from wide to tele?




opposing stements there Smile If the 17-55 f2.8 is anything like the Nikon version.... it is relativly heavy and by no means cheap. Smile but is a VERY good lens.
Warriorpoet 6 213 3 England
15 Aug 2010 9:08PM
The 24-105 IS is a similar price to the 17-55 and only 25g heavier. You would have a small gap between 20 and 24 but it is a nice range for walkabout, it's an L and therefore suitable if you ever go full frame. Got mine last week (so can't really say on quality yet). Bought it on ebay from a seller called Digigood on Saturday night and it arrived Tuesday morning and paid less than the pricebuster price on the 17-55. Of course if you want F2.8 just ignore all that Grin

Prior to buying this lens I had a gap between the 17-40 and the 80-200 and there were times I noticed it.
KatieR 10 6.2k 6
15 Aug 2010 9:24PM
BigRick - yes, you're right, it is heavier than my 17-40mm but it's not in the same weight league as the telephotos, thank goodness.

Warrior - the 24-105 just isn't very wide on a crop sensor, though, that's my concern. I would go for it without hesitation if I had a 5D!
Warriorpoet 6 213 3 England
15 Aug 2010 9:31PM
Katie,
That's true but if you have a 10-20 you have wide covered there. That was my rational anyway.
Dave
Coleslaw e2
9 13.4k 28 Wales
15 Aug 2010 9:35PM
If weight is an issue, I would say:
10-20, 24-105 and 70-200f4
KatieR 10 6.2k 6
16 Aug 2010 10:13AM
Sooo, the 24mm becomes a 38mm on my crop sensor... well I guess it's like widest the focal length on some compacts.

Oh this is too difficult.

My credit card is cooling off...
strawman 11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
16 Aug 2010 12:38PM
Katie, I have 10-20, 17-40, 55-200, 100-400 in terms of zoom. I tend to go wider for walk about so walk about with the 17-40 more often. If you never intend to go full frame the new 15-85 could be a good walk about lens.....

It is not often I use lenses in the 40 to 100mm range, and when I do I either use my 50mm prime or the old 55-200 gets dragged out. I know what you mean about the 17-40 perhaps a bit longer on a crop camera would help but I keep on thinking I may go full frame some day and it will replace my 10-20 then.

As for the 24-105, for me, on a 5D it would be great, but on a crop camera is it wide enough? I guess that is why canon made the 15-85
KatieR 10 6.2k 6
16 Aug 2010 2:33PM
Thanks John.

I had my mind made up to get the 15-85mm, but then I remembered how limiting those apertures can be sometimes, which is why I moved on to the 17-55 f2.8.

I do think I would benefit from some IS lenses as I rarely get the tripod out at the moment.

I do also have the 50mm and 100mm which have lovely wide max apertures, so I shouldn't forget about them. I just want to keep the number I have to carry to a minimum.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.