adamvk1 wrote:
I currently have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for my 60D, and long story short, I hate it. I want to upgrade to a nicer lens, and I've decided on buying a Canon 24-70 f2.8L. However, I'm slightly concerned due to the fact that I'd be going from 17 to 24 at the widest. What are peoples experiences with the 24-70 on a smaller sensor? Do you find it wide enough for most of the time?
Hmmm... It seems to me that you could simply look at the photographs that you made with your 17-50mm lens and ask yourself if you would be willing to give up half of the focal length it provided.
If you want to cover wide angles, 24mm really doesn't particularly do that on full frame.
Well I wouldn't be giving up half the focal length would I? Because it wouldn't be as wide, and it would be longer. Right? Or am I missing something? Also I taped down my Sigma 17-50 at 24MM, and I was walking around, and 24 is fine for me. 24 on the 24-70 would be the same as 24 on my Sigma, correct? You all are starting to confuse me! Haha. Also, would the Canon 24-70 hood lens work on a crop sensor? Or would the hood get in the way at the 24?
Just answer me this,
Would I see a noticeable image quality difference if I upgraded? Pretend money doesn't matter. I have to choose between a Canon 24-70 and a Sigma 17-50. Which one?
adamvk1 wrote:
I recently switched to my Canon from a Sony Alpha and my main lens was a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The images were fantastic compared to my current set up.
Have you considered getting a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for Canon?
Well, I've heard that the non IS version has really good image quality, but it's a lens that really NEEDS IS for movie recording, which I also do, so that kinda rules it out. I've heard that the IS version has terrible IQ. That's what I was initially looking at before I bought my Sigma 17-50 f2.8.
jerbear00 wrote:
Sell all zooms and buy primes!! Haha. This is all very subjective. I hate zooms. And yes 24mm is not wide enough.
Haha, actually I did think about this. But I really want to switch to strictly Canon from here on out if possible, and I've heard the 20mm prime isn't the greatest.
Adam -- I think you'll find the 24-70L is an improvement over your Sigma, at least it should be. If not, send to Canon to get fixed. On full frame, the 24-70L is my most used lens, so you'll be moving in the right direction. Just wanted to make sure you could live with the 38mm equiv. setting, and it seems you can. Grab one and let us know what you think.
Ok good. I like this better. I feel like before people were trying to get me to settle with what I have now. I'm really excited to get my first "L" lens.
Now I need to sell my old lens first. Anyone want to buy a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS for Canon?
First of all let's deal with a couple of statements above that are very missleading.
"in couple of years I will go full frame" & "when you go ff you will have the correct lens"
Bad theory. Use the correct lens NOW not what will be good if you ever go ff.
Most decent lenses hold their value so well that swapping formats won't render you lens set worthless.
"24 mm is the same on any lens"
Correct. If you taped your current lens to 24mm that is indeed what the 24-70 will be like at its widest.
"will the hood work on crop"
It will certainly not vignette as you are dealing with less frame. You could Infact go quite a bit bigger on the hood. But as the 24-70 hood is huge anyway and is probably the best hood system you can get due to the way the lens zooms just use the current hood.
I'm not trying to put you off getting the 24-70 as its a good lens. But for me the thinking off getting cos you will use it when you get ff is very flawed. You will be using a lens with the ff equiv of 38-112 so if you find that fine on a crop then you will probably think it not long enough on ff and end up getting something like the 24-105 .
Like I said use what works for you now. Think how often you use wider than 24mm with you current lens. If you use software like Lightroom it will tell you how many images you have taken at each focal length. That's why I know for me 24 is fine as I also have the UWA (which I hardly ever use at list longer reaches) but for others they could not do without the extra width.
If you go for the 24-70 then enjoy it, but don't get it just cos it's an L . That's a very slippery slope to start on
I am in exactly the same situation as I use a non-full frame camera. For an APS-C body I find 24mm (38mm in reality) is truly terrible and it would make your body like those videocameras that require a wide lens converter in order to make them decent. I would stick to the Sigma and go for a full frame body, or get an EF 17-55.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
First of all let's deal with a couple of statements above that are very missleading.
"in couple of years I will go full frame" & "when you go ff you will have the correct lens"
Bad theory. Use the correct lens NOW not what will be good if you ever go ff.
Most decent lenses hold their value so well that swapping formats won't render you lens set worthless.
"24 mm is the same on any lens"
Correct. If you taped your current lens to 24mm that is indeed what the 24-70 will be like at its widest.
"will the hood work on crop"
It will certainly not vignette as you are dealing with less frame. You could Infact go quite a bit bigger on the hood. But as the 24-70 hood is huge anyway and is probably the best hood system you can get due to the way the lens zooms just use the current hood.
I'm not trying to put you off getting the 24-70 as its a good lens. But for me the thinking off getting cos you will use it when you get ff is very flawed. You will be using a lens with the ff equiv of 38-112 so if you find that fine on a crop then you will probably think it not long enough on ff and end up getting something like the 24-105 .
Like I said use what works for you now. Think how often you use wider than 24mm with you current lens. If you use software like Lightroom it will tell you how many images you have taken at each focal length. That's why I know for me 24 is fine as I also have the UWA (which I hardly ever use at list longer reaches) but for others they could not do without the extra width.
If you go for the 24-70 then enjoy it, but don't get it just cos it's an L . That's a very slippery slope to start on ...Show more →
Very helpful, thank you.
And to the above post, I've already established that 24 will be wide enough for me.
lovinglife wrote:
Doesnt matter if its not too wide. Eventually when u upgrade to full frame at least u'll have the right lens
... at which point the FF camera will be at least 21MP (probably more) and then the 24-70 will be an outdated lens that will be pushed hard by the sensor in your camera. It's pushed hard enough by the 1Ds3 as it is.
I agree with others: get the right lens now, get a new one later. The depreciation is minimal, being stuck with the wrong lens is way worse. I've lived too long on a cropper with the 16-35 and 28-70 (two years) because there was no other choice (before EF-S was invented), and hated every moment of it.
I find 24 more than adequate for walking around, just step back a little bit and problem solved.
I've had the 28-135mm on a crop and the 17-55 and a 17-40.... Sold them all and I'm using a 24-70mm on a 7D. I rarely feel the need to go wider, and if and when I do I have the Tokina 11-16mm.
Some people seem stuck in the old 24-xxx is for full frame, but where it really ends up is in YOUR needs.
I looked at my exif data in Lightroom of my shots taken with the 17-40... mostly all were closer to 40, same with the 28-135... most of them were at least 35 to 135. So I knew that the wide end wasn't a problem for me.
The 17-55 is sharp and has IS, but I still find the untangible qualities of the L better. Build quality is also unparalleled.
As for your question, as you are shooting with a smaller sensor that the lens was designed for, the hood will not get in the way at all. The opposite may be true, as you could have a larger hood without interference.
DemonAstroth wrote:
I find 24 more than adequate for walking around, just step back a little bit and problem solved.
I've had the 28-135mm on a crop and the 17-55 and a 17-40.... Sold them all and I'm using a 24-70mm on a 7D. I rarely feel the need to go wider, and if and when I do I have the Tokina 11-16mm.
Some people seem stuck in the old 24-xxx is for full frame, but where it really ends up is in YOUR needs.
I looked at my exif data in Lightroom of my shots taken with the 17-40... mostly all were closer to 40, same with the 28-135... most of them were at least 35 to 135. So I knew that the wide end wasn't a problem for me.
The 17-55 is sharp and has IS, but I still find the untangible qualities of the L better. Build quality is also unparalleled.
As for your question, as you are shooting with a smaller sensor that the lens was designed for, the hood will not get in the way at all. The opposite may be true, as you could have a larger hood without interference.
For my kind of shooting with my 50D a 35-70mm would be just as fine. The 24-70 is on my camera 95% of the time. The rest of the time I use the 70-200mm.
Everyone has different needs ..... so you really need to decide what works best for you.
I always forget about the 17-55 f2.8 IS. Always seemed like a really nice lens, but waaaay too expensive in my book. A 24-70L isn't that much more. And is 7mm (11mm) all that much of a difference? You'll only know if you try it. Which you will be able to when it gets back from the shop in a few days :P
You can rarely ever go wrong investing in Canon glass, especially if you buy used and take care of it, it will hold it's value very well. Only danger is that once you go 'L', you can't go back :P
The 24-70L is my money maker. Granted, it is on a 5D Mark II most of the time, it produces wonderful images
Kevin Sherman wrote:
I always forget about the 17-55 f2.8 IS. Always seemed like a really nice lens, but waaaay too expensive in my book. A 24-70L isn't that much more. And is 7mm (11mm) all that much of a difference?
Yes only 7 mm is a big difference. The wider you go the more each mm has a larger effect on the FOV . 7 mm at the long end is basically not much but at the wide end it's lots.
Kevin Sherman wrote:
I always forget about the 17-55 f2.8 IS. Always seemed like a really nice lens, but waaaay too expensive in my book. A 24-70L isn't that much more. And is 7mm (11mm) all that much of a difference?
Yes only 7 mm is a big difference. The wider you go the more each mm has a larger effect on the FOV . The 15mm difference at the long end is probably not as much in FOV terms as that 7mm at the wide end
