It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
So my choices appear to be....
17-55 f2.8 IS (or sigma equiv)
17-40 f4L
15-85 f3.5 to 5.6 IS
24-70 f4L
Internet wisdom says 17-55 f2.8 IS the one to get. But it's expensive. And useless if I upgrade to full frame. There is a cheaper sigma version which is 17-50, but again useless on FF.
My heart says the 17-40 Is the one to get. It's am L lens and 100+ quid cheaper. But it's only F4 and no IS.
Or do I extend zoom range from my Tokina 12-24 and get a 24-70?! This would seem sensible but no doubt I'll be switching between the two all the time.
Help!
I suppose it it depends on what sort of photography you are interested in. My interest is landscapes so I don’t need faster lenses as I generally use a tripod.
I've seen mixed reviews of the Sigma 2.8 but it is so much cheaper than the Canon equiv. Good to hear some real world experience.
You are concerned about price. Bigger sensors mean bigger, more (often much more) expensive lenses - is it possible an upgrade for you would be going to a different aps-c sensor instead?
Despite marketing, image quality is almost entirely irrelevant these days. I had a choice for Sony or fuji and went fuji because of great, sharp lenses that are small, light and offer full frame results.
Not trying to steer you away, but you need to work out what you need. In my experience, using full frame lenses on a crop sensor is, at best, a terrible compromise. You'll lose sharpness as you're effectively cropping into the image circle it was designed for, it'll be much bigger than an equivalent aps-c lens and you'll gain nothing but potentially shallower depth of field (which is 99 percent a waste of time and money, but a huge marketing success).
F/4 full frame lenses are about the same size and weight of equivalent 2.8 lenses in aps-c. Is it worth losing a stop of light and probably sharpness for the sake of possibly upgrading later?
17-50 Is the range I'll shoot at most. 2.8 wouod be handy to have for indoors and IS is worth having if it's on offer and doesn't come at a significant premium.
If money wasn't an issue I would go for the 17-55. But it's very expensive, even used. However i havent read a bad review of it. So hopefully it would hold its value if i did move on.
I think I'd be inclined to stick with an apsc-c zoom in that case. You'll get sharper images, better low light and ois in something that's less huge than a 2.8 ff lens.
Wild card would be a 24mm and 50mm prime. Primes are generally just sharp all the time, even full frame ones. Canon has a nice 24mm ef-s prime that's tiny, sharp and fast and the 50mm 1.8 will give you a nice portrait lens. Both together may be cheaper than a zoom, especially used. I'm not too knowledgeable about Canon aps-c lenses sadly, as they (along with nikon) completely neglected their aps-c systems to push people into the big-ticket full frame. This is a shame, but it is what it is. Sigma also have a 30mm art prime that's nice.
I reckon if you have the kit lens then that should be good enough as a walk around, so you'll just need a wide angle zoom for architecture. I heard the Sigma 10-22 is a good choice.
If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.
But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
If cost and convenience weren't so .If I of an issue I would be going for various primes.