lens upgrade

sworks · 17th November 2009, 16:09

I'm looking to upgrade the standard lens on my Canon 400d (I borrowed a 24-70 f2.8L

which was awesome) I want a general walkabout lens but would love an f2.8 if possible for low light. Due to thinking about an f2.8 I'm quite happy to buy second hand. Not bothered what make - can anybody recomend suppliers they have used? Looked on ebay but some of the prices are more expensive than buying new???? Thanks

FredSpencer · 17th November 2009, 18:03

Camera Price Buster is usually a good source of comparison pricing:

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat12.html

How much do you want to spend? What type of photogaphy are you wanting to do, especially at f/2.8? Will 24mm be wide enough for you? Remember it is roughly equivalent to 37mm when you allow for the sensor size (multiply by 1.6).

I would advise you to seriously consider the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4 - f/5.6 IS. That's the lens I use with my 40D and is a good balance of price and capability.

If you really do want f/2.8 capability then the EF-S 17-55mm IS is brilliant. A friend of mine has one which I've had a go with and it is awesome. Pricey at over £700 though.

sworks · 17th November 2009, 18:22

thanks for the link, the Canon 17-85 (£299) is actually on my list. As is the sigma 18-50 f2.8 (£319) and Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (a bit pricier at £429) I want it as a general purpose lens so it will be on the body most of the time. I would possibly get away with the sigma, if it's not wide enough I could still resort to the kit 15-55 for occasional use. I was looking to upgrade the body but at 5000 shots I think i'm better off upgrading a lens. I was at a concert recently and borrowed a friends Canon 24-70f2.8 L series lens - WOW stunning results and something i would never have achieved with the kit lens, hence the sway towards 2.8

FredSpencer · 17th November 2009, 19:32

You're not wrong about getting a better lens rather than a new body.

None of the lenses you list will give the same quality as the Canon L so please don't expect them to. You can compare them against each other at reasonably similar prices but not against the L at three times the price of the first two. If you really must have that quality then your only choice is the L lens. If you can't/won't stretch to that but have to make do with a lesser lens you might find that concert photography is less important. You might end up restricted in other ways by wanting f/2.8. You'll probably find you use it very little at f/2.8 for anything else.

If you have a camera shop nearby they usually let you try lenses to compare the results, assuming they have them in stock. That might be worth a try.

I have two Sigma lenses (10-20mm and 150-500mm) and am very happy with them considering the prices compared to Canon equivalents so wouldn't knock them. Having said that all manufacturers make some good lenses and some less good ones so you do need to be careful when choosing.

Simon · 17th November 2009, 19:39

A friend of mine was very lucky to pick up a EF 50mm 1.8 Mark One lens off ebay a year or so back. (The mark one's have metal bodies over the cheaper mark two's that have plastic bodies).

He uses it for low-light photography such as concerts and such like. Granted with only a 50mm prime you're going to be restricted to what sort of distance and framing you can achieve but nevertheless it's been a superb find and investment (I think he paid around £60 for it). If you can find one of these (they will all be second hand now as they are no longer produced) then grab it while you can. It might mean you can get the 17-85 f4-5.6 lens (which I have and find a superb all-rounder) and then use the 50mm prime for low-light shoots or where you want uber-cool bokeh and shallow D.O.F.

Jontie · 17th November 2009, 22:56

Hi,
For what it's worth, I have the 24/105 and 100/400 L series lens and wanted a wide angle zoom. Ive been out in some miserable weather this last couple of months and I've missed shots with the 24/105 F4L. Very annoying after hanging around in the wind and rain for over an hour, even at iso 1000 shots not sharp,too slow a shutter speed. Anyway, I digress. I bought a Sigma 18/50 2.8 after reading a couple of reviews that said it was very good, one even said it was one of the sharpest lens he had ever tested. I've only taken about a dozen shots ,but i'm pleased with it! I have to say the motor's a bit noisey and I never thought I would buy anything other than L series but its a range i won't use very often so couldn't justify the cost of the Canon.

You could get one on ebay for about £190ish. I'm going to put the cash I saved towards a 70/210 2.8L. HTH

sworks · 18th November 2009, 05:29

Thanks for the replies guys. I realise Fred that I will get nowhere near L spec quality, using that lens just proved that my 'body' is capable of good shots with a decent lens in front of it. I also realise that if I got something capable of f2.8 it's there if I need it - I realise that I'm trying to get one lens that will cover a couple of options which makes the choice harder. Good idea about the 50mm prime simon as I hadn't thought of that. Jontie, I had looked at the 24-135 Caonon (non L lens) as they can be bought new from ebay for around £260 now as it has IS which would help in low light. Unfortunately my nearest camera specialist is over 40 miles away.

Jontie · 18th November 2009, 11:03

Mmm,
I don't think the Canon "budget" lenses are particularly good. Have a look on http://www.fredmiranda.com/. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/#Menu .You may have to register to do a search. If my understanding of IS is correct it doesn't give you any faster shutter speed, it enables you to get a sharp picture at slower speeds.

The problem with this is, in low/poor light the autofocus can't focus accurately enough, as I said, I've suffered from this with the 24/105 F4L whilst my pal stood besides me has walked away with brilliant shots on a 70/200 F2.8L, which is why I would tend to go for the larger aperture lens. Some of the independant manufacturers offer good value for money that compare favourably with Canon's cheaper lenses.

If, of course, you won't do any low light shooting (eg you live in Bahamas) then it obviously won't matter!

Have a look at a few reviews, enjoy making your decision and I wish you well with your purchase!!

Regards

17th November 2009, 16:09	#1
sworks Been absent for a while… Rover 75 Tourer, Classic mini Cooper S, Abarth 595 competizione, MG TF and a Hyundai Tucson PHEV Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Cumbria Posts: 13,065 Thanks: 1,033 Thanked 1,686 Times in 1,040 Posts	lens upgrade I'm looking to upgrade the standard lens on my Canon 400d (I borrowed a 24-70 f2.8L which was awesome) I want a general walkabout lens but would love an f2.8 if possible for low light. Due to thinking about an f2.8 I'm quite happy to buy second hand. Not bothered what make - can anybody recomend suppliers they have used? Looked on ebay but some of the prices are more expensive than buying new???? Thanks __________________ ................................................. 'Marmite' Possibly one of the most famous 75 tourers produced! left the production line as the last of only Three Rover 75 tourers produced in Trophy Yellow. 48 hours later Longbridge closed. The last sold ordered 75 Tourer. Paid for by the Phoenix Four and handed over by John Towers to the Warwickshire Northampton Air ambulance service as a Rapid Response vehicle

17th November 2009, 18:22	#3
sworks Been absent for a while… Rover 75 Tourer, Classic mini Cooper S, Abarth 595 competizione, MG TF and a Hyundai Tucson PHEV Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Cumbria Posts: 13,065 Thanks: 1,033 Thanked 1,686 Times in 1,040 Posts	thanks for the link, the Canon 17-85 (£299) is actually on my list. As is the sigma 18-50 f2.8 (£319) and Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (a bit pricier at £429) I want it as a general purpose lens so it will be on the body most of the time. I would possibly get away with the sigma, if it's not wide enough I could still resort to the kit 15-55 for occasional use. I was looking to upgrade the body but at 5000 shots I think i'm better off upgrading a lens. I was at a concert recently and borrowed a friends Canon 24-70f2.8 L series lens - WOW stunning results and something i would never have achieved with the kit lens, hence the sway towards 2.8 __________________ ................................................. 'Marmite' Possibly one of the most famous 75 tourers produced! left the production line as the last of only Three Rover 75 tourers produced in Trophy Yellow. 48 hours later Longbridge closed. The last sold ordered 75 Tourer. Paid for by the Phoenix Four and handed over by John Towers to the Warwickshire Northampton Air ambulance service as a Rapid Response vehicle

17th November 2009, 22:56	#6
Jontie Loves to post Rover75 2.0L Conn SE Auto Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Barrowford near NELSON in Lancashire Posts: 456 Thanks: 15 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Hi, For what it's worth, I have the 24/105 and 100/400 L series lens and wanted a wide angle zoom. Ive been out in some miserable weather this last couple of months and I've missed shots with the 24/105 F4L. Very annoying after hanging around in the wind and rain for over an hour, even at iso 1000 shots not sharp,too slow a shutter speed. Anyway, I digress. I bought a Sigma 18/50 2.8 after reading a couple of reviews that said it was very good, one even said it was one of the sharpest lens he had ever tested. I've only taken about a dozen shots ,but i'm pleased with it! I have to say the motor's a bit noisey and I never thought I would buy anything other than L series but its a range i won't use very often so couldn't justify the cost of the Canon. You could get one on ebay for about £190ish. I'm going to put the cash I saved towards a 70/210 2.8L. HTH __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]John. (Sadly,they really don't make 'em like this anymore!!!!)

18th November 2009, 05:29	#7
sworks Been absent for a while… Rover 75 Tourer, Classic mini Cooper S, Abarth 595 competizione, MG TF and a Hyundai Tucson PHEV Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Cumbria Posts: 13,065 Thanks: 1,033 Thanked 1,686 Times in 1,040 Posts	Thanks for the replies guys. I realise Fred that I will get nowhere near L spec quality, using that lens just proved that my 'body' is capable of good shots with a decent lens in front of it. I also realise that if I got something capable of f2.8 it's there if I need it - I realise that I'm trying to get one lens that will cover a couple of options which makes the choice harder. Good idea about the 50mm prime simon as I hadn't thought of that. Jontie, I had looked at the 24-135 Caonon (non L lens) as they can be bought new from ebay for around £260 now as it has IS which would help in low light. Unfortunately my nearest camera specialist is over 40 miles away. __________________ ................................................. 'Marmite' Possibly one of the most famous 75 tourers produced! left the production line as the last of only Three Rover 75 tourers produced in Trophy Yellow. 48 hours later Longbridge closed. The last sold ordered 75 Tourer. Paid for by the Phoenix Four and handed over by John Towers to the Warwickshire Northampton Air ambulance service as a Rapid Response vehicle

18th November 2009, 11:03	#8
Jontie Loves to post Rover75 2.0L Conn SE Auto Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Barrowford near NELSON in Lancashire Posts: 456 Thanks: 15 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Mmm, I don't think the Canon "budget" lenses are particularly good. Have a look on http://www.fredmiranda.com/. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/#Menu .You may have to register to do a search. If my understanding of IS is correct it doesn't give you any faster shutter speed, it enables you to get a sharp picture at slower speeds. The problem with this is, in low/poor light the autofocus can't focus accurately enough, as I said, I've suffered from this with the 24/105 F4L whilst my pal stood besides me has walked away with brilliant shots on a 70/200 F2.8L, which is why I would tend to go for the larger aperture lens. Some of the independant manufacturers offer good value for money that compare favourably with Canon's cheaper lenses. If, of course, you won't do any low light shooting (eg you live in Bahamas) then it obviously won't matter! Have a look at a few reviews, enjoy making your decision and I wish you well with your purchase!! Regards __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]John. (Sadly,they really don't make 'em like this anymore!!!!) Last edited by Jontie; 19th November 2009 at 10:58..

17th November 2009, 18:03	#2
FredSpencer Passed Away Typhoon ZT 190+ Saloon Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Leeds Posts: 6,833 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	Camera Price Buster is usually a good source of comparison pricing: http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat12.html How much do you want to spend? What type of photogaphy are you wanting to do, especially at f/2.8? Will 24mm be wide enough for you? Remember it is roughly equivalent to 37mm when you allow for the sensor size (multiply by 1.6). I would advise you to seriously consider the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4 - f/5.6 IS. That's the lens I use with my 40D and is a good balance of price and capability. If you really do want f/2.8 capability then the EF-S 17-55mm IS is brilliant. A friend of mine has one which I've had a go with and it is awesome. Pricey at over £700 though.

17th November 2009, 19:32	#4
FredSpencer Passed Away Typhoon ZT 190+ Saloon Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Leeds Posts: 6,833 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	You're not wrong about getting a better lens rather than a new body. None of the lenses you list will give the same quality as the Canon L so please don't expect them to. You can compare them against each other at reasonably similar prices but not against the L at three times the price of the first two. If you really must have that quality then your only choice is the L lens. If you can't/won't stretch to that but have to make do with a lesser lens you might find that concert photography is less important. You might end up restricted in other ways by wanting f/2.8. You'll probably find you use it very little at f/2.8 for anything else. If you have a camera shop nearby they usually let you try lenses to compare the results, assuming they have them in stock. That might be worth a try. I have two Sigma lenses (10-20mm and 150-500mm) and am very happy with them considering the prices compared to Canon equivalents so wouldn't knock them. Having said that all manufacturers make some good lenses and some less good ones so you do need to be careful when choosing.

17th November 2009, 19:39	#5
Simon Banned - Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: - Posts: 10,318 Thanks: 0 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	A friend of mine was very lucky to pick up a EF 50mm 1.8 Mark One lens off ebay a year or so back. (The mark one's have metal bodies over the cheaper mark two's that have plastic bodies). He uses it for low-light photography such as concerts and such like. Granted with only a 50mm prime you're going to be restricted to what sort of distance and framing you can achieve but nevertheless it's been a superb find and investment (I think he paid around £60 for it). If you can find one of these (they will all be second hand now as they are no longer produced) then grab it while you can. It might mean you can get the 17-85 f4-5.6 lens (which I have and find a superb all-rounder) and then use the 50mm prime for low-light shoots or where you want uber-cool bokeh and shallow D.O.F.