Help deciding on next lens

[jrw]

24-70 is known as 'The Brick'. You might have a hard time convincing the wife that it is light. Would suggest waiting for vII to come out to see if IQ is as good as promised. Alternate after it comes out is vI on used market. Price might come down if enough current owners upgrade. Still no IS though.

17-40 is a good landscape lens. Not so good at wider apertures. Starts to behave from f6.3 and onwards. Hard to recommend as a general purpose lens.

24-105 is a respectable general purpose lens. Aperture is a limiting factor for some. Corner softness wide open bothers others but it does, despite its flaws, satisfy many owners. Covers a nice focal range and has IS. Comparing the ISO charts it isn't too terribly different from 24-70 over much of the common range other than vignetting and wide end distortion.

Will leave discussing the primes to others.

[Richard Lane]

The 24mm f/1.4 looks great (I don't own it), but it will limit you for now. I would vote for the new 24-70mm f/2.8L II (which will also be lighter than version I) or if you want to save money then get the version I which I own for the past few years. I must have a nice copy of that lens, because I love it and I've hard others like HDNitehawk to be less than thrilled, but I think it has improved over the years. The Version II has 82mm threads and the version I has 77mm threads, just like your 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, so if you share filters than version I has an advantage or you could get an adapter ring.

If you're trying to save weight then the 24-105mm f/4L IS will be lighter for your wife. (I like the way you think).

For landscape, I will throw the 16-35mm f/2.8L II into the mix and that lens shouldn't be too bad on the 40D either.

Rich

[HDNitehawk]

For landscape, I will throw the 16-35mm f/2.8L II into the mix and that lens shouldn't be too bad on the 40D either.

Rich

I like Rich's addition over the other zooms listed. I have a 16-35mm II and it is an excelent zoom lens. It might even be an easier sell the idea to the wife.

If you are real serious about landscapes though, go with the prime.

(still I am waiting on the 24-70mm II)

[Mpieris]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I'm not too concerned about weight because as I mentioned, I think my wife is on to me ��. Also, it's a pretty easy sell if she really wants to improve in IQ from the kit lens. She's actually never complained about the weight when i let her try the 70-200. I just tried to convince her (unsuccessfully) that it was a drag. Based on the discussion, I'm more inclined to wait for the 24-70 II reviews. I like to have the flexibility of having pretty high IQ from 24-200 with these two lenses. I think a wide angle prime and a bigger telephoto zoom will be added in the future. But for now, i'd probably get more mileage out of the 24-70mm than something else.

[Mpieris]

One other question came to mind. I've never owned a non IS lense before or a tripod. If I go with a 24-70, can it only be used effectively with a tripod?

[thekingb]

One other question came to mind. I've never owned a non IS lense before or a tripod. If I go with a 24-70, can it only be used effectively with a tripod?

It's all about having sufficient shutter speed. The rule of thumb is that your shutter speed should be at least the inverse of the focal range on a full frame camera. On a crop camera, you need to adjust for the crop factor. For example, if you're shooting at 60 mm on a full frame camera, you would want a shutter speed of at least 1/60 of a second. On a crop camera, you would probably want at least 1/100 of a second.

If you have very steady hands, you can get away with a slower speed. If you have shaky hands, like me, you often need a faster shutter.

Some photography teachers, like Bryan Peterson, tell you to use a tripod as often as possible. One benefit is that it slows you down and forces you to really think about your image. It's a great idea in theory, but it's often impractical, at least it is for me.

[jrw]

A lot will depend on the time of day when you are taking your landscape shots. Early morning and evening shots will turn out better with a tripod especially if you are narrowing the aperture for the greater depth of field which will mean longer shutter times.

[Richard Lane]

You won't need a tripod with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L unless you want to use one.
Here are two samples without a tripod:


MKIV: @70mm f/7.1 1/640sec. ISO 100 Handheld

7D: @24mm f/3.5 1/40sec. ISO 3200 Handheld from a boat

[Mpieris]

Thanks everyone and nice pics Richard. Sounds like a tripod isn't a must. That said, I wanted to get one for certain occasions. I'm sure tripods have been discussed at length on this forum. If you guys can point me to a thread that may help me in deciding which tripod and ball head to go with, that would be great. I'm looking for something that would be able to handle the weight of my 70-200 f/2.8 and sturdy enough to take the weight of something larger if/when I get into the bigger telephoto lenses. I'd like to get something that has a good balance for stability and weight. I know these are going against each other, but for me they are probably 50/50 in terms of importance to me. Appreciate your thoughts.

[HDNitehawk]

Thanks everyone and nice pics Richard. Sounds like a tripod isn't a must. That said, I wanted to get one for certain occasions. I'm sure tripods have been discussed at length on this forum. If you guys can point me to a thread that may help me in deciding which tripod and ball head to go with, that would be great. I'm looking for something that would be able to handle the weight of my 70-200 f/2.8 and sturdy enough to take the weight of something larger if/when I get into the bigger telephoto lenses. I'd like to get something that has a good balance for stability and weight. I know these are going against each other, but for me they are probably 50/50 in terms of importance to me. Appreciate your thoughts.

With the larger super telephoto lenses you will end up wanting a head and tripod that you will not use on the smaller gear.

But the question is, how much do you want to spend for a tripod and head?

Gitzo is one of the best legs if you want to lay out the high price for it.

I have the Acra Swiss Mono Ball Z1, and it is solid as a rock but expensive.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...1_dp_with.html