Equipment/Lenses

[Gra.C@Ashley]

Hi, being new the forum wonder if any of you very knowledgeable people out there can advise me. I have a 500D with the normal 18-55 and 55-300 (I think) but recently I was shown the results from someone using 24-105 f4 L IS USM. The results were astonishing compared to mine, I know the picture being taken and the photographer have an awful lot to do with the final image also but the lens does seem to produce much better results. Now for the techy bit, is this lens for a full frame camera and would there be any loss of quality or advantage when/if using one on my little 500D? Many thanks in advance for any help given.
Graham

[briansquibb]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

The 24-105 will work perfectly on your 500d.

However you may not get quite the improvemnent if the sample picture was taken with a 5d - but it will be very good.

[Gra.C@Ashley]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

Thanks for the feedback Brian just need to save up now! I think I may have placed this thread in the wrong area, apologies.

[MX5]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

There are numerous threads about lens choice ... including the sector covered by the 24-105. Sorry if I'm telling 'granny' how to suck eggs ... but you need to sit down and think out what sort of coverage you need. It could be the 17-40 is better? more appropriate? ... it depends how you intend to use your kit. We all (okay there will be some who get it right first time) make mistakes when buying kit ... but we also need to minimize the cost of these mistakes.

The 24-105 is a superb lens (normally attached to my 7D) ... but so is the 17-40 (normally attached to my 40D). But there are others from the L series. All will give you improved image quality ... but then guess what you'll want to trade your 500D up ;-)

L lenses are also very well built and most have weatherproofing. But they are most expensive to buy. Not sure if they have a better return on investment (hold value better) compared with none-L lenses but suspect they do.

[Gra.C@Ashley]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

Many thanks MX5, thats clouded the water a bit. As advised I will sit down and give this some thought. All the best, Graham

[briansquibb]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

In my experience, the ideal reasonably cost lens ( well for L quality) are the 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4

From my experience the leap from the 18-55 (in IQ) was not that great so in my opinion that would be the last one I would replace. If budget is tight think of buying secondhand - all but 1 of my lens came that way. For example from a dealer the 24-105 is about £650 in near mint condition - a saving of well over £100, the 70-200 can be had for under £400 (at the moment the best buy for the money lens)

I am sure we will get others recommending f2.8 lens - but they are more expensive and significantly heavier to carry around

Brian

[colin C]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

Hello Graham

All sound advice so far and I'm not going to go against any of it.

As Brian said, the L lenses to look at are the 17 - 40mm f4, 24 - 105mm f4 IS and the 70 - 200mm f4 IS. What you need to do is decide which one will benefit you the most now? If it's mostly landscapes, then the 17 - 40mm, though I have seen very good landscapes taken on the others two lenses. If it's a general purpose, good at most things lens, then the 24 - 105mm and if you are erring towards sports, wildlife, then the 70 - 200mm. But nothing is ever cut and dried, because I have also seen the 70 - 200mm used for portraits, candid shots etc. But generally, assume the 17 - 40mm as the landscape/architecture, 24 - 105mm as the jack of all trades and the 70 - 200mm for candids, sport and wildlife.

We have only seen a very small percentage of your work, so wouldn't have a clear picture to advise the best solution for you, but whichever way you decide, they are all good choices.

Colin

[Gra.C@Ashley]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

Hi Colin, many of my pictures revolve around landscape. with portraits I feel out of my comfort zone somehow. Anyway, I have only recently become an EOS owner. I had a sony A200 before the 500D which is why I haven't posted many pictures. I will put some on here but 1. apologies as they are not images from an EOS camera. 2. Please feel free to criticise as I have.




All taken on a trip to Snowdonia early this year. Camera Sony A200 with kit lenses.
Apologies again about the borders, as I said earlier a bad habit I got into.
Graham

[MX5]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

All very nice ... but as I go walking in places like this (I did Snowdon in the summer ... with my 7D plus 24-105) ... although the last one rings the bells for me.

[colin C]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

Nothing there to criticize, except possibly the "Wonky" shoreline on #3.

The borders you have used on those shots don't detract from the image, so I would suggest they are perfectly acceptable.

Colin

[Gra.C@Ashley]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

Many thanks for the kind comments, Agree with the wonky shoreline. Its funny how you miss these things when processing.

[colin C]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

I vote for the electronic grid/level of the 7D and 60D to become standard, and us "Poor People" that don't have it on our cameras, should get a free upgrade. Add to that a free L series lens of our choice.

Hmmm, that could make me quite popular if that came off!

Colin

[Pinkeez]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

brilliant photos. been around there myself and I think you have captured the scenery perfectly.
can't wait to see what results you produce with your 500D.

[DrJon]

Re: Equipment/Lenses

When I had a crop sensor (like the 500D) I used the 24-105 as my walk-around lens as it was simply so good, plus I tended to favor a little length over wide-angle.

I should also mention the 17-55 f2.8, which, as it only works on the crop sensors, isn't as heavy or expensive as the full-frame f2.8 lenses and goes wider but not as long as the 24-105.
Effectively they are 38-168mm f4 and 27-88mm f2.8 and 670g/645g for f4/f2.8. The f2.8 seems to currently run a little cheaper than the f4, but there isn't much in it.
The f2.8 means you can have twice the shutter speed wide-open, which can be handy. You lose weather-sealing (but the 500D doesn't have that anyway).

I'd also concur with most of the other comments (although I am less of a fan of the 17-40 than many here, as there seemed to be some quality issues, but that was a long time ago).

John