Cropped body : EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM?
- Thread starter DigitalCamera
- Start date
DigitalCamera
New Member
Not forgetting you gain on the telephoto end with APS-C cameras.
Like what bro tecnica said, the EF-S L-like lenses can also hold their value pretty well.
between the 2 lenses stated, 15-85 stay on my 7D (which is a crop body) more compare to 24-105L. When I out with my 7D + 24-105L, there are times when I feel it just not wide enough for certain shot.
But then the lens that really stay on my 7D most is the 17-55
Woah, you own so many lenses and a 5DM2 according to your signature :bigeyes:
Which is why the L lenses now have a numerical lens code. But then sellers might lie about the age of their lens. Hmmm, I wonder these L grade EF-S lenses can last as long as L lenses (7-10 years+++)? Well, only time will tell.
24-70 no IS, to me that's a big turnoff :nono:
Last edited:
Rumour has it that the upcoming 24-70L II has no IS either. Sigh.
It is possible, but it could go the other way also. Just compare the 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk I and Mk II for example.
My initial guess is that IS is omitted from 24-70 f/2.8L II to reduce centering issues. However, if IS can be so successfully implemented on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, I don't see why it cannot be done for the 24-70 f/2.8L II.
In the EF-S camp, I am hoping Canon will complete the mini-trinity. You have 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Where is the 50-135 f/2.8 IS? It could be f/2.8-4.0 too!
Minglink said:
I read on Canon Rumors (not in a rumour thread though, but in a technical discussion thread) that the main advantage of the EF-S system's short back focus design (shorter distance from sensor to the rear element) is for wide angle lenses. To build a lens with focal length shorter than the back focus distance, the lens needs to be a retrofocus design. This design is challenging and requires complicated design with exotic glass elements to correct aberrations.
By reducing the back focus distance, the EF-S system enables very wide lenses like the 10-22mm to be built with excellent aberration correction. Other lenses can also be greatly simplified, leading to cheaper and lighter lenses. This is especially true for smaller image circle, which is why Canon implements EF-S for APS-C sensors only. (Using the same logic, micro 4/3 lenses are much much smaller and simpler to design, although the small sensors require very short focal lengths to achieve wide angles of view. An extreme example is the Leica M9, which pairs a full frame sensor with an extremely short back focus.) But the benefit diminishes quickly as the focal length gets longer. Most general-purpose zooms are partly retrofocus (at the wide end) and partly telephoto (at the long end). Telephoto lenses do not benefit from this at all, especially for large apertures. Therefore there is little to no advantage to designing a EF-S 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4. Which is why the EF-S range stops at the 55-250 which is f/5.6 from 100+mm onwards.
At this point I realise that the chance of Canon releasing a 50-135mm f/2.8 or f/4 is quite slim. Canon probably wants us to pair a 17-55 or 15-85 with a 70-200. Which is not a bad idea at all considering how awesome the 70-200 series is. Except that you have lug around 1.5kg of $2500+ glass if you want f/2.8 with IS. All we can hope is for Sigma to release the long-awaited AF 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS.
Last edited:
DigitalCamera
New Member
Hey! That's not a very clever move, is it?
The build quality feels the same to me, only thing I like about the 24-105 is the weather sealing.
I think for the mini-trinity can wait long long. They just released the 15-85 and 18-135 in 2009, won't be so soon till they release a new model
Wah so cheem :bigeyes: That explains why they currently don't have any EF-S telephoto lens except the 55-250 which we all know is rather weak. But then the 70-200L are great lenses, if you are willing to fork out that amount. Btw, have you sold your 70-200 already?
It's not cheem once you understand the strengths and weaknesses of each lens design. Look for the "Lens Genealogy" article on Canon Rumors for a good read.DigitalCamera said:Hey! That's not a very clever move, is it?
The build quality feels the same to me, only thing I like about the 24-105 is the weather sealing.
I think for the mini-trinity can wait long long. They just released the 15-85 and 18-135 in 2009, won't be so soon till they release a new model
Wah so cheem :bigeyes: That explains why they currently don't have any EF-S telephoto lens except the 55-250 which we all know is rather weak. But then the 70-200L are great lenses, if you are willing to fork out that amount. Btw, have you sold your 70-200 already?
I have sold my 70-200 f/4L IS. I think I will try to shoot with only one lens first while I think carefully about my next purchase. I probably won't decide until Canon announces the new batch of lenses in January. If the 24-70L II comes with IS, I might pair it with a 10-22.
Last edited:
oh well, you're right too, haha.
Kongfu
New Member
DigitalCamera
New Member
It's not cheem once you understand the strengths and weaknesses of each lens design. Look for the "Lens Genealogy" article on Canon Rumors for a good read.
I have sold my 70-200 f/4L IS. I think I will try to shoot with only one lens first while I think carefully about my next purchase. I probably won't decide until Canon announces the new batch of lenses in January. If the 24-70L II comes with IS, I might pair it with a 10-22.
Haha no more 24-105? But won't you be 'losing' on the telephoto end with the 24-70?
You can look at it as an investment with very low return (in terms of photos). I could've put the capital into something else with better return, for example a UWA lens. Thus there's an opportunity cost to that capital. Moreover, equipment can breakdown simply from prolonged idling. I don't want such a wonderful lens to go to waste.Kongfu said:
