View Full Version : Looking for my first 'L' series
Groundfault
01-31-2009, 07:30 PM
Here's the gear I have right now:
Canon XTI with battery grip
Canon 28-135mm IS f3.5-5.6
Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro
I am looking for a 17-40 f4or a 24-105 f4 ISL to replace my 28-135. What do ou think guys ? Keep in mind that a 70-200 f2.8 L is coming soon too !
depends what you want it for...any L i better then no L
Groundfault
01-31-2009, 08:06 PM
I'm looking for a good all-around performer. I've tried a L serie lense and that's it, I'm done ! I ned one...
GSPhoto
01-31-2009, 08:24 PM
Well, like everyone says you need to decide what you shoot the most. I have a 24-105L and I love it as my all around lens. I would suggest that for starters. It is not as wide as I would like though, and I do a lot of landscape photography so I also have the 16-35L. I have a 50D so the crop makes my 16 a little wider than the 24 and it really comes in handy sometimes. I would say stick with the 24-105 and it will compliment a wide angle one day when you can get another.
If you like to do outdoor stuff and take wide landscapes the 17-40mm F4L would give you high quality and a nice wide viewpoint. If you are more into portraits, the 24-105mm F4L gives you the better high end range.
Question to ask back to you is how do you like your 28-135mm at the short end? If for your style it's okay go for the 24-105 because everything is very similar. If it's not wide enough at 28mm, you may want to lean toward the 17-40mm.
Groundfault
01-31-2009, 09:26 PM
This is where it's very difficult for me to take a decision. I have a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro, so I'm equipped to do portraits. I prefer the wider side of the 17-40 but Ithink it will be more restrictive for an all-around carrying lense. That's why I'm thinking about the 24-105.
The 28-135 was a good lense, but too much reach for what I do. the perfect lense would be a 24-70 f2.8, or even a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Anyways...I love then all, like you guys.
If you haven't looked at the 24-105mm F4L, it is almost exactly the same size and weight as the 100 F2.8 macro. The 100 is slightly longer. If you are going to use the 24-105 as your "walkaround" lens, it's a pretty large package to pack around.
When I was shooting with my Digital Rebel (cropped sensor), I used the 17-40 as the walkaround lens. It was excellent covering 27mm to 64mm equivalents in full frame. I prefer having wide focal lengths easily accessible in my style of shooting.
Groundfault
01-31-2009, 11:05 PM
now were talking!Continue...
Max@Home
02-01-2009, 04:27 AM
This is where it's very difficult for me to take a decision. I have a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro, so I'm equipped to do portraits.
...more 'tight headshots' than portraits IMO: 100mm is rather long on a 1.6x cropped body, you will need a large 'studio'...
I prefer the wider side of the 17-40 but Ithink it will be more restrictive for an all-around carrying lense. That's why I'm thinking about the 24-105.
The 28-135 was a good lense, but too much reach for what I do. the perfect lense would be a 24-70 f2.8, or even a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Anyways...I love then all, like you guys.
...how wide is still acceptable for you ? if 28-xxx was generally wide enough, then 24-xxx will certainly feel 'better' (wider), but if you want/need the wider side of the 17-40 often, then 24-xxx will still feel limiting...
...if your future plans do not include going fullframe for the next two/three years, and that 70-200F2.8L is coming 'for sure', then perhaps the EF-S17-55F2.8 IS (L class optics in a decent but not L housing) or the Tamron 17-50F2.8 might be better choices...
...€0.02...
Kindest regards!
Max@Home
Groundfault
02-01-2009, 08:57 AM
Yes, I think these two are better choices too. And since the Tamronis half the price of the Canon, I have to consider it seriously. Thanks guys.
Julien
on a crop body the EF-S 17-55f2.8 IS is superb ... it is not an L but that is because it is in EF-S mount otherwise it would be and if you want ulta wide then the EF-S 120=22 is the only option
good luck
oops typo ...thats 10-22 and yes the canon is a little more but twice the lens of the others un less you consider tokina
Fabricio
02-01-2009, 12:32 PM
You left the 24-70 out. I personally think is the best way to go or the first I would get among the ones you listed.
Stefan Stuart Fletcher
02-01-2009, 01:43 PM
I've owned the 24-105 and traded it in for the 24-70 because IQ was better (less flare and better CA, although barrel distortion is noticeable wide open), plus the faster lens. I would strongly recommend the 24-70 as an excellent all-round lens. For UWA, I'd go for the EFS 10-22 (if you're not planning on upgrading to a FF in the near future), which out-performs my copy of the 17-40 on my FF. If in doubt, don't spend money you'll miss later. Save up for the best and then upgrade your body as your photography improves. A good 50 mm lens (Bryan seems to have been unlucky with his copies of the Sigma 50 1.4) will serve you faithfully and well. The Sigma 30 needs to be tested extensively before buying.
I caught lens lust early and it nearly killed my enjoyment of what we do. Remember: even kits out-perform the equipment used to shoot some of the most iconographic images of the 20th century. What matters is skill - and a lot of luck.
nerdmonkey
02-01-2009, 01:48 PM
I agree about looking into the 17-55 IS or the Tamron 17-50 if you want something a little wider. I have the 24-105 which is a great walk-around lens with some reach, but lately I'm really enjoying having the extra stop and ability to decrease the depth of field in the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the increased reach.
If you know the 70-200 is coming soon and you're not making the jump to a full frame camera anytime soon, I would take a serious look at these 17-5x lenses first.
Benjamin
02-01-2009, 10:10 PM
Personally I think the 24-105/4L IS is more usable as a general purpose / walking around lens. However, in this case you may also consider the 24-70/2.8L since that you mentioned the upcoming 70-200/2.8. As far as I can see the 24-70/2.8 is an overall betterperformer than the 24-105/4L IS but lack of IS.
I think if you get the 17-40/4L youmayhave some hard time to fill the gap between 40mm - 70mm. That's an extremely valuable range in my mind.
Groundfault
02-01-2009, 11:42 PM
Dont forget my body uses a 1.6 FOVC. This means it's not really a 17-40, but more extended. For an all-around lense, it could be a good choice, and60% cheaper than a 24-70 f2.8L !
Benjamin
02-01-2009, 11:53 PM
Surely I have taken your 1.6x into consideration, just didn't mention since it's obvious. if you know the answer already then why ask??...
You're getting a lot of great advice from people and your decision is going to be a tough one. It would be great to buy "one of everything" but that's not practical for most people. What it will have to boil down to is what suits you the best for how you shoot and what you shoot. Here are some more thoughts based on my experience to cloud the waters some more.
I used the 17-40 F4L as my walkaround lens for my Digital Rebel and it did a superb job. I got the 24-105 F4L IS partly as a gap filler between 40mm to 70mm as I already had the 70-200 F4L. For my type of shooting, I found later on that the 40-70mm range wasn't that important because I love my wide angle shooting which was covered by the 17-40. Soon after that, I went 5D and the 24-105 became the walkaround lens. During the time that I used the 24-105 on the Digital Rebel, I noticed that the image quality was better on the 17-40 than on my 24-105. The images in particular were noticeably sharper at the corners. This is something I still notice on the 5D but I still love the images that come off that 24-105.
The 24-105 is a large lens. It's well balanced on a 5D but it was front heavy walking around with a Digital Rebel. In your case you have a XTi which is an evensmaller body and this may make it even more unbalanced but your battery grip may offset that.
The 24-105 is a significantly bigger lens than the 17-40. If you have small hands like me, it's just a little bit more awkward to manually adjust the focus because the focus ring is just a bit too far away for my short fingers. On the 17-40, I don't have to change the position of my hand on the lens when manually focusing.
The 17-40 is an internally focusing zoom. This means the length of the lens does not change as you zoom in our out. This is a great feature to keep your lens clean and makes the lens more rugged in construction. The 24-105 extends out as you zoom out. I don't think it's a huge deal sucking in dust as you zoom out but I find I am more conscious to make sure I don't get junk stuck on the barrel that zooms in so I don't contaminate the inside of the lens barrel.
I also played with a 17-55 F2.8 IS EF-S at a camera store. I was always curious about it. So here's a couple observations. The size and weight of the 17-55 is not much different from the 24-105. I thought that as an EF-S lens it would be more compact but it's not the case. I build quality was definitely not as good as the 24-105. The zoom ring was particularly annoying. There's some rubber gasket inside the barrel so whenever you fully zoomed out, the compression of the rubber gasket would unzoom it slightly when you let go of the ring. It had a bit of a squishy feel zoom out as it hit the rubber gasket. I don't know if this happens with all the lens but it sure was there with the demo. As a non-L, it didn't have a lens hood nor the soft leather case. The former is important and the latter is not. Price wise, it wasn't much different from the 24-105. I never shot anything with it so I can't tell you anything on the optical quality.
If you have any thoughts of getting a full frame body, the 17-40 automatically gives you an extra-wide zoom. That's what happened to me.
I'm sure you'll be quite happy with any of the lenses discussed in this thread. It's all great stuff.
Colin
02-02-2009, 01:21 AM
I used my 24-105 mostly on my 5D. It used to be the primary lens on my 30D, and it worked alright for that, but 24mm on a full frame is actually pretty wide. On my 30D, it wasn't really that wide at all. It was fine, and I preferred having a little more telephoto than wide, all things being equal, if I was only going to get one lens...
Of course, having one lens is a difficult proposition to stick to.
I started with a 28-135, which for cheap, was pretty good for what it was. However, I found 28mm not nearly wide enough on my RebelXT. So, I got a 16-35 f/2.8L, after which I just got addicted to the feel of using an L lens. It just feels so right...
I think that the current active lineup is 4 zooms, 5 primes, and a whole bunch of knick knacks. They're ALL very useful for particular purposes, and I can imagine a few more lenses being handy for a few more applications.
It really is a disease :D
But if I could only have a single lens, I think the 24-105 would be it, even with an APS-C 'cropped' sensor. I concede that there are great arguments for other lenses, but that's just me.