Reality check please

[btaylor]

Evening all,


I've just sold a couple of guitar amplifiers so I'm going to spend the cash on a new lens... and I can't decide.


To give you a bit of a background on my situation I live in outback Australia, so the conditions can be rather harsh and dusty. As I've found with my 28-135mm f/3.5 -5.6 IS USM whichhas gathered some dust on the inner lens element (otherwise I've been quite happy with this lens). I love to shoot dramatic landscapes but I also enjoy shooting rodeos, rugby union and general walkaround type stuff. I think I'm close to reaching the limit of my current gear so an upgrade is in order.


At the moment my kit includes a 40D, 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, 50mm f/1.8,kenko extension tubes for macro stuff (I highly rate them by the way), 430 EXII flash etc etc.


So at the moment in my list of possibles and probables are:


EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM (clearly for the landscape side of things)


24-70mm f/2.8 L USM


24-105mm f/4 L IS USM


70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM


I really appreciate having IS on the 28-135 but it's not a must. If I got the 10-22 I guess I'd use it mostly for landscape work and use the 28-135mm I already have for the rest. However, I've always wanted a 70-200 fast lens so I'm rather torn.


Any thoughts? Thanks in advance. Ben.

[Dallasphotog]

I own the EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM and the EF70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM you mentioned. They are both really fantastic lenses. If I was picking for you, I'd get the 70-200. The image stabilization makes me a better photographer and you are going to love the results at Rugby and Rodeo shoots.

[Keith B]

This is tough. If you really love shooting landscapes I say go with the 10-22.


My main walk around lens on my 5D II is the 16-35 II, which is the range you'd have with 10-22 on the 1.6 crop. It is on my camera 80%.


I have 70-200 2.8 IS, which I love and would never part with, It gets the 2nd most usage. So I'd suggest go with 10-22 now, put the left over cash in the bank and start saving to get the 70-200 next.

[Bill M.]

It all depends on what is more important to you and what you shoot most. If you really shoot a lot of landscapes then the 10-22 will open up a whole new world for you compared to the 28-135. As a general walk-around lens, the 24-70 or the 24-105 would be good choices. I started with a 17-40 for my 20D a few years back and then moved to the 24-105 and liked the extra tele range I had with it. Now that I primarily shoot with a 5DII, I keep the 24-105 on most of the time.


The 70-200 2.8 IS is certainly a great lens to have and if you do shoot a lot of action in low light, then its almost a necessity, but again, it all depends on your priorities right now and what you want to improve on immediately.


Good luck!

[Seth Tower]

The 10-22 was my favorite (zoom) lens on a 1.6x camera. It's truely revolutionary how W I D E 10mm is. I highly recommend it.

[alexniedra]

The image stabilization makes me a better photographer

Hmm....

[Benjamin]

Generally agreed with Keith.


I have the 16-35 II on my 1V-HS all time and it get's lots of use. I can imagine the 10-22 on a 40D to serve just the same except for being slightly slower. Put the 70-200/2.8 IS on the second place of your wish list makes sense, since you have had a wide angle, the 70-200 will take care all your sport and portrait works. Dont worry about a normal zoom once you got your wide angle and tele range covered, through in a 50/1.4 or 35/1.4 depends on your need will just work fine.


I have a 24-70L, I will choose the 24-70 over 24-105 since the 24-70L is an optically superior lens. IS does not play a great role in this focal length, certainly not as much as the IS in 70-200. But now i could sell my 24-70 and buy a 50/1.4 if i wish to free some cash while not making any sacrifice.

[Bill M.]

Just curious Benjamin, why do you say that the 24-70 is an optically superior lens? Did you ever have the 24-105?. I have rented the 24-70 on three occasionsand did so because it is a 2.8 but comparing the results between my 24-105 and the 24-70, I didn't find the images "superior". Maybe I am just lucky to have a sharp copy...or maybe the rented copies were a little off...


You are correct in that the IS is more important in the 70-200 range but I have found the IS has saved me on more than one occasion on the 24-105. Just my .02 that's all.

[Benjamin]

<span style="font-size: medium;"]Bill,


<span style="font-size: medium;"]I actually had the 24-105L before I exchanged for the 24-70L.


<span style="font-size: medium;"]By optically superior, the f2.8 is indeed a great deal for me. I shoot portrait and indoors; my experience shows that to go from f4 to f2.8 some time is the difference between "give-a-go" and "give-up", or between "nice blur" and "distracting background". Other than the aperture, the 24-70 has far less distortion at 24mm compared to the 24-105 - that sometime shows up on my landscape shots. The 24-70 @ f4 seems to perform a little bit better than the 24-105 wide open at comparable focal lengths (especially for contrast and vignette).


<span style="font-size: medium;"]Sharpness is something that I personally don't worry too much about as long as I'M USING A "L" LENS (which is an insurance for overall optical performance). I observe every parameter of my lenses from my real life shots not from just reading the ISO12233 results - because i believe what makes a lens a better performer is what it can deliver in real life. Don't get me wrong though, the ISO12233 charts that Bryan has been putting great effort in doing give me, in fact, everybody out here a great idea about which lens is sharp and which one is not so sharp. On the other hand, people looking at the charts and conclude (I always hear) that the 24-105 is sharper than the 24-70, the 70-200/4L IS is sharper than the non-IS 70-200/4L, etc... In practice, those difference in sharpness is something that's extremely hard for me to find and justify. It's not even because I don't pay enough attention on finding the difference in sharpness from my photos, it's just the matter that those difference in sharpness can be well ignored and you certainly will by no means get less sharp images if you choose one lens to the other. Choosing a 24-105 over the 24-70 because of the concern regarding sharpness does not make any sense to me, neither choosing the 70-200/4L IS over the non-IS model.


<span style="font-size: medium;"]I LOVE the IS on every lens that has it. It helps a lot when I handhold it to shoot. However, it's does nothing to stop your object from moving as you know. To me, to be able to shoot with a faster shutter speed in low light is more important, and I do need the extra stop background blur.


<span style="font-size: medium;"]I think it's personal to choose between the 24-70L and the 24-105L. Both are great lenses, depends on what you use them for. But in terms of optical performance, the 24-70 is the overall winner.


<span style="font-size: medium;"]Just my BS, no offence[]


<span style="font-size: medium;"]Benjamin

[Dallasphotog]

The image stabilization makes me a better photographer

Hmm....
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I'm a big fan of Av shooting and I don't always watch the shutter speed that carefully. Without IS, 1/30 and slower begins to look a little blurry. When IS is running, I can pretty much shoot away. Not to mention what you can get away with in a dark wedding.