Hi All,
I
Printable View
Hi All,
I
The L features and constant f/4 of the 24-105 are nice, but personally I would prefer the focal length range of the 15-85.
Think of it this way. If you had a full frame camera, would you prefer a 24-105mm f/4, or a 40-170mm f/4? If you would like 24-105 on full frame, get the 15-85 for crop. If you prefer a 40-170 on full frame (even though Canon doesn
Hi Patrick,
+1 to Daniel's point. Think hard about your style.
Personally, I don't love changing lenses frequently in the field because it just doesn't seem that practical (or maybe I am lazy [;)]). So if I had the 10-22 and the 15-85, knowing me the 10-22 probably wouldn't get much use except when I knew a dramatic vista awaited me. It would be too easy to stick with the 15-85 because of its versatility over the 10-22. That, plus the fact that Igravitate towards the long end of focal lengths (except in places like Yellowstone), l'd go for the 24-105. But that's just me!
Have you ever searched the EXIF data in your photo library for your kit lens to get a sense of your sweet spot focal lengths? I recently did that for shots with my Tamron 17-50, and I wasn't surprised to learn that the vast majority are at >24mm.
Good luck!
I think that the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS would be nice.. I had the non-OS version. The one problem is lack of constant aperture, in which case I think the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is the way to go. I had one of those for quite a while and loved it! I know it
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekingb
I agree. Check this out. As Daniel said, each one of us has different styles and preferences. When I was shooting APS-C I still found myself shooting at the long end of the lenses and found my 17-50 was too short so I upgraded to the 24-105 and loved it. Once in a while I found the 24 not quite wide enough but for me that was rare. Now on full frame it is perfect for me. The 24-105 may be good for you since you are planning on the 10-22 as well.
Mark
I know i should add a vote for the 15-85 (because i've got one on my 7d, and love it), but i'm not so sure if you've got (getting) the 10-22.
For me, it would come down to preference of swapping lenses in the field. with the 15-85 you get a decent range, you can drop down to 15 without having to put on your 10-22, until you want an ultra-wide or want a better shot without the vignetting/barrelling of the 15-85. If you get the 24-105, you're pretty much stuck changing to the 10-22 every time you see a nice landscape.
Same goes at the long end. with the 15-85 you can get up to 85 if you see a nice bird in the tree before it flies away, but the 24-105 gets just that little bit closer (the amount of times i've lost a good bird shot in the time it takes to swap to my 70-300...). Sure, 85 and 105 are neither that good for bird shots, but you might have a better chance of something remotely croppable with the 24-105.
And you also have to think about your significant other (or other travelling companions). Composing, focussing, setting CPL, checking dof and flare all takes enough time, without swapping lenses on top (constantly calling out 'keep smiling honey, i'm nearly about to take it, oh hang on, maybe i'll try my _other_ lens...')
so my 2c? personally i'd take the 15-85 and 70-300 and just forego the 10-14 range (and yes, i have this setup. it's also cheaper. my shop has 15-85 for €680, 24-105 for €1050, 10-22 for €740).
if you're going to get the 10-22 like you say, i'd lean a bit more to the 24-105. keep it on the whole time for fast-response close-ish animal and people shots, if you see a nice panorama when you get to the top of the hill you can take your time to swap to the 10-22. if you see a distant animal or bird in a tree you'd have to swap to 70-300 anyway so anything past 105mm is a moot point anyway...
another question is weight, if you're going to jellystone you're going to be hiking a lot i presume. my back hurts enough after lugging my 7d, 15-85, 70-300 nonL (soon to buy L) with water, food, spare jacket etc for a few hours. the 24-105 is 670g, the 15-85 is 575g, the 10-22 is only 385g. By all means don't let this discourage you from the dual 10-22+24-105 setup, but with the 15-85 you can carry an extra bottle of water along too. (if you're just a birdwatcher and sweeping panorama person, take the 10-22 and 70-300? to spare the extra weight?)
as for the 17-55, and 24-70 (if you can afford it). i'd only bother with them if the f2.8 is really important to you (which it probably isn't with landscapes and hiking). i chose the 15-85 over the 17-55 for the extra 2mm wider and 30mm longer, the IS helps enough to overcome the slowness of the 15-85. (and for landscapes, who wants f2.8 anyway?)
For low light landscapes, or if the scene has moving elements in it and you don
Patrick,
I have the 15-85 and love it. It is a great lens if you have enough light, as you should most of the time in Yellowstone. I
Patric
My 2 cents
Two years ago I owned a 50D, bought the 24-105mm and didn't like it. No good in low light. I took it back and bought the 24-70mm L but was never really that impressed with it. Not long after than I bought the 16-35mm F2.8L II and it became my favorite. The 16mm end would be comparable to about 25mm. I personally found the 24mm on the 5D II to be wide enough last year at Yellowstone.
I would concider the 16-35mm in the mix, and take it over the 24-105mm any day.
Have you ever been to Yellowstone before? We spent our first three days watching water boil. Some of your best photo op's will be in the geyser areas. The colors in the pools are awesome.
One of mine from last year, at Mammoth
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-47-09/MammothHotSprings4.jpg[/img]
Take a tripod, a good landscape lens and the possibilities are endless.
At the West Yellowstone Entrance, a few miles in on the South side of the road there is an eagles nest. It will be obvious because there are signs telling you not to stop and take pictures. Last year at the first of July they had one baby in the next.
This year I am going the first week of August. A friend has a cabin in West Yellowstone that backs up to the park. I get to stay their for a week. I am debating on whether to buy the TS 24mm, the 21mm Zeiss or possible the 14mm L to take on my trip.
Good Luck and Have fun.
....looking at Rick
I bought a 24-105mm f/4L as an upgrade to the kit lens, and I have mixed feelings about it. I chose the 24-105L because I wanted extra reach. I found the 18-55mm IS never quite long enough, and so I pretty much ignored the general advice of getting the 17-55mm / Tamron 17-50mm for a crop body.
Why I like the 24-105mm:
- Reach.
Why I dislike the 24-105mm:
- People say 24mm isn't wide. They're right. I still use the kit lens a bunch because of this, especially indoors.
- f/4 doesn't allow for low-light, or shallow DOF. I find myself using the 85mm f/1.8, or 50mm f/1.8 in these cases.
- It's not sharp at f/4. I can get sharper shots with the kit lens. Many lenses aren't sharp wide open, but this lens is already f/4, making this even less suitable for low-light or shallow DOF.
Since you have 70mm+ covered. Consider the 17-55mm or Tamron 17-50mm, as they're both f/2.8 and have a wide angle end. The 15-85mm makes a nice choice too, with extra reach on both ends, but not good for low-light / shallow DOF situations. If you went with the 15-85mm, you may want an add-on flash to go along with it, for indoor use.
If you don't need reach, consider the above mentioned 16-35mm lens too. I know nothing about that lens. Depending on what/how you shoot it may be what you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
This paticular picture I didn't have a polarizer on. It turned out well, but one of the things that have bothered me about it is the white areas are close to being blown out. This summer I get to try again [:)] I am thinking if it is a bright sunny day again either a polarizer, or try some other way to deal with the highlights. I may leave the 500mm home this time and just go landscape.
Awesome advice all, I really appreciate it. I will be sure to check out my EXIF data.
The pic of Mammoth is great and, as one of the areas we will travel to, a very good example of what I was looknig for. Was that shot taken at 24mm on the 5d?
Yes I have been, but only as a youngster. I
If you are considering a17-XXmm lens you would probably also be interested in the Sigma 8-16mm or Tokina 11-16mm. The Sigma is sharper and wider than the 10-22mm and the Tokina is a about as sharp, slightly longer on the wide end but has f/2.8.
John.
With my 40d, I had the 17-55mm as well as the 24-105mm L. both were excellent and the 24-105 would have been perfect it it went to 17mm. So, I switched back and forth, but tended to favor the 24-105 in good outdoor light and the 17-55 for wide or lower light.
I
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickH
Yes the 5D II and 24mm. The 24mm was a little to wide I had to crop some off of the sides, you could see the parking lot and boardwalks in it. I found the 24mm to be about as wide as I wanted to go at Yellowstone.
Good luck with your choice and trip.