Travel Photography - Help with new glass for EOS 7D

Hi

I am currently using a EOS 7D body with a EFS 15-85 bit of glass on the front now I am looking for a new lense and have the The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM in mind.

From reading the specs the EFS was designed for a crop sensor where as the EF wasn't so how much difference will I have at either end of the zoom in reality? Am I going to miss out much by going from 15-24 and gain much by going 85-105?

Thanks for any help.

24-105 is generally a poor choice as a walk around lens for crop cameras like the 7D because it's not wide enough on the wide end. And the 24-105 is a fairly old lens, with optics not much better or no better than the 15-85. And at f/4, it's not particularly fast. 105 is also not much longer than 85, so really not much a reason for you to get this lens.

Think about what are you really looking for in a new lens.

Hi

I am currently using a EOS 7D body with a EFS 15-85 bit of glass on the front now I am looking for a new lense and have the The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM in mind.

From reading the specs the EFS was designed for a crop sensor where as the EF wasn't so how much difference will I have at either end of the zoom in reality? Am I going to miss out much by going from 15-24 and gain much by going 85-105?

Thanks for any help.

If you are not dissatisfied with the 15-85, you might want to at some 70-200 lens to extend your range. If money is no object, the f/2.8 L is superb, but I have heard good things about the f/4 L, as well.

If you are unhappy with the 15-85 and find yourself using the short end a lot, you might want to consider the 10-22 mm EF-S which is generally reviewed quite favourably. With the 10 mm you get a true wide angle even with the crop body.

It all depends on what you shoot, of course. One, albeit very different, route is to go for the EF 35mm f/1.4 L prime. It is very fast and super sharp, although expensive.

I shoot a Nikon D300 myself, so the body is somewhat comparable to what you are using. I carry a Nikkor 12-24 mm f/4, a Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4, a Micro-Nikkor 105 mm f/2.8, a Nikkor 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 and a Tokina 10-17 mm f/3.5-4.5 fisheye. I find myself lusting after a fast wide-angle prime such as the Nikkon 24 mm f/1.4 (or, budget-wise more realistically the 35 mm f/1.8) or a fast medium telephoto such as the 85 mm f/1.4.

Cheers,
T.

From reading the specs the EFS was designed for a crop sensor where as the EF wasn't

The EF-S is a mount specification. The EF-S focal lengths specified are still based on the full-frame format.

EF lenses can be used on EF-S mounts but EF-S lenses can't be used on EF mount cameras (this includes the EOS-1D 1.3x crop cameras) unless you are creative like this guy (http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157604422834954/)

so how much difference will I have at either end of the zoom in reality? Am I going to miss out much by going from 15-24 and gain much by going 85-105?

Thanks for any help.

Just multiply all numbers by 1.6 and that's the difference.

To visualize what this means, Tamron has a really good website (note that their crop factor seems to be 1.55)
http://tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

Canon has a similar page:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html?WT.mc_id=C126149

Here's my lens list that I use for 98% of my shots:
EF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS
EF 50 f/1.2L
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS

I occasionally use:
EF-S 100mm f/2.8 macro
Vivitar 7mm fisheye
18-200
85 f/1.8
2x tele

However, those first four or cheaper equivalents I've found to be an excellent kit over hundreds of thousands of shots (took 14k in last 1.5 mo in India). However, I obviously didn't start out with $4500 worth of lenses. My first DSLR lens (in 2008) was an 18-200. I got some *very* nice travel shots with that. On one hand, I can't bear the thought of going back to a lens that slow and of that quality, but then again, I miss some shots without that flexibility. However, as you mature as a photographer, you will be able to anticipate better and have the right lens on your camera when the moment happens. However, the 18-200 is an INVALUABLE learning tool because it allows you to experiment and learn SO quickly. Especially for fast-moving travel photography. I really can't recommend the 18-200 enough for a beginning photographer. I used that lens alone for years. The next lens I would get is the 50 f/1.4. Then probably something fast (2.8) in the 17/18-55 range. Tamron and Sigma make some inexpensive, fairly good quality options. Next I'd get the 55-250 to cover the long end in a small package with IS. (At this point, I'd sell the 18-200, but only after you've spent at least a year with it.) From there, your shooting style will dictate your next purchases.

I've owned 40-60 lenses in my life because I'm constantly buying and selling lenses. I find a good deal, buy it (get airline miles!), use it for awhile, then sell it at a profit. It's allowed me to try all sorts of lenses. My kit has morphed some over the years and the above is the conclusion I've come to.

I've had the privilege to own and use the 300mm f/2.8L IS which is the most gorgeous lens I've ever used. I bought it specifically for our South Africa trip and got some great shots. For that same trip I borrowed a friend's 600mm lens and his full-frame 1Ds (which auto-focuses with a 2x + 600mm). I couldn't afford to keep the 300mm as I don't use it enough on a regular basis to have ~$5k tied up in it.

I've also had the privilege to own the 24mm f/1.4, but I found I didn't use it as much as I thought (it's covered by the range of the 17-55 and delivers not much better hand-held low light performance once you add the IS) so I sold it.

What do you typically shoot? What are you looking for that a 15-85 doesn't give you. That's required data for any valuable response, IMHO.

Don't worry about EF vs. EF-S, it's really a non issues, other than the fact that you won't be able to use an EF-S lens on a full-frame camera (1D or 5D-series)

There is a significant difference between 15 and 24mm. Don't look at the numeric difference, look at the percentage difference, which translates to the field of view - 60% difference. 15mm is wide on a crop camera. 24 isn't. It's not quite a "standard" focal length, but only slightly wider than standard.

85mm to 105mm is about a 25% difference, noticeable but not extreme.

If you're happy with the focal range and just looking for higher resolution, I'd look at the 17-55/2.8.

The 24-105 is a fine lens - I have one - but it's quite different from a wide/ultra-wide (I also have a 10-22).

But if your your objective is to better capture birds in flight, none of these is the right answer.

Here's a graphic that shows the difference in field of view. Note this was taken on a 4/3 camera with a 2x crop factor and 4:3 aspect ratio

http://www.canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/Photography/Lenses/oly-fov-hires.jpg.HTML

I use a 7d and my primary walk about lens is the 24-105 IS. It's true the F4 is not the fastest lens but if you want really fast lenses then I suggest investing in a nice prime 50mm 1.4 or similar as that is a nice fast lens but affordable as well.

I has the 10-22mm lens for some time and I just found that I was not using it enough. I also used to have the 17-55 2.8 IS and while it was nice and fast I found myself missing the higher zoom. the 24-105 meets my needs for 90% of the shots I take.