15 replies to this topic

[hired goon]

G'day,

In another thread I asked about upgrading my Canon 350D camera, or getting new lenses, or both. Consensus was to invest in new lenses first, so now I need to figure out what to get.

Mostly I do general walk-around outdoor shots and landscapes, and portraits. I currently use the kit 18-55 lens for landscapes & walkaround, and the 50/1.8 lens for portraits. I've got a kit 70-200 lens but it is rubbish and does not get used.

I'd like to get a Canon 24-70/2.8 L, which seems to be a nice walk-around lens for around $1800 or so. Dunno if there is an IS version of this.

I'm also tempted by the Canon 24-105/4.0 L, which is around $1300 or so. Cheaper than the 24-70/2.8 L, and a bit longer, but I'm sure I would miss the speed of the 24-70/2.8.

If I did get the 24-70/2.8, then I would miss the wide end of the 18-55 for my landscapes. There's a Canon 17-40/4 L but it's around $1000 -- maybe there's a Sigma or Tamron equivalent for much less?

Not sure what I would do above 70mm. I have not really used any lens over 55mm much, so I don't know how often I would use this length, although at my daughter's kindy concert last week I found the 18-55 too short.

A Canon 70-200/2.8 L would be nice, but they seem a bit big. These are around $1700 (or around $2500 for the IS version). A big ask considering I don't know how much use I'd get out of 'em (although I may find I'd use 'em more often if they give good snaps).

There may be other options for longer than 70mm (in Canon or other brands), but I haven't investigated enough yet.

Primes. The 50/1.8 I have is okay, but I'd like better. Maybe the 24-70/2.8 L would kick its arse over most focal lengths and I don't need to worry. Or maybe I should consider the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8 (and if so, which is the more useful range?)

A macro lens would be nice, maybe the Canon 100/2.8 for around $700 (there's Canon 60/2.8 macro but it is EF-S mount which I'd like to avoid, and the Canon 50/2.5 macro is apparently not 1:1). Or maybe the Sigma/Tamron equivalents.

So at this stage I am thinking about the Canon 24-70/2.8 L, and one of: prime, macro, wide-angle or longer zoom.

Any comments appreciated.

--Geoff

[Waylander]

If you want an outdoors walk around lens which does not need low light shooting, the 24-105 4L would be a nice walk around lens. Good focal length and a decent amount of zoom. It's weaknesses on a 1.6 crop camera is that 24mm is not too wide (over 35mm on a FF body). So if you are doing lots of landscapes, streetscapes etc if may be a bit long at the short end

I personally would like to see the 24-70 2.8L replaced with a 17-70 2.8L IS - but that doesn't exist so isn't too relative to this discussion (unless you are reading this canon!).

I have the EFS 17-85mm IS as my walk around. It is a bit soft (but so is the user when it comes to taking good photo's). Really nice focal range though on a crop camera.

I also have a 70-200 4L IS which is a brilliant lens PQ wise. Struggles a bit in low light (ie dusk). Nice weight, great build quality and the images really pop.

I have thought about selling the EFS 17-85mm IS but I just don't know what to replace it with. The 24-70 2.8L is a lovely lens and probably top pick of the replacements, or the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS. The new 18-55mm IS lens is also meant to be pretty decent for the money.

The other option would be to go primes. The 50mm 1.4 makes a nice portrait lens. The 85L and 135L also make good primes for indoor sports.

I don't think I have been much help - I guess I am in a similar boat at the short end.

Maybe post this question in the dpreview forum for Canon lenses. Lot's of opinions there.

[Fuzzylogic]

If you want an outdoors walk around lens which does not need low light shooting, the 24-105 4L would be a nice walk around lens. Good focal length and a decent amount of zoom. It's weaknesses on a 1.6 crop camera is that 24mm is not too wide (over 35mm on a FF body). So if you are doing lots of landscapes, streetscapes etc if may be a bit long at the short end [/b]

+1

I've got a Eos 50E (yep, still on film) and was day dreaming as to what to upgrade to .. here was what I came up with -

Body: Full frame digital so would have to be 5D or its replacement.

Lenses:
24-105 f4L IS - This is a highly regarded and respected lens especially for us amateurs. Note also that this lens has image stabilisation so it is actually quite good for low light hand held situations. RRP $2k
100 - 400 f4.5-5.6L IS - Not sure about this. If I could afford it I would rather the 70 - 200 f2.8L IS with a 2x extender. But beggars can't be choosers so this would be a nice compromise. RRP $3k
100 f2.8 Macro - This would satisfy both macro and portraiture duties. RRP $1k
17 - 40 F4L - Would love the 16-35 f2.8L but that's an extra grand. Actually it would make more sense (for me) to get a prime lens but they are quite expensive once you drop below 24mm. Ideally I would choose a 14mm f2.8L but that's almost $3.5k. The RRP for 17-40 is $1400

Also, check out http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ which was originally recommended by Keith_W. A great informative site with lots of Canon afficiandos. There's also http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ which is a dedicated forum for Canon gear.

Best of luck and make sure you show us the snaps when you finally decide.

NOTE: The prices above are RRP so final store prices are considerably better but still not cheap though :wink:

[mondie]

Body: Full frame digital so would have to be 5D or its replacement.

Lenses:
24-105 f4L IS - This is a highly regarded and respected lens especially for us amateurs. Note also that this lens has image stabilisation so it is actually quite good for low light hand held situations. RRP $2k

17 - 40 F4L - Would love the 16-35 f2.8L but that's an extra grand. Actually it would make more sense (for me) to get a prime lens but they are quite expensive once you drop below 24mm. Ideally I would choose a 14mm f2.8L but that's almost $3.5k. The RRP for 17-40 is $1400[/b]

Good reply Fuzzy,

l own the 17-40L and find its quality acceptable but not exceptional. The 70-200L non IS though is spectacular, lwould say nearly all of my favourite images are taken with this lenses. l too have heard great things about the 24-105L IS and l am tempted to spend the extra on a 1:1 body so l can replace the 17-40 with one. l live in hope that Canon are brewing up something special like a 17-70L as that would be the perfect replacement for the 17-40L and fill the hole between 40 and 70 l currently have.

Having said all that l find that l take very few wide photos, l prefer Tele's so maybe the 24-105 is the go even on a 1.6 body. Now l am confused too

Cheers Mondie

[hired goon]

G'day,

I have seen a few negative reports of the Canon 17-40 L so maybe I will give that one a miss.

The Canon 24-105/4 L IS vs the Canon 24-70/2.8 L is a more interesting question. I'm guessing that the IS of the 24-105 makes up for the f/4 vs f/2.8, but the 24-70 may give sharper pictures ... more investigation required.

--Geoff

[Keith_W]

To answer your questions one by one, HG:

- There is no IS version of the 24-70 F/2.8L. As others have pointed out, you can get the 24-105 F/4L which does have IS. Don't let the F/4 put you off too much. The main reason to want F/2.8 is to get narrower DOF, but the more cost effective way would be to simply buy a prime lens. You will not miss the speed of the 24-70 F/2.8L.

- Above 70mm - this is pretty personal. Choose the lens that you can afford, and that you will carry around. I have said before that the reason why I don't have the 70-200 F/2.8L IS or the 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS any more is because I hated carrying them around. So they got sold.

- The 24-70 F/2.8L WILL NOT outperform a 50/1.8. The 50/1.8 will kick its arse any day of the week. Provided that your 50/1.8 is working correctly, of course

- There is nothing wrong with EF-S lenses if you have no plans to upgrade to full frame. Remember that photographic equipment is very easy to dispose of, with hardly any depreciation ESPECIALLY if you buy second hand. I have found that I had no problem selling any of my gear at prices that I asked for. Buy the lenses that you need, then sell them when you want to move on.

Another thing ... Waylander, the 85L is too slow focusing for sports photography

[brumby]

Geoff, there's a good comparison of those two lenses at The Luminous Landscape:

Here's the review

If you don't know the site, Luminous Landscape is a very good source for all things photographic in general and all things Canon in particular. There are LOTS of lens reviews for starters.

[Keith_W]

As for the negative reports of the 17-40 F/4L ... this lens is only inferior when compared to lenses from other makers. Nikon's humble 18-70 lens that they include with the D80 is sharper than 17-40 F/4L. Within the Canon line-up, the 17-40/4L is sharper than a 17-85 IS, and sharper than the 16-35 F/2.8L (Mk. I, not Mk. II). I used to have a 17-40/4L and did a "double blind" test where I posted detail shots comparing it to a 17-85IS and asked people to vote which one was which. About 65% of people correctly identified the L lens, but most of them conceded that it was a very closely run thing. If I had boosted the contrast of the 17-85IS and given it a touch of sharpen, the difference would be ameliorated.

Don't be put off with what you read ... the 17-40/4L is a good lens. You just need to know how to use it.

[Young Skywalker]

Hello HG,

I have seen a few negative reports of the Canon 17-40 L so maybe I will give that one a miss.[/b]

There will always be something negative said about any consumer product, especially in this day and age of the internet armchair critic.

Having said that I know plenty of professional photographers who use the 17-40mm f4 L on a daily basis. I own one myself. It is by no means the sharpest lens I own but I dare say you will be disappointed with any wide angle zoom regardless of cost or manufacturer. These lenses are all about convenience and the ability to get the shot. The old saying goes that any image is better than no image at all.

If image quality is your number one priority then you will have to consider wide angle prime lenses and specifically those from Zeiss with an adaptor (in which case you lose autofocus and have to stop down manually, etc). Just like in hi-fi there is no free lunch and everything comes with its own set of compromises unfortunately.

I hope that you find something that suits your needs.

Good luck with it all.

P.S. I have to second the Luminous Landscape recommendation. For what its worth Michael Reichmann was so bold as to state that the Canon EOS 40D has even better signal to noise performance at high ISO than does the Canon EOS 5D. Of course many people disagreed but they probably haven't used either camera. If you don't need a full frame camera I would put your money on the 40D and a 24-105mm f4 IS L lens.

Aaron

[JohnA]

24-70 or 24-105 must be the most debated question ever.

I was i the same dilema, and decided on the 24-70
why, simple because i got the 70-200 to partner to it.

Now people are going to tell you that the 24-70 is a heavy lens....its not that heavy at all to be honest and can easly be carried around all day.
the IS on the 24-105 is great to have but it will not stop action
If most of your shooting is landscape then start off with the 17-40 and 24-105

DO NOT get a 70-200 and think of putting a 2x converter on it. Its not good at all, you are better off getting the 100-400

[HIFINut]

Check out Link

In the user review section is quite extensive

[Nolz]

I absolutely LOVE my 17-40 f4L it's what is alwaya attached to my body.

Coming from the kit lens, the difference was astonishing and to this day I am still extremely content with it and haven't even entertained the thought of replacing it. No doubt there are better lenses out there but for the money it's hard to go past. You have to ask yourself where this hobby is going to take you and whether you need the a lens that is more than what you are looking at and if the difference in money is equivalent to the difference in performance?

Don't get too caught up in all the reviews and opinions because it really is a case of not what you use but how you use it. I think the 17-40 is a substantial improvement and upgrade without going OTT.

I also have a nifty fifty and a Sigma 70-200A PO f2.8 for the long end and along with a speedlite is what my kit is made of, just about covers it for keen amatuer kit I think. I would always tell a friend that Id wish he was making money from the gear he has accumulated (because so much was invested in having the best of the best) unfortunately it's all collecting dust

[JA]

As for the negative reports of the 17-40 F/4L ... this lens is only inferior when compared to lenses from other makers. Nikon's humble 18-70 lens that they include with the D80 is sharper than 17-40 F/4L. Within the Canon line-up, the 17-40/4L is sharper than a 17-85 IS, and sharper than the 16-35 F/2.8L (Mk. I, not Mk. II). I used to have a 17-40/4L and did a "double blind" test where I posted detail shots comparing it to a 17-85IS and asked people to vote which one was which. About 65% of people correctly identified the L lens, but most of them conceded that it was a very closely run thing. If I had boosted the contrast of the 17-85IS and given it a touch of sharpen, the difference would be ameliorated.

Don't be put off with what you read ... the 17-40/4L is a good lens. You just need to know how to use it.[/b]

Hello Keith,

Yes the Nikon 18-70 is a wonderful lens, very sharp and high in contrast. The only thing this lens gives up to its 24-70 cousins is about 1 stop (which is always a beautiful thing to have). What is even more interesting is the 18-70 v 18-135 v 18-200. These lenses achieve remarkable performance on MTF tests, even compared with some of Nikon's prime lenses. The only issue with the two larger lenses is probably some marginal increase in barrel/pincushion. Out of interest- check the MTF at the bottom of these pages:

18-70:
http://www.nikon-ima...mf35-45g_if.htm

18-135:
http://www.nikon-ima...mf35_56g_if.htm

18-200:
http://www.nikon-ima...mf35_56g_if.htm

Enough Nikon for 1 day. :biggrin:


Hello HG:

I would go with your idea of the 24-70/2.8 (a very versatile, sharp and contrasty lens) and keep the 18-55 for the odd wide shot.


Best
JA

[Keith_W]

Hm, it looks as if the Nikon 18-70 and the Canon 17-40L are not quite comparable after all.



MTF chart for Nikon 18-70, at 18mm.


MTF chart for Canon 17-40L, at 17mm

Bearing in mind that the Canon is a full frame lens (i.e. stop reading the MTF chart at 15mm if you use a cropped camera). Note that at wide open the Canon resolves more lines per mm, and when stopped down to F/8 the Canon retains its advantage. But then, the Nikon IS much cheaper and it's a kit lens.

The Nikon 18-200 is very impressive though:


MTF chart for Nikon 18-200, at 18mm and at 200mm

For such a wide range of zoom (11x!) Nikon have managed to preserve sharpness at both ends, such that at the wide end, the 18-200 is superior even to their own 18-70. Very good!

Also to illustrate my earlier comments, here is the MTF chart for the Canon 16-35 F/2.8L Mk. II. I said that it's not as good as the 17-40/4L. MTF charts prove me right


MTF chart for Canon 16-35 F/2.8L, at 16mm

The EF-S 10-22 is actually the best wide lens that Canon makes. It is comfortably superior to both it's L brethren in the Canon lineup, and even better than the Nikon 12-24. If I was shooting with a cropped camera and needed a wide lens, I would go with the Canon 10-22.

[JA]

For those that haven't seen it- Canon still has one of the best advertisements for their lenses. :clap: :clap: :clap:

A 1975 Franco Rossi photo of Henry Kissinger reading a Top Secret document taken from the press balcony. If Nikon has one of these they're not saying. It was used in some of their L series lenses brochures. The lens used was an FL 300/2.8 on an F1 as I recall.

Best
JA

OK that's enough Off Topic Stuff from me. :ohmy:

The original from which these appear to have been scanned is clearly legible.


The money shot:

[hired goon]

If I was shooting with a cropped camera and needed a wide lens, I would go with the Canon 10-22.[/b]

Interesting thought. I might check out the Canon 10-22 (around $900 or so), as well as the new EF-S 18-55 IS, which seems to be highly regarded.

--Geoff