Lear45 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 55 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5053 times:
Apologies if this is a well-worn thread, but I have trawled through the archives at length on this subject, and am still un-decided.
I am a Sony DSC-F707 user of many years, now ready to take the next step to a DSLR. I am a traditional Canon user - have a EOS5 for slide shooting - so the choice of body has been easy for me ... the EOS30D. I am however a little uncertain which Canon lenses to go for, and would like to ask for all you guys' expert help.
I expect to eventually make the 100-400L investment - still a good choice ? - but am very undecided which short zoom to go for, to buy along with the body. The choices I see are the EF-S 18-55 'standard' that comes with the basic body package, the slightly more expensive EF-S 17-85 IS or EF 24-85, or go the whole hog with the EF 24-105L IS ? Anything else I should be looking at ?
I already have the EF 75-300 III for my EOS5 which I hardly ever use for slide work, but suspect I may need better glass for digital zoom work.
I shoot on the ramp and airfield where I work, and on regular trips at home and abroad. There may be a link to some of my work on my web-site in my profile.
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5046 times:
It depends on how much money you have.
If I remember correctly, the 100-400L and 24-105L would cost around £2000 if bought in England. If you're willing to spend that amount of money, you're well set. 100-400L is a very popular and good aviation lens. The 24-105L is a fine lens too, I think you'd better ask Chad Thomas or Javier Guerrero about that, as they are the only ones I know of that own it.
I have the 17-85 IS; I do not recommend it. It's not that good really, and it has got lots of CA, barrel distortions, vignetting and softness.
Bryan Peterson should be able to comment on the 24-85, as far as I know, it's darn good for the price.
There was a thread few days ago about the kit lens, 18-55. I'm not a fan of it, and I think you'd be better with the L glass.
Linco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5039 times:
With good light, decent light, the 100-400 will shine for you. The 24-105 as David said is a nice range, especially for the ramp access you have. If you aren't going to go L, the EF 28-105mm f3.5-5.6 II USM would be a wise choice at a very decent price.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5033 times:
I have a 24-105 LIS for 2 months now, but I've hardly used it for airplane photography. I have just one shot on A.net taken with that lens, but I could have taken that with any lens or my little Panasonic PnS, as at 1024x you can't really tell.
I used it a lot on my holiday last month and I'm very happy with it. The IS is great and the quality is similar to my 17-40. In the overlapping region you can't tell the difference. Ok, if you really start nitpicking and searching for flaws, you with definitely find them, but so far I'm happy with it. Basically I'm happy with my total lens setup (17-40, 24-105, 100-400). A new body would be nice though. (40D?!? )
For a new setup, it all depends on how much you'd like to spend. I photographed with a 75-300 II for years and was happy with it, same with a very cheap 28-80. But when I moved to digital where you can see more than what you see on a 10x15 print, the quality difference between L and non-L lenses became quite visible. It's worth the money, but not a complete must. There are some very well performing non-L lenses which have excellent value for money (Like Colin, I've heard good things about the 28-105mm f4.5 version for example)
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4906 times:
The 24-105mm is not one of those 'good for the money' lenses. Its good but you pay for it. I'd say 'worth the expensive price tag' is a much better way to sum it up.
I own the 100-400mm and 24-105 F4L, and in the US they will run you around $2500. The 28-105mm is a 'good for the money' lens. I also own that but its on loan to a friend as I really have no need for it.
I decided for the non-L (cheaper version), and I am pleased with it. It's a very good walk-around lens. It has saved me some 700 Euro compared to the 24-105L (and I am now 700 Euro closer to a body upgrade...). My recent static shots were made with this lens (the rest is with the 100-400L, which I can also highly recommend!)