QantasA332 From Australia, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1500 posts, RR: 34 Posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3331 times:
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:
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?
UA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3322 times:
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.
Tin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3307 times:
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.
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3242 times:
Quoting Tin67 (Reply 2): so a fellow Anet friend bought it off me
. . . . . . and that would be me, 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.
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:
QantasA332 From Australia, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1500 posts, RR: 34 Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3094 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...
QantasA332 From Australia, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1500 posts, RR: 34 Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2965 times:
Well, I'm one step closer to getting the 16-35.
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.
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2964 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.
QantasA332 From Australia, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 1500 posts, RR: 34 Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2960 times:
Thanks Fergul, but lets not start the filter debate again!
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...
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!