unsure what lens to get, please help ;)

[marie d]

I recently purchased a canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM to replace my canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

Now i am looking to purchase a L series lens to replace my EF-S17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.. I will be using this for mainly landscape shots. I’m presently using a Rebel Xti but i might up grade to a full frame in the future, not 100% sure yet.

I am just lost in what lens to get for wide landscapes. I don’t want to carry a tripod with me and i was hoping for an IS on this second purchase... i really love my new and first prime zoom lens, and i want to stay in that line of lens now. I’m not a professional photographer, it’s a hobby for me that i enjoy very much.

I was looking at the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens... the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Lens.. are they still ok for hand holding regardless they have no IS... or maybe the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens. I’m new at learning to stop down the f stops and all that stuff but i am slowly learning.

I’m ready to make my second purchase as soon as i can decide what to get out of these 3 lens i have mentioned.. or maybe there would be another lens you would recommend for me in the prime series. I hope you can help me make my decision..

[alex]

If you:


don't mind selling any EF-S lenses you have if you ever get a full-frame body in the future


and you:


don't mind not having coverage between 55 and 70mm (not a huge hole, IMO)


I would highly suggest getting the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It has L-series image quality by all accounts I've seen, plus it has the IS you want. It's the only lens that I have on my XSi, and I absolutely love it. If you ever do switch to a full-frame setup, this lens should be able to sell easily.


The 70-200mm f/4 IS is actually the next lens I want to get to have with my 17-55! a great pairing IMO.


Just my 2 cents,


alex

[Bill M.]

First of all, congrats on your 70-200, I have this lens as well and you will be amazed at the images it's capable of producing. You should notice quite a difference in the image quality compared to your 70-300, it's one of the sharpest zooms that you'll ever use. It's true that once you start to use "L" series lenses, it's hard to go back to anything else.


I also had the 17-40 for about 2 years and it served me very well, a nice lens for the price. If your priority is to have a wide angle landscape lens, then the 16-35 or the 17-40 would be very good choices for your XTi, you lose a little on the wide end with the 24-70 but to me, the 24-70 is probably the better walk-around lens since it has a wider range. You mentioned IS on your wish list for your next lens but yet the 3 lenses that you mentioned do not have it--how important is the IS to you?


The 16-35 and the 24-70 are 2.8 lenses, so that will give you an extra stop than the 17-40, so if your going to be hand-holding everything than the extra stop might be useful to you. Unfortunately, IS is a very good thing to have for hand held landscapes since you are not stopping action and the 2-3 stop advantage that IS gives you is greater than the one from f2.8 to f4. I personally use the 24-105 f4 with IS and love that lens as well. I'm going to be upgrading to the 5D II soon so that lens will be adequate for me to do landscapes I think. Otherwise, it's not the widest for a crop camera like the XTi.


One note of caution, I noticed that you used the word "prime" when speaking of your new 70-200 and again when you were,I believe,speaking about the "L" series of lenses. Generally, when you use the word "prime" it refers to a fixed focal length lens like the 50mm 1.4 or the 400 2.8...not trying to be critical--just helpful (even though I think most people on this forum will understand exactly what you mean).


Good luck in your search!

[alexniedra]

All of the lenses you mentioned are great choices! There alot of great lenses out there for you. It's just up to you to decide which features are the most important for you to have for your type of shooting.


One choice would be the 24-70 f/2.8 L. The 24-70 is a great lens, but also check out the 24-105 f/4 IS. Here is where you make the decision: Do you need the extra stop of light of the 24-70, or will f/4 do it? Since you're doing landscape work, you may not need f/2.8. Perhaps you're shooting at f/8 or f/11 alot of the time for depth-of-field and optimal sharpness. Since you mentioned IS, the 24-105 f/4 IS may be the right lens for you. These two lenses have much better range than the two wide angles (17-40 f/4 and 16-35 f/2.8) that you mentioned, but might not be quite wide enough for some landscapes that you're shooting.


However, if you don't bother an EF-S lens, be sure to check out the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS. This is an amzing
lens; Image quality is worthy of the L Series Red Stripe. This will get you a bit wider than the two EF zooms, has IS for handholding, and f/2.8 is just great for those evening or early morning shots. Check out the review at this site for more information.


If that doen't get you wide enough, consider the 10-22mm or the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 or even the Tokina 12-24 f/4 (that I use). You won't see what you're missing until you use one of these ultra-wides - They're fantastic. Downside: These lenses would probably require the purchase of a better general purpose zoom, unless you're willing to use your EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6.


Hopefully this can help you out. It would be a good idea to make a list of the features you need in your landscape lens, and then a list of features you want. Think about max. aperture, zoom range, focal lengths, and of course optical and build quality. This should help you make an informed decision.

[EdN]

When I had my Digital Rebel, the 17-40 F4L was my standard walkaround lens. It was excellent for general photography and landscapes. Even though it didn't have IS, it's not as important on a wide zoom than for something like the 70-200. I was able to get some amazing night shots, all handheld with the 17-40. My limit was ISO 800 and shooting wide open at 17mm, I was able to get great shots regularly down to about 1/12 sec. Sometimes, 1/6 but you have to brace yourself and hold your breath.


The 17-40 is also physically very compatible with the Rebel bodies. When installed, they are nicely balanced and are comfortable to shoot. Some of the other lenses you mention are quite a bit bigger and before you buy, you should try to demo it out on a Rebel body to see how you like it for balance and comfort.


I went from the Digital Rebel to 5D and the 17-40 is really nice for sweeping landscapes now.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

When you do landscape, it's very crucial that you have a TRIPOD. When you stop down for more depth of field, your shutter speed decreases.

[Daniel Browning]

The telephoto L lenses make a lot of sense for crop cameras: you get what you pay for.


But normal and wide angle L lenses do not make sense for crop cameras. Compared to the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, they cost more, have no wide angle, have lower quality, slower aperture, heavier weight, and/or no I.S. But they do have better build quality.

16-35 f/2.8 II: not as much zoom, no IS, expensive, image quality not as good as 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Better build.

17-40 f/4: not as much zoom, no IS, half the aperture, image quality not as good. Cheaper and better build.

24-105 f/4 IS: no wide angle, half the aperture, image quality not as good. Longer telephoto reach and better build.
24-70 f/2.8: no wide angle, image quality not as good. Better build.



All those lenses are great on a full frame camera, but on a crop much of the advantage is lost. If you upgrade to full frame some day, you can keep your EF-S lenses as a backup body or for telephoto reach. Since they cost one-third the price of full frame, it's much cheaper to stay with the small sensor system if you can. (Not to mention much higher competition, more frequent body upgrades, etc.)


The 17-55 f/2.8 is "L" image quality, it just doesn't have build quality to match.

[Colin]

you've sold me.





Well, you would have sold me, if I were starting lens purchases over, I didn't have a full frame camera, and I had some money to spend.


But, other than that, :yup! I'd get one!


Heck, if I had extra cash, i'd get one for the 30d so I'd have something to leave in the car for those "Dammit, i wish I had my camera" moments.

[David Selby]

24-70 2.8 for sure :) you wont regret it.

[jeffersonposter]

For landscapes ,if you go for the 17-40 f4 L, the IQ is excellent in daylight and on a crop body it also will make a very good general purpose walk around. On a FF, It will absolutly be wide enough, just watchout to keep your toes out of the shot! I have both a 30D and a 5D and use it on both. The 17-40 will cost a lot less, and unless you are going to shoot in low light, f4 willbe fine. For landscape you will probably stop to f8 or f11 anyway.

[mzemljic]

My best friend asked me once...


What to by 17-40 or 16-35?


Here is what I answered like a friend.


If You ask what to by between 17-40 f4 & 16-35 f2,8 is the same as You ask, do I need an 5 years old Mercedes Benz SL 220 HP or a Brand new Mercedes SL 320 HP!!!


In my personal opinion as a full time pro I can say this...


I am not used to make compromise between older (17-40) and newer (16-35), cheaper or more expensive... So my Clients can always get "The Best" for their money!


I will never say 17-40 f4 L is not good inough (I have used one before for nature)but 16-35 f2,8 L II is certainly much better! Double the price and You get what You pay for.


I have 15fish, 50f1.4, 85f1.2 L II 135f2 L 24-70f2.8 L, 70-200f2.8 L IS and finaly 16-35 f2.8 L II.


I have always tought I have inough...There is 15 and there's 24-70 in my bag, but 16-35 f2.8 L II is totaly diferent from 24-70 and 17-40 not to mention fisheye.


And If You by EF-S 17-55 now regardless to a "EF-S17-55IS" built and lens quality,


and a year from now You ll get or wish a full frame body You' ll have to sell it for 24-70 or 24-105...


So, my guess is always go with full frame lenses like 17-40 or 16-35 because they're bought perform excellent and one day You'll use them a lot.


17-40 f4 L on fujifilm 200 example


http://flickr.com/photos/mattassano/3214603859/


16-35 f2,8 L II with 1Ds mk III example


http://flickr.com/photos/mattassano/3268101470/


Best Regards,

[marie d]

You guys have been awesome in helping me.. i thank you all kindly. I have been reading and re-reading and studying your threads and all the reviews you have suggested. This morning i have decided to go with the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM, I’m calling my camera shop today as they have one 16-35 in stock so I’m going to have them put it aside for me and I’ll be taking that 3 hour drive in a couple of days to pick it up. So next will be a new full frame body.. any suggestions. I might be able to make that purchase sooner than i had thought. I’m excited to get a brand new make over. The 1Ds mark III and 1D mark III are big... the 5D and 50D are full frames also right. Could you give me a hand again please. I really have learned a lot from your threads.

[mzemljic]

I am glad for You!


Full frame? Nice...


To be sure You know what a Full Frame stands for...


In 1925, German "Leica" was original founder of a so called 35 mm or a small format system, and, it was most used film format till today by journal and wedding photographers.


The system was named 35, small format, or Leica format after it was originally standard 35 mm Cinema film with extensions 24x36 cm.


And after 77 yearsof use by photographers all over the globe it was successfully replaced with todays full frame D-SLR with the same measures of sensor as it was film in these days.


Why? Because of all advantages of 35mm film over APS-C sensors !!!


One of the biggest reasons were "DOF" and Crop factor on wide angle lenses in my opinion.


So now we have Canon;


5D & 5DII, top wanted fullframe DSLR-s along withPro fullframe bodies like 1Ds, 1DsII & Todays top of the line1DsIII with 45 focus points, weather sealed body, 22 Mpix, 300000 cycles shutter durability...


Canon 50D is Not a full frame!!!


It has 1,6 * smaller sensor size then a Fullframe DSLR24x36mm, so 24mm (I guess 90 degrees) lens would be similar to a 38mm lens !


24mm * 1,6 (smaller senssor size then the 24x36 film or fullframe sensor ) = 38.4 mm


Once again, Best Regards

[mark]

wow all these responses and no one suggested the EF-s 10-22 ... if you are looking to take WIDE landscapes then at this time there is no better lens ...in my opinion for just this the Canons EF-S 10-22 ...on a crop body it the same perpective as a 16-34 ... as wide as one can get without going fish eye ... i have one for just the same purpose as you wish to use your ... yes i do agree the 17-55 is a great lens but will at the end of the day be no wider then the 17-85 you currently own ... and there you have one more thing to consider ... 10-22 AS WIDE AS YOU WILL FIND





cheers

[Dann Thombs]

HiFi: That photo was taken at the minimum working distance (1:1) and wide open. Since it was perpendicular the DoF wasn't much of an issue, so I was able to use that to get the rest of the picture creamy.

[Rob Gardner]

Here's my concern: the 16-35 (as well as 24-70) is a heavy lens that really throws off the balance of body/lens with a Rebel XTi. Since you haven't upgraded your body yet, why not start with a 20mm 2.8 prime? It's light, reasonably inexpensive, and fully full-frame compatible, giving it a long life in your camera bag. Used examples are easily found on eBay for under $250 - and its a very sharp lens. In any event, whatever lens you get, try to adapt to using a monopod at least for your travels. Small, light, and easy to carry, a monopod makes all the difference in your shots.