Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More Canon Lens Advice...  
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3761 times:

Hey all,

I'm currently looking into new equipment, and I'd like some advice on lenses to fill a wideangle-to-70mm gap (or thereabouts). I've come up with a few options; pick one from each group:

16-35 2.8L
17-40 4L
10-22

24-70 2.8L
24-105 4L IS (seems like a great all-purpose lens for travel, but perhaps overkill in my situation and "only" f/4)

Of course, I'm on a relatively tight budget so I don't want to just splurge on the seemingly superior combo of 16-35 and 24-70 unless it's far-and-away the best bet. Also I acknowledge that the 10-22 should probably be considered in a different category, however I do like the idea of getting that wide and in this round of purchases it would probably be either-or amongst the top group.

Who uses which lenses? How have you found them? Any other tips/recommendations?

Thanks in advance for any advice.  Smile
Cheers,
Gabriel

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineUA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3752 times:

Hi Gabriel,

I have the 17-40 and love it, it is so sharp.

I also have the 24-105 which I purchsed mainly as a travel lens to save me from carrying around my 70-200. I havn't really used it that much at the moment, the first copy I havd was very soft on the left hand side and the images were unusable. After numerous back and forths to Canon including them scratching my lens I now have a replacement which is tack sharp. I think the range is great and really usable.

I still have my 70-200 2.0 and also the 100-400.

The 10-22 is I think more specialist, I was considering that some time ago but went for the 15mm fisheye instead.

If I could only choose one from you list I would go with the 17-40 although now that the 16-35 Mk II is out there are some good deals to be had on the Mk I. The thing I considered with the 16 - 35 over the 17-40 is that whilst it is 2.8 I didn't really feel that I needed that in my wide angle zoom and you only gain 1mm at the wide end but loose 5 at the long end.

Regards

Simon



Live every second like you mean it
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

Hi Gabriel,

I have a 24-70 f/2.8 L and it is an excellent lens and one I use for general use and for travelling. It's sharp and a very good alrounder. I did own a 17-40 f/4 L and it produced excellent results on the rare occasions that I used it. I decided that it was a waste to have the lens and not use it so a fellow Anet friend bought it off me.

Regards
Matin


User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3672 times:

Quoting Tin67 (Reply 2):
so a fellow Anet friend bought it off me

. . . . . . and that would be me, Big grin You well these days Martin?
Its a cracking lens, pin sharp but there are times I do wish it was a 2.8, its very silent and fast too. Since I bought my 1Dn the 17-40 has stayed in my bag more often as I have been using the 24-70/2.8 L. My field of view has increased so therefore the need for the 17-40 is less but I don't think I want to part with it just yet. I am tempted to trade it in for the 16-35/2.8, the earlier version which is going for about £749 in Mifsuds. It's on my wish list anyway. I love both lenses, excelent picture quality from both.

Take care

Fergul  sun 



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineUA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3655 times:

Hey Fergul,

How's it going?

£649 at www.t4cameras.co.uk, they are a really good dealer, I have used them on numerous occasions and am currently number 27 on their list for a MKIII. Big grin

Regards

Simon



Live every second like you mean it
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3238 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3641 times:

Gabriel.

Quoting QantasA332 (Thread starter):

16-35 2.8L
17-40 4L

I recently got the 17-40 for my XTi. Like the others already said in the thread (hi Fergul!), I love it. Sure, f/2.8 would have been nice, but I was not willing to spend twice the money for the 16-35.

Quoting QantasA332 (Thread starter):
24-70 2.8L
24-105 4L IS

Those two cost roughly the same in the US. I'm currently leaning towards the 24-105, mainly due to the IS which will compensate in a lot of cases its slower speed (and the longer zoom will also be nice too). I think the 24-105 will be my next lens purchase (maybe after a fast prime; haven't decided yet; I'm looking at the 28mm f/1.8 at the moment).

In the end of the day, it's up to you to decide what conditions you will shoot in. If you shoot in low light / indoors / fast moving subjects / etc. the faster lenses might be the right thing for you. But, if you mainly shoot outdoors / in good light / etc. f/4 will be fine.

I found this site to be very helpful when I was deciding what lens to get:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...views/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx

Happy shooting!

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3634 times:

Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 3):
You well these days Martin?

Hi Fergul, Good thanks, spending more time photographing other things these days. trying to reach 500 on here then it's time to call it a day. Putting the 300 f/2.8 to good use though.

Hope you are well, chat soon via email
Martin


User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3619 times:

Quoting UA935 (Reply 4):
£649 at www.t4cameras.co.uk, they are a really good dealer, I

Simon!!  wave 

I used to buy off T4 but won't ever buy off them ever again. Don't get me wrong, they are reliable and good to deal with but they have burnt their bridge with me. I can get better deals with Mifsuds.

Speak soon Martin, my son is nearly walking now, can you believe he's a year old this month!!

Take care

Fergul  sun 



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3524 times:

Thanks guys! Definitely some good advice in there, but I must admit I'm no closer to reaching a decision! The 16-35/24-70 combo is still very tempting, but I have to think things over and decide whether or not that kind of investment is really worth it. Hmm...  scratchchin 

User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3518 times:

I have a combo of the 24-105 f/4L and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L and it seems to work well, however I think that if I had the money I'd get the 24-70 f/2.8L as well... I would say that'd be the best bet.

I also want to get the 10-22 however with it being an EF-S and with a 5D being on the horizon in the future, I can't justify purchasing it.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

Well, I'm one step closer to getting the 16-35.  Smile

Just one quick question - does it require a slim filter, or is a normal one fine? 82mm makes it expensive enough, without having to get slim! Judging by the accessories listed with it on B&H, non-slim is okay but I just wanted to confirm.

Cheers!


User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

Quoting QantasA332 (Reply 10):
Just one quick question - does it require a slim filter, or is a normal one fine? 82mm makes it expensive enough, without having to get slim! Judging by the accessories listed with it on B&H, non-slim is okay but I just wanted to confirm.

Don't put any filter on it!!!! Even cheaper!! I don't use filters any more unless I want effects like with the Lee Gradient Filters or a Circular Polarizer in very bright conditions but even then I would only buy the better ones like the Sigma EX Cir Polarizer, not cheap but very good quality and they are the slim types. You will get better photos with out the use of the so called skylight filters, if that is what you are asking about.
I have had my eye on the 16-35 for a while now, so would be interested to know how you get on with it. Hope that helps. Big grin

Take care.

Fergul  sun 



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3390 times:

Thanks Fergul, but lets not start the filter debate again!  box  Big grin

I like the peace of mind of having something in front of L-glass, and I'm prepared to accept the (very small) decrease in quality. I keep a filter on my 70-200 and I don't think I'll depart from that practice with the 16-35 - especially since the smaller lens hood offers little protection! Yes, you pay for good filters (and I tend to stick to B+W MRC), but like insurance it could help later...

So, in summary... slim or not?  cheeky 


User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

Quoting QantasA332 (Reply 12):
So, in summary... slim or not?

Slim is better, higher quality I think as well. I do understand the fear of getting it scrathced and naturally you want to protect that. Personally, quality overides protection and even if it does get damaged accidentally, I am covered with my insurance and can get it repaired or replaced, so that is why I am not so worried about getting them scratched. Don't get me wrong, I go to great lengths to make sure that they are protected in every way, but if it happens then I have my insurance get me out. Good luck with it and I hope you get some great shots with it! Big grin

Take care

Fergul  sun 



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rebel XTi Lens Advice For A Total Dslr Newbie posted Tue May 8 2007 06:01:46 by SNATH
Lens Advice Required posted Fri Apr 27 2007 03:32:53 by Chukcha
Canon Lens Problem? posted Thu Apr 12 2007 16:48:29 by DC10Tim
Canon Lens Question? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 22:16:52 by FXfan
Nikon Lens Advice posted Mon Jun 19 2006 09:18:31 by Viv
Lens Advice: Is Or Not? posted Thu May 11 2006 01:41:50 by AC773
Canon Lens Questions ... Help Needed! posted Mon Apr 3 2006 20:41:01 by Cosmic
Lens Advice posted Tue Mar 28 2006 16:42:04 by TV840
Canon Lens: Whats The Differance posted Fri Mar 24 2006 22:45:16 by AirbusA346
Need Some Nikon Lens Advice posted Wed Mar 8 2006 19:37:34 by UnattendedBag