Best image quality non-prime walk around lens for travelling with a Canon crop dSLR?

Question

If money where no object what is the best quality non-prime walk around lens to pair with a crop sensor Canon dSLR for travelling?

From what i have read so far a lot of people recommend the Canon EF-S 15-85 IS USM, however it is not an full-frame or an L series lens, does this matter? (considering i'm looking for for the best quality lens regardless of price?)

I imagine this could be a generic question worth answering but if specifics are required then i am planning to get a 7D and start of with a single lens for travelling, currently i have been using a Canon S95.

Edit: Based on comments I've udpated the question to specifically ask for best image quality in a non-prime lens.

Asked by mundeep

Answer

I would highly recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. I used this on my 350D and 7D for a couple of years before selling it on. My reason for getting rid of it was simply because I preferred primes to zooms. The optical quality of this lens is stunning, and should be an L series lens in many peoples opinions. It has aspherical elements and coatings like the L series, though the body of the lens is not metal like an L series and is not weather sealed. Otherwise it's great. The fast f/2.8 aperture through the whole zoom range is also fantastic, allowing you to get some great indoor or low-light photos at lower ISO's than would otherwise be necessary.

In full-frame terms, 17mm is equivalent to 27mm and 55 is equivalent to 88mm, so you're getting a 27-88mm lens (equivalent) with constant f/2.8 aperture AND image stabiliser too.

It should be noted that EF-S lenses are designed specifically for crop sensor cameras, and I read somewhere (perhaps here) that ON a crop-sensor body, an EF-S lens would be sharper than the equivalent EF lens, which is designed with full-frame sensors in mind. Obviously the downside of an EF-S lens is that should you decide to go full-frame in the future, you will not be able to use the EF-S lens on a full frame body.

Answered by Mike

Check more discussion of this question.

When do the differences between APS-C and full frame sensors matter, and why?

Question

I'm trying to decide on a higher-end digital SLR, and I'm down to choosing between an APS-C model and a full-frame model.

I understand that the sensors are of different sizes, and as such have an effect on the perceived magnification of the lens, with the smaller APS-C sensor having an effective focal length greater than what it otherwise would be with a full frame sensor. But why does this matter?

• What things should drive my choice between one or the other?
• In which situations is one better than the other, and why?

Asked by Winston Smith

Answer

• One major difference is that a FF camera produces a depth of field that's around 1.3 stops shallower than an APS-C camera for the same subject & framing. This is most important when you have the aperture as wide as possible, e.g. for portraiture. To replicate the look of a 50 f/1.4 lens you'd have to use something like a 31 f/0.9 lens, which doesn't as far as I know exist!

Quick and dirty comparison image, APS-C Canon 30D left, FF Canon 5D right, same lens (FF image was zoomed in, however to give the same field of view), same composition, both f/2.8

• Another difference is that if you're using a lens designed for a full frame camera (like all Canon EF lenses) you are making full use of the image circle, which is less demanding of the optics and so you can expect a sharper image for the same number of megapixels. It's true that some lenses get softer toward the edge of the image, but you will still get higher average sharpness with most lenses, and telephotos will be sharper right across the frame. The crop factor of APS-C cameras takes the middle out of the lens and blows it up, losing sharpness in the process in a similar manner to a teleconverter.

• Larger formats allow for sharper optics. One of the driving forces for larger formats (other than the relatively constant resolving power per unit area of film) has been that it allows lenses to be produced which resolve a greater number of line pairs per picture height. Going full frame on a DSLR benefits from this to an extend - see: With all other things equal, in a DSLR, will a larger sensor produce a sharper image?

• A bigger sensor means bigger pixels, which in turn means you capture more light usually achieving lower noise levels in the process. Greater dynamic range goes hand in hand with this.

• You get a larger, brighter viewfinder on a full frame camera, which can be helpful composing shots. Having said that, I personally find the 5D viewfinder too large, I've not used a 7D but it has a very high spec 'finder.

• You have more mirror to move on a full frame camera. The larger mirror used to mean shooting speed is limited (the mirror on my 5D moves so slowly I can actually see the world slide sideways/up for an instant) however high speed full frame models are now available.

• Likewise the mirror box, focussing screen and pentaprism are larger, meaning the camera is larger and heavier.

• Lens hoods are designed for FF image circle and are therefore slightly more effective on FF cameras. This mostly applies to prime lenses, as zoom lens hoods are designed cut to accommodate the widest zoom setting, so everything else is already non optimal. If you're using an EF lens on a crop camera you ideally want the hood tighter (since the extra shading will lie outside the smaller sensor a tighter hood wont vignette.

I have nothing against APS-C cameras but for any format it makes sense to use lenses designed for your sensor size. The range of EF-S lenses is smaller than the range of EF lenses. However for some uses (sports etc.) the smaller sensor size is helpful for the extra reach and speed it allows. Also the better noise characteristics of a FF sensor don't quite make up for the higher ISO you need to use get the same exposure when stopping down to match the DOF as a crop. So if you have to maximise DOF crop has a slight edge.

If there are EF-S lenses available for what you want to shoot then it wont be noticeably worse choosing this camera. However I feel full frame gives you more flexibility (speed aside) - as you can get the same deep DOF as a crop, but go narrower if you need to.

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

Fancy technology cropped vs old technology full frame - Which will give better images?

Question

After selling my 1Dmk2 last year the time has come to get myself a new body, all along I'd decided that I wanted to do more "wow" pictures, big landscapes and do some more portait photography (up until now I had been doing mainly motorsport photography).

My budget is such that I can't afford a 5Dmk2, so the obvious candidate would be a 5Dmk1, its been around for a while and is famous for producing stunning images.

However, the thought has crept into my head that a 7D might be a better option, it's had the benefit of 3 or 4 years extra development and the Dual Digic4 processors, but has this allowed the image quality to catch up with the 5D?

(I'm trying to keep the question generic, but if you want to tailor your answer I use 17-40L, 50mm and 70-200f2.8L and I'm not bothered about shooting video)

Asked by LC1983

Answer

As a former 5D owner I can tell you that using full frame, even on a camera as 'old' as that one, is a joy. The colours and image quality on that 12MP sensor are amazing. You will notice the benefits particularly with your 17-40mm lens.

If I were in your position, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up a second hand 5D.

Answered by Nick Miners

Check more discussion of this question.

If I have an 85mm lens for portraits, is a 50mm useful as well?

Question

I recently got my Canon EF 85mm f1.8, after lot of thought over if I should buy Canon EF 85mm f1.8 or Canon EF 50mm f1.4, I decided on 85mm so that I can shoot portraits of people even from a distance, though I might have difficulty in closeup shots where space might be less!

Now I am tempted to buy 50mm too, but of course don't have budget right now for f1.4. So here are questions in my mind:

1. Should I go for 50mm f1.8 now and be ok with that, or it's better to wait few months and at some point go for 50mm f1.4?

2. While distance between object and camera with 85mm f1.8 is a known factor, is there anything else which would limit for portraits with 85mm? Should I completely give up thoughts on 50mm, or rather buy it?

Asked by vishal.biyani

Answer

I have the 50mm 1.8 - it takes great pictures but it's not a pro lens - the auto focus is slow and have a tendency to hunt a bit, the manual focus ring is tiny and the build quality is ... well, don't expect much (but it is cheap and optically wonderful).

I've heard the 85mm 1.8 is a great lens and if I had it I would go for something around 30mm (Canon or 3rd party) for a second lens, not the 50mm.

The 50mm is like an 85mm on full frame, it's great for head shots and can take half body shots if you have the space, something in the 28-35 range is like 50mm full frame good for full body and small groups.

I have the 50mm 1.8 and the 18-135mm zoom, some time ago I checked the EXIF data on all my pictures and most of the pictures I take with the 18-135 (by a really large margin) are in the 30-35 range, remember, the "normal lens" for a Canon APS-C is around 30mm (if my math is right it's 27mm) not 50mm.

Answered by Nir

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I start with an 85mm or 50mm prime lens for portraits with an APS-C DSLR?

Question

I recently got my Canon EF85mm f1.8, after lot of thought over if I should buy Canon EF 85mm f1.8 or Canon EF 50mm f1.4. I decided on 85mm so that I can shoot portraits of people even from a distance, though I might have difficulty in closeup shots where space might be less!

Now I am tempted to buy 50mm too, but of course don't have budget right now for f1.4 :) So here are questions in my mind

1) Should I go for 50mm f1.8 now and be ok with that, or it's better to wait few months and at some point go for 50mm f1.4?

2) While distance between object and camera with 85mm f1.8 is a known factor, is there anything else which would limit for portraits with 85mm? Should I completely give up thoughts on 50mm, or rather buy it?

Asked by vishal.biyani

Answer

I have the 50mm 1.8 - it takes great pictures but it's not a pro lens - the auto focus is slow and have a tendency to hunt a bit, the manual focus ring is tiny and the build quality is ... well, don't expect much (but it is cheap and optically wonderful).

I've heard the 85mm 1.8 is a great lens and if I had it I would go for something around 30mm (Canon or 3rd party) for a second lens, not the 50mm.

The 50mm is like an 85mm on full frame, it's great for head shots and can take half body shots if you have the space, something in the 28-35 range is like 50mm full frame good for full body and small groups.

I have the 50mm 1.8 and the 18-135mm zoom, some time ago I checked the EXIF data on all my pictures and most of the pictures I take with the 18-135 (by a really large margin) are in the 30-35 range, remember, the "normal lens" for a Canon APS-C is around 30mm (if my math is right it's 27mm) not 50mm.

Answered by Nir

Check more discussion of this question.

Why are there no fast APS-C zooms beyond 55mm?

Question

I am looking to add a longer lens to my current zoom (a Tamron 17-50) for my Nikon D300 (but I believe this question is relevant across aps-c lens manufacturers).

There is just one currently in production — the Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 (which is Pentax mount only).

What is the reason behind this? Is there a physical reason why making a smaller DX alternative to a 70-200 is not be possible? I have seen it mentioned that "beyond 100mm the advantage in making dx lenses is gone", but not sure if this is folklore or a genuine restriction.

Answer

Actually the same 50-135 f/2.8 lens was sold by Tokina for other mounts, but it was discontinued in 2009.

I'd say the primary reason is that there's no significant savings between making a telephoto lens just for APS-C or one that's also good for full frame. In fast telephoto lenses, the majority of glass goes towards achieving the big aperture needed, the smaller image circle won't introduce very significant differences.

Another reason is that since a fast telephoto zoom is an expensive lens, many of the buyers are already considering getting a full-frame body in the future, and would dismiss an APS-C lens. This leaves a smaller pool of potential buyers, meaning less potential profit. Pentax doesn't have to worry about it, since they don't have a full frame body, nor have they announced any plan of making one.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the advantages to using EF-S lenses on Canon APS-C cameras?

Question

I know EF-S lenses are "optimized" for crop sensors but what are the exact advantages to using an EF-S lens? Does it give better color, sharpness, depth of field, etc...?

In addition, do EF-S lenses still have the crop factor magnification as regular EF lenses do?

Answer

The advantages of EF-S lenses:

• Having the rear element sit closer to the film allowed Canon to use scaled down versions of existing lens designs as a starting point, cutting development costs.

• The need to project a smaller image circle allows wide angle designs to be lighter by having smaller glass elements as vignetting is not as severe.

• Having the correct size image circle helps with flare, as does having a lens hood designed for the camera sensor size. Projecting a larger than necessary image circle basically means letting extra light into the camera that doesn't contribute to the image, which is a recipe for flare as this light can bounce back off the rear element and onto the sensor.

• Projecting a smaller image circle allows sharper designs to be produced, the lenses used in compact cameras have tiny image circles but are able to resolve many more line pairs per mm than SLR lenses. So all being equal (which it never is!) an EF-S lens on APS-C camera would be slightly sharper than an EF lens on APS-C. It wouldn't be shaper (in terms of line pairs per picture height) than an EF lens on FF, but that's another question - for more information see:

With all other things equal, in a DSLR, will a larger sensor produce a sharper image?

Check more discussion of this question.

How do Micro 4/3s cameras compare with DSLR cameras?

Question

What are the major (and perhaps more subtle) differences between the newer Micro 4/3s format in comparison to the well-established DSLR cameras? What are the pros and cons of the Micro 4/3s format, the camera body and lens capabilities and offerings, size/weight, etc.

Answer

The first technical difference is the fact that the sensor is smaller to the most common DSLR sensor sizes (APS-C and larger), whilst it's going to be less optimal than an APS-C, full frame or medium format (very expensive) sensor, it's still going to be far better than compact sensors. Noise will be comparable to APS-C (1.6x), though probably not quite as good, but this is also dependent on the sensor technology.

The second technical difference is that almost all Micro 4/3rds cameras currently use an electronic viewfinder, not SLR viewfinder. This means there is no phase detect auto-focus which is much quicker than contrast based auto focus. Phase detect AF can take less than a second in good light, whereas contrast AF can typically take 3-4 seconds and most often takes this long in any conditions.

Another difference is that on a lot of Micro 4/3rds cameras, the manual controls for aperture, shutter speed and ISO aren't as accessible as an SLR camera. If you plan on shooting manual with a Micro 4/3rds camera you may have to look around for the one that won't hinder you. For example, Sony's NEX-5 (not Micro 4/3rds but similar) apparently are very fiddly and it's better to just use them in an automated mode like Program mode.

A major physical difference is the size. The camera body itself is typically no larger than a large compact. The problem with this though is that the lenses are still fairly large when it comes to portability. You probably wouldn't try putting one in your pocket unless you have both a large pocket and a very short lens attached.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do Micro 4/3s cameras compare with DSLR cameras? Pros/Cons?

Question

What are the major (and perhaps more subtle) differences between the newer Micro 4/3s format in comparison to the well-established DSLR cameras? What are the pros and cons of the Micro 4/3s format, the camera body and lens capabilities and offerings, size/weight, etc.

Answer

The first technical difference is the fact that the sensor is smaller to the most common DSLR sensor sizes (APS-C and larger), whilst it's going to be less optimal than an APS-C, full frame or medium format (very expensive) sensor, it's still going to be far better than compact sensors. Noise will be comparable to APS-C (1.6x), though probably not quite as good, but this is also dependent on the sensor technology.

The second technical difference is that almost all Micro 4/3rds cameras currently use an electronic viewfinder, not SLR viewfinder. This means there is no phase detect auto-focus which is much quicker than contrast based auto focus. Phase detect AF can take less than a second in good light, whereas contrast AF can typically take 3-4 seconds and most often takes this long in any conditions.

Another difference is that on a lot of Micro 4/3rds cameras, the manual controls for aperture, shutter speed and ISO aren't as accessible as an SLR camera. If you plan on shooting manual with a Micro 4/3rds camera you may have to look around for the one that won't hinder you. For example, Sony's NEX-5 (not Micro 4/3rds but similar) apparently are very fiddly and it's better to just use them in an automated mode like Program mode.

A major physical difference is the size. The camera body itself is typically no larger than a large compact. The problem with this though is that the lenses are still fairly large when it comes to portability. You probably wouldn't try putting one in your pocket unless you have both a large pocket and a very short lens attached.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why do the differences between APS-C and full frame sensors matter?

Question

I'm trying to decide on a model in the Canon DSLR range, and I guess it's a choice between the 7D and the 5D MkII.

I understand that the sensors are of different sizes, and as such have an effect on the perceived magnification of the lens, with the smaller APS-C sensor having an effective focal length greater than what it otherwise would be with a full frame sensor. But why does this matter?

• What things should drive my choice between one or the other?
• In which situations is one better than the other, and why?

Answer

• One major difference is that a FF camera produces a depth of field that's around 1.3 stops shallower than an APS-C camera for the same subject & framing. This is most important when you have the aperture as wide as possible, e.g. for portraiture. To replicate the look of a 50 f/1.4 lens you'd have to use something like a 31 f/0.9 lens, which doesn't as far as I know exist!

Quick and dirty comparison image, APS-C Canon 30D left, FF Canon 5D right, same lens, same composition, both f/2.8

• Another difference is that if you're using a lens designed for a full frame camera (like all Canon EF lenses) you are making full use of the image circle, which is less demanding of the optics and so you can expect a sharper image for the same number of megapixels. It's true that some lenses get softer toward the edge of the image, but you will still get higher average sharpness with most lenses, and telephotos will be sharper right across the frame. The crop factor of APS-C cameras takes the middle out of the lens and blows it up, losing sharpness in the process in a similar manner to a teleconverter. See this related question:

• With all other things equal, in a DSLR, will a larger sensor produce a sharper image?

• A bigger sensor means bigger pixels, which in turn means you capture more light usually achieving lower noise levels in the process. Greater dynamic range goes hand in hand with this.

• You get a larger, brighter viewfinder on a full frame camera, which can be helpful composing shots. Having said that, I personally find the 5D viewfinder too large, I've not used a 7D but it has a very high spec 'finder.

• You have more mirror to move on a full frame camera. The larger heavier mirror usually means shooting speed is limited. The mirror on my 5D moves so slowly I can actually see the world slide sideways/up for an instant!

• Likewise the mirror box, focussing screen and pentaprism are larger, meaning the camera is larger and heavier.

• Lens hoods are designed for FF image circle and are therefore slightly more effective on FF cameras. This mostly applies to prime lenses, as zoom lens hoods are designed cut to accommodate the widest zoom setting, so everything else is already non optimal. If you're using an EF lens on a crop camera you ideally want the hood tighter (since the extra shading will lie outside the smaller sensor a tighter hood wont vignette.

I have nothing against APS-C cameras but for any format it makes sense to use lenses designed for your sensor size. The range of EF-s lenses is smaller than the range of EF lenses. However for some uses (sports etc.) the smaller sensor size is helpful for the extra reach and speed it allows. Also the better noise characteristics of a FF sensor don't quite make up for the higher ISO you need to use get the same exposure when stopping down to match the DOF as a crop. So if you have to maximise DOF crop has a slight edge.

If there are EF-s lenses available for what you want to shoot then it wont be noticeably worse choosing this camera. However I feel full frame gives you more flexibility (speed aside) - as you can get the same deep DOF as a crop, but go narrower if you need to.

Check more discussion of this question.

APS-C vs Full Frame - why should I care?

Question

I'm trying to decide on a model in the Canon DSLR range, and I guess it's a choice between the 7D and the 5D MkII.

I understand that the sensors are of different sizes, and as such have an effect on the perceived magnification of the lens, with the smaller APS-C sensor having an effective focal length greater than what it otherwise would be with a full frame sensor. But why does this matter?

• What things should drive my choice between one or the other?
• In which situations is one better than the other, and why?

Answer

• One major difference is that a FF camera produces a depth of field that's around 1.3 stops shallower than an APS-C camera for the same subject & framing. This is most important when you have the aperture as wide as possible, e.g. for portraiture. To replicate the look of a 50 f/1.4 lens you'd have to use something like a 31 f/0.9 lens, which doesn't as far as I know exist!

Quick and dirty comparison image, APS-C Canon 30D left, FF Canon 5D right, same lens, same composition, both f/2.8

• Another difference is that if you're using a lens designed for a full frame camera (like all Canon EF lenses) you are making full use of the image circle, which is less demanding of the optics and so you can expect a sharper image for the same number of megapixels. It's true that some lenses get softer toward the edge of the image, but you will still get higher average sharpness with most lenses, and telephotos will be sharper right across the frame. The crop factor of APS-C cameras takes the middle out of the lens and blows it up, losing sharpness in the process in a similar manner to a teleconverter. See this related question:

• With all other things equal, in a DSLR, will a larger sensor produce a sharper image?

• A bigger sensor means bigger pixels, which in turn means you capture more light usually achieving lower noise levels in the process. Greater dynamic range goes hand in hand with this.

• You get a larger, brighter viewfinder on a full frame camera, which can be helpful composing shots. Having said that, I personally find the 5D viewfinder too large, I've not used a 7D but it has a very high spec 'finder.

• You have more mirror to move on a full frame camera. The larger heavier mirror usually means shooting speed is limited. The mirror on my 5D moves so slowly I can actually see the world slide sideways/up for an instant!

• Likewise the mirror box, focussing screen and pentaprism are larger, meaning the camera is larger and heavier.

• Lens hoods are designed for FF image circle and are therefore slightly more effective on FF cameras. This mostly applies to prime lenses, as zoom lens hoods are designed cut to accommodate the widest zoom setting, so everything else is already non optimal. If you're using an EF lens on a crop camera you ideally want the hood tighter (since the extra shading will lie outside the smaller sensor a tighter hood wont vignette.

I have nothing against APS-C cameras but for any format it makes sense to use lenses designed for your sensor size. The range of EF-s lenses is smaller than the range of EF lenses. However for some uses (sports etc.) the smaller sensor size is helpful for the extra reach and speed it allows. Also the better noise characteristics of a FF sensor don't quite make up for the higher ISO you need to use get the same exposure when stopping down to match the DOF as a crop. So if you have to maximise DOF crop has a slight edge.

If there are EF-s lenses available for what you want to shoot then it wont be noticeably worse choosing this camera. However I feel full frame gives you more flexibility (speed aside) - as you can get the same deep DOF as a crop, but go narrower if you need to.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are full-frame cameras bad for sports photography?

Question

I was reading about crop factor from various places on the internet, and the general idea that kept building in my mind was that full-frame cameras are good for wide-angle shots but not that good for tele-photo. In Wikipedia it's written:

[...] a 200 mm lens on a camera with a crop factor of 1.5 has the same angle of view as a 300 mm lens on a full-frame camera. The extra "reach", for a given number of pixels, can be helpful in specific areas of photography such as wildlife or sports.⁶

It makes sense, but how high would the level of detail be on a full-frame with 300mm compared to the other example?

Answer

One aspect of this comparison that has not been mentioned is the fact that crop-sensor cameras are generally faster for a given price point.

• The 7D shoots at up to 8 Frames/Sec, the 5D manages 3.9 Frames/Sec
• The 1Ds III manages 5 Frames/Sec, while the 1D III/IV manages 10 Frames/Sec

In sports photography, where continuous drive is often used, those extra frames could mean the difference between capturing a player right before hie hits/kicks a ball, and actually at the moment of contact.

---

Regarding using telephoto lenses on a crop-sensor body, the critical measurement here is the pixel pitch, which is the thing that actually determines how much detail you will get from a lens.

Basically, if you have two different sensors with the same pixel pitch, the larger one effectively takes the exact same image, with some cropping.

As an example, I have a 30D and a 5D2. Both have 6.4µm pixels. Therefore, every exposure on the 5D2 effectively includes the entire area that a 30D exposure would capture, with the same resolution.

However, the 7D has 4.3µm pixels, so for a given focal length, the 7D will resolve 1.5X (1.488 to be exact) the detail.

This is all assuming an ideal lens. If your lens cannot resolve fine details, either camera will produce a blurry result. Also, small pixel sizes will be less forgiving of lens defects than larger pixels, since the smaller pixels require a larger lpm from the lens. A lens that is at the edge of it's resolving capabilities on a 5D2 may not see any improvement on a 7D, since the extra pixel resolution has no effect on the lens sharpness.

There is a nice breakdown of the Canon series camera pixel pitches on the-digital-picture.com. It's about 2/3 of the way down the page.

---

There are other considerations - larger pixels generally give less ISO noise, though modern image processing is advancing faster then sensors are shrinking, so it is not as much of an issue as it could be.

---

Note: I am writing about canon bodies because I am a canon user, and know them far better. However, most of the arguments are much more broadly applicable, basically to anything that uses a CCD/CMOS image sensor:

• The two critical factors in a camera's FPS are Number of pixels, and ADC speed.
• The critical factor in how much detail you get from a lens is pixel pitch (Smaller pixels gets more detail, until you reach the limitations of the lens).
• The largest influence in ISO performance is pixel size (larger pixels are less noisy). The readout electronics have much more influence here, though, so it is not an absolute determining factor as the two above are.

This is true across all brands.

Check more discussion of this question.