Is the lens 'wasted' on the body ?

DriveSkill

Hi,

Is there such as thing as putting too good a lens on a relatively low-end body ?

I currently have a Canon 450D and I'm tempted to purchase the 24-70mm f2.8 lens. The main reason is I have a few occasions coming up this year - communion, confirmation, 2 weddings - so thinking it might be nice to have for these. I'm only shooting as an amateur so wont be the official photographer at any of these but all family related so would nice to get some decent shots.

Anyone use this lens with the 450D ? Would I be better off putting the money to a body upgrade ?

BTW other lenses in the bag are :

18-35mm (kit lens)
50mm 1.8f
55-250mm

Thanks!

Thecageyone

Not at all. As mentioned in anodes thread, when your Dslr came out first, it was the bee's knees for amateurs. I'm sure many who bought it then also bought fast glass. No different now.

I have an 85mm prime that many would say works best on full frame, but rid a cracker on my D90

dakar

Nope, money spent on good glass is never wasted!

A lens may be able to out-resolve a sensor (in other words, provide even more detailed information than the sensor can differentiate) but the overall image quality from the 24-70 will be streets better than the kit zooms.

FoxT

Hi OP,
I expect that it is a fine lens & will work well with your camera. I also have a crop-sensor camera ( 40D) , and for me, the 24-70 would not be wide enough. ( I use a 17-70, and find there is a big difference between 17mm & 24mm)

Canon do a 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens which I have not used myself but is well regarded by various review sites. Unless you are planning to upgrade to a full-frame sensor camera, I would consider this, or similar.

condra

It's funny how cheap the 450d is going now on adverts.ie and ebay. It's still a great modern DSLR and very capable with good lighting/lens.

I have a 450d and I don't think the 50d or 60d offer much improvement in terms of sheer image quality at normal ISOs. The 60d is probably the logical upgrade, but when I do upgrade, I might be tempted by a second-hand 5D1 or dare I say it, a Nikon d7000.

If you look at the Pixel Peeper page for that lens, you'll see some people taking awesome shots with it on the 450d and comparable cameras like the 40d, 400d, 500d etc...
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=17&p=1

smelltheglove

I would echo Fox, I bought a 24-70 some time ago and exchanged it within a week for a 17-55 version. For group photos the wider angle is needed especially with a crop sensor.

You will see a huge improveent on image quality, as you would if you change to a higher spec camera but put it this way, were you to buy a new camera now you would still be looking to upgrade the lens, were you to buy a new lens now I am guessing if you are serious enough to buy a high quality lense you will still be looking to upgrade the camera at some stage. I reckon lens first is a good call.

DriveSkill

Thanks for the replies. I hadnt actually considered the 17-55 to be honest so I guess that is definitely worth a look.

gbee

DriveSkill wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I hadnt actually considered the 17-55 to be honest so I guess that is definitely worth a look.

Don't. All your subjects are people portraits, the LAST thing you want on them is a wide angle ~ aside from effect of course.

You already have a 50mm ƒ1.8 ~ I would not even recommend the 24mm end, but if you had to use it, it'd be much better from the 24~70mm

Arciphel

If you are going to go full frame eventually then buy the 24-70. Maybe buy a Sigma one? Half the price, less if you get one second hand on adverts.

DriveSkill

gbee wrote: »

Don't. All your subjects are people portraits, the LAST thing you want on them is a wide angle ~ aside from effect of course.

You already have a 50mm ƒ1.8 ~ I would not even recommend the 24mm end, but if you had to use it, it'd be much better from the 24~70mm

Well that is true, I do think I would use the 55-70 range more than the 17-24....if only I had the money I could buy both

FoxT

gbee wrote: »

Don't. All your subjects are people portraits, the LAST thing you want on them is a wide angle ~ aside from effect of course.

You already have a 50mm ƒ1.8 ~ I would not even recommend the 24mm end, but if you had to use it, it'd be much better from the 24~70mm

I cannot agree with this - there have been times when I have had no choice but to use 17mm for group pictures, especially where there are space constraints. I do agree that if space permits you will often get an improved result by using a longer focal length, but that is simply impossible sometimes, and in those situations you gotta take the shot you can get..

Whether 24mm on the 24-70 is better than 24mm on another good quality zoom or not I don't know, as have never shot with the 24-70.

Regards,
FoxT

Heebie

A crap image sensor will make pictures worse.. but the resolving power of a good lens is going to be a lot higher than the resolving power of the image sensor.. and the more resolving power the lens has.. the higher it'll be than the sensor. No downside.

And.. if you have a mediocre body, but you're buying good lenses now.. you can later on upgrade the body and already have fantastic glass to go with it!

5uspect

Cameras are getting better all the time as they figure out how to make sensors better. Lenses are barely improving and if anything they're getting worse with the continued push to drive down costs.

Good glass is an investment that will last much longer than your camera.

Thecageyone

I don't think there's been many if any Dslrs over the past 7 or 8 years with a "crap sensor" - There are people out there shooting with 6mp D40 models and 2.8 lenses attached, and getting great results.

CabanSail

I am not so familiar with the Canon range, but AFAIK the 450D is only one model from the current 550D, so it's not way out of date. To really get a major improvement on the Body you would be looking to move over to full frame, but then you will need the glass too. So I too think it's a good idea to get good quality glass.

While it's true that ideally you get better portraits with a focal of about 50mm - 85mm (cropped body equiv of 85mm - 135mm) that is in an ideal world. When shooting at an event or family gathering you will likely be in situations where you do not have the room for those focal lengths. Most will trade off a bit of distortion in favour of getting the shot. So you will probably have more use of the wider end of the lenses.

Thecageyone

I shot almost a whole family portrait shot at the weekend using a 17-50, I had the 85mm too but the room was very tight so only used that for some singular shots of the baby Not one of the images suffers any distortion. But the tamron is very good that way.

CabanSail

Thecageyone wrote: »

Not one of the images suffers any distortion. But the tamron is very good that way.

I am sorry, but the distortion is part of the physical properties of the focal length and sensor size. Doesn't matter who makes the lens as it doesn't change the physics.

pete4130

Arciphel wrote: »

If you are going to go full frame eventually then buy the 24-70. Maybe buy a Sigma one? Half the price, less if you get one second hand on adverts.

Whatever you do, don't buy the Sigma version. You'll regret it I promise you. Had one and sold it within weeks of getting it. slow AF, prone to lots of glare and generally not very sharp or contrasty.

Some people love their 3rd party lenses here, I don't generally. I've had 3rd party and traded up to Nikon pro lenses and the difference in quality is worth more than the difference in price.

Thecageyone

CabanSail wrote: »

I am sorry, but the distortion is part of the physical properties of the focal length and sensor size. Doesn't matter who makes the lens as it doesn't change the physics.

Unnoticeable distortion if any, I promise you. Of course my subjects were mostly to the middle of frame. No strange angled heads, no weird deformed bodies, if there is distortion it's well controlled and that is a lot to do with the lens build and quality.

Different lenses do have very different distortion levels, no matter the focal length. Look up any review site that offers charts.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review?start=1

I didn't shoot any at 17mm, mostly 24-50 and as I was using flash, I was stopped down to f/8+ which also factors in.

My point was, you can indeed shoot portraiture with wider angle lenses.

On the third party Vs Nikon front, after seeing tonnes of images from the Nikon 17-55 2.8, and direct compared shots with another photographer at a recent gig [both of us using D90] I was convinced enough to hold onto the Tamron. I had been considering seling it to get a couple of wide primes. 'Some' third party lenses are very good, but I'd agree, for the most part they're inferior in some way or other. I wouldn't say no to a Sigma 70-200 2.8 though.

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

On the third party Vs Nikon front, after seeing tonnes of images from the Nikon 17-55 2.8, and direct compared shots with another photographer at a recent gig [both of us using D90] I was convinced enough to hold onto the Tamron. I had been considering seling it to get a couple of wide primes. 'Some' third party lenses are very good, but I'd agree, for the most part they're inferior in some way or other. I wouldn't say no to a Sigma 70-200 2.8 though.

I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 at the same time I had the Sigma 24-70 and sold it almost instantly it was that bad, front or back focusing, no contrast, slow to focus. Those 2 lenses are why I opted for the upgrade.

The crop sensor lenses are better in my experience. I had the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and the Sigma 50-150 2.8 and they were both good lenses.

Gig's aren't really a good comparison for comparing lenses though. Too many variables with lights changing, differnt ISO's, lenses coping better/worse in low light, distance from subject, movement of the band with respect to DoF.

Thecageyone

yeah, we did compare directly using the same settings, but that was of course only on the LCDs. I've searched the Nikon lens numerous times on Flickr though, as I would love one. I just could never justify the price for it as I really don't think it's much better than the tamron, which is 1/3rd the price. It's also much lighter and smaller.

It was between the sigma 18-50 and the tamron at the time I was buying [both choices used] - Most reviews I looked up claimed the Tamron was sharper and faster, so I went with that. I've not got to use the sigma. The only Sigma I ever owned was the usual 70-300 with the macro function. That was on my old Sony, and the AF motor busted in the lens after about 2 weeks. I used it manually for a while after. It had horrific purple fringing at the long end, other than that it was ok.

sarumite

sorry..wrong thread

challengemaster

If there's one lens you won't regret buying it's the 24-70L. I got mine after Fajitas let me use his a few times (albeit quite reluctantly)

I've 3 lenses

24-70L f/2.8
70-200L f/2.8
50 f/1.8

Unless I get something like a 300 or 400mm lens, I'm pretty much sorted for any occasion. The 24-70 is my main lens and rarely ever leaves my 5D, and if you move to full frame in the future (you should, it's brilliant) you make the most out of the lens, and it'll stick with you over the years. Good glass never gets wasted.

DougL

I used the 17-55 f/2.8 on the 30D for a couple of years. It is my favourite of all the lenses I've ever owned, hands down.

I've since ditched it for a 24-70L as I went with full frame, but if I bought another crop sensor camera tomorrow, I'd go back to the 17-55 in a heartbeat over the 24-70. The glass is just as good, it has IS, and it is a much more flexible focal length on the crop sensor than a 24-70.

Thecageyone

Makes sense. it's possible to crop down an image without losing much quality, if you're missing the longer end. Whereas it's impossible to add in anything wider than what's already there.

Kbeg3

I got a Nikon 24-70 for my D300 at Christmas, it's a beautiful lens and I use it all the time now. A bit limited on the wide end on the cropped body but still useable. I'm hoping to upgrade to full-frame soon, so it will be perfect then.