Yep, another lens advice question

I know everyone has seen more strings and posts then you can poke a stick at about advice on which lens to buy, but yep I have another one. I will apologise from the start if this one has been answered before, and I’m sure it has, but please bear with me. I am after a portrait lens. I have a small home studio with Elinchrom strobes, and I like to shoot portraits outside as well. I have read Bryan’s reviews back to front and the threads both for and against for the 24–70 f/2.8 L USM (which I have my heart set on) in regards to issues someone was having with CA. So then I was looking at either the 17-40 f/4 L USM or the 24-105 f/4 L IS USM. Speed is not a huge issue and I think I could live with f/4, but 2.8 would be nice. I have plans to get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM then after to cover the top end range. I’m using a 50D, Manfrotto tripod and shutter release (re the IS necessity / importance) I really do love the 24–70 f/2.8 L USM, I guess I just need reassurance that it is the one for me, don’t want the hindsight thing happening. If anyone could throw some advice at me it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all.

I can only speak from my own personal experience, so here goes.


I'm shooting the 24-105/4L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS on a 5DmkII. Presently I do not see much need to go wider than 24mm as it is not suited to my style of photography. Since you are on a 50D you may need to get a wide-angle EF zoom, but I can't comment on which one. However, it may be worthwhile to look into the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5. Although it is f/3.5 at its widest, at those focal lengths you won't see much difference in DOF anyway. But of course, if you intend on replacing the 50D in the next few years, you may end up needing to re-sell the 10-22.


Wide maximum aperture is very important to me. I have gone through my images and found that the vast majority are taken at f/4 or wider, and almost never smaller than f/11. As such I did consider exchanging the 24-105 for the 24-70/2.8L but I decided against it for two reasons: (1) The 24-70 is at least a full half-pound heavier, which to me is noticeable, and (2) it lacks IS, which I need because I often shoot handheld in low light or with available light.


The 24-70/2.8L does have some issues with CA--it tends to exhibit slight color shifting at wide apertures of objects not within the DOF. This is a different type of CA than the corner red/cyan fringing that is more commonly pointed out. I have not been able to test the 24-105/4L IS for this same issue, but I suspect it is largely absent, in part due to the smaller maximum aperture. I have also not noticed it in any of my photos.


On the telephoto end, there was no question that the 70-200/2.8L IS was what I had to use. The small differences in MTF between f/4 and f/2.8, and non-IS vs. IS, could not outweigh the overwhelming benefit of having that wide aperture and IS at 200mm. Yes, the lens is 3.2 pounds. But for that kind of image quality there is simply nothing else out there to compare. However, if your intention is to use it on a tripod most of the time, then save several hundred and get the non-IS. It will be very slightly sharper and significantly lighter.


And now, to completely confuse you, I think you should look into some nice primes. I think you could be very happy with a 50/1.4 or for cheap thrills, a 50/1.8. And maybe consider the 135/2L instead of the 70-200/2.8L IS for now. It all depends on what you want to shoot. Sometimes I think zooms are overrated and I certainly no longer subscribe to the belief that you have to have a continuous range of focal lengths available from wide to telephoto.


My next purchase is either a 15/2.8 fisheye, 300/4L IS, 180/3.5L macro, 100/2.8 macro, or if I win the lottery, I would get the 85/1.2L II.

Scott, if you're aboslutely love the 24-70 f/2.8L, go for it!


The 24-70 works very well for potrait and general purpose. The only down side is that it's not really wide on a 1.6 crop body. A 70-200 f/2.8Lwill nicely complement it.

I luuuuuuuuuuuuuv my 24-70 (and 70-200 for that matter). GREAT zoom range for a lot of different things and f/2.8 is good times for my needs (to say the least). There's no way around it thought, it IS a heavy lens. I prefer to think of it as "solid" ;)


As for no IS.... I 'd personally rather have the faster aperture for low light shots than IS... though if they combined both (which would make it even heavier... though my wallet would be a lot lighter so maybe that evens it out :P) I wouldn't complain too much ;)

Please note: I'm addicted to the widest apertures I can afford.


You might want to consider fleshing out your range with more than a couple of lenses. For example, my lenses include (most recently) the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 50mm f/1.4, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. The whole range from 11mm to 200mm is covered in f/2.8 or less. Of course, I'd suggest the first lens you get to be the one you think you'll use most often. After purchasing the 85mm f/1.8 as my first lens, I sold it and bought the 17-55. The 17-55mm f/2.8 stayed on my camera about 90% of the time even after I acquired the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. That 17-55 really is a fantastic lens.


After the 70-200 I purchased the 50mm f/1.4 because I decided I wanted an even wider aperture just in case I ever needed it. It's been extremely sharp and exceeded all my expectations. Great for shooting get-togethers.


I only recently purchased the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I wanted something even wider than 17mm on my 1.6x (50D) body. I was really impressed with some of my test shots using the center focus point. It has alot of potential. However, the copy I had wouldn't focus when using anything but the center focus point. I returned it and I'm currently waiting for the replacement. Hopefully the next copy will work as advertised. If it does, I'll really enjoy that lens.


I mostly shoot outdoor portraits as well as some indoor ones. I mainly use the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I honestly don't think you can go wrong with it on a 50D. Most of my flickr photostream is comprised of pictures taken with that lens. Take a look at my photostream and see if it looks like the kind of things you want to shoot. It's worked extremely well for me. I'm glad it was my first major lens purchase (if you don't count the 85 f/1.8 that is).

Scott,


I don't think the OOF CA is going to have an effect on your portraiture. If your shooting with Elichromes, more than likely your at apetures around f8 or higher. For low light and natural light the 24-70 f2.8 is a fabulous lens. It's a little wider and shows a few minor flaws on FF but I would guess it's the #1 lens of most Canon shooters. The 70-200 f2.8 is my portrait lens of choice. I can't get too close. I noticed on several shoots when using a 28-75 Tammy that I could easily get too close and start letting in a lot of undesirable back ground detail. Now, I shoot exclusively with the 70-200 in studio. A f4 version would work for me as well. You'll sooner or later want to have both!! I have to say, even with those two I somehow covet the 24-105. wickerprints was dead on!


My2Abes,


Chuck

Thank you all so much, it never was going to be an easy choice. I’m looking at the sixteen hundred dollar mark (Ozzie dollars) so hence why I want to get it right. I appreciate all of your comments and input, it does help. Just one question for Sean to help me a bit more mate. (I have followed and love your work so I’m particularly intrigued) What was your preference towards the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-70 f/2.8 L. Thank you all once again Scott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott

What was your preference towards the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-70 f/2.8 L.

---

17 is significantly wider than 24

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]Ok, I honestly didn&rsquo;t think 7mm in a 1.6 crop would have made that much of a difference, thanks for that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The main reason I was interested in was the end result, &ldquo;picture quality&rdquo; and secondarily build quality, ie seal and gaskets to stop dust. The L series trade mark. Cheers all
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]Scott

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott

Thank you all so much, it never was going to be an easy choice. I&rsquo;m looking at the sixteen hundred dollar mark (Ozzie dollars) so hence why I want to get it right. I appreciate all of your comments and input, it does help. Just one question for Sean to help me a bit more mate. (I have followed and love your work so I&rsquo;m particularly intrigued) What was your preference towards the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-70 f/2.8 L. Thank you all once again Scott
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

I went with the 17-55mm f/2.8 based on Bryan's reviews and recommendations. He noted that the 17-55 seemed to bethe bestall-purposefocal range for a 1.6x body with "very high image quality." Then the fact that it has 3-stop image stabilization put it over the top for me. I've been nothing but satisfied with my decision, and have learned to trust Bryan's judgement/reviews implicitly.


"Since EF-S lenses only mount on Canon EF-S bodies - which all feature a 1.6x FOVCF - the 17-55mm focal length range always equates to the field of view of a 27.2-88mm lens mounted on a full-frame Digital SLR. This range covers what I consider to be the most important focal lengths for a Canon general purpose lens. This is a focal length range that can be used for everything from a wide scenic landscape to a relatively-close portrait. "


"Combining an f/2.8 aperture with the 3 stop image stabilization, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is arguably the most handholdable lens Canon currently makes."

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]</o:p>


<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]Thanks Sean that is all I wanted to know, I do value your opinion and you put it in a way that makes sense.


<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]<o:p></o:p><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]Cheers mate<o:p></o:p>


<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]<o:p>Regards </o:p><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]Scott<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]</o:p>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]Ok, I honestly didn&rsquo;t think 7mm in a 1.6 crop...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

7mm x 1.6 = 11.2mm


Fairly significant if you ask me.

OK in a crop to FF mode but I'm talking 1.6 to 1.6, which is still 7mm to me ?

The difference between 17mm and 24mm is 7mm, regardless of the sensor type. However, on a APS-C sensor you will perceive that 7mm difference as roughly equivalent to a 1.6*7 = 11.2mm difference for someone with a 35mm camera were they to switch between lenses of focal length 27.2mm and 38.4mm. That is what was meant.


But really, the focal length difference between 17 and 24mm is significant not because it differs by 7mm, but because at the wide end, each mm of focal length impacts the angle of view far more than at the telephoto end. For instance, going from 20mm to 16mm will be a very noticeable change in the angle of view, compared to 200mm to 196mm, which is almost negligible.

I guessI think in equivalents. A 7mm difference on a crop isthe equivalent to a 11.2mm difference on a FF. 17mm being equivalent to 27.2mm and 24mm being equivalent to 38.4mm.