[Dork Knight]

Quote:

Originally Posted by martook /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's a lot of options to choose from in this spectrum of lenses. The king of the hill is the Canon 17-55mm f2.8IS, but then again, that costs an arm and a leg as well... but if you want to match that 70-200, your probably have to get this. The Canon 17-85mm is not that highly regarded, but it's of course a lot better than the kit lens. Another option if you think 24mm (x1.6) is wide enough for you (or you plan to get something like the 10-22 later anyway), is the 24-105mm f4 L IS. All third party lens producers make good and fast (f2.8) lenses that are 18-50mm or close to it, worth checking out as well. Check out these sites for reviews: Lens Tests by LightRules Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com FM Reviews - Main Index

I've been looking at images and lenses all day, my eyes are burning and my neck is in agony.

After looking at so many images and on a range on lenses it looks as if I'll be bitterly disappointed if I stick with my original budget, so it looks like my source upgrade will be delayed again - Oh well.

It looks like it's between the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM as you've mentioned martook, and the moment I'm leaning towards the 24-105.

I need a break form the computer for an hour or two before I continue the search.

 

[lan]

azt33, bag are hard... I guess that's why I have about 6 of them for various configurations. You'll have to try a bunch out to see what you like that fits all your gear.

nytryder7, I have some SanDisk Extreme III and IV cards. I have no complaints. They are reliable and fast.

Dork Knight, what exactly are you looking for in these lenses? I can say one of the things I don't like about 17-55 2.8 IS and 24-105 4 IS is the colors. They are a bit boring to me. I prefer the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 24-70. But this is a matter of personal choice. Usually people chose things for the range and function only but I look at colors, distortion, and sharpness.

 

[Dork Knight]

I posted similar yesterday on another forum, so I'll just do a Copy & Paste;

Quote:

At this time I'll be using the lens for what I suppose you could call the main stream, Family, Functions, Nature, Buildings, Events - Lets say Waterfront events, parades etc. I've previously owned a Pentax Optio 5Si but this didn't get much use and of course this is at a different level, so this is my first real venture into this world - So far I've yet to find my feet and I'll start to have to get a feel for what I'll enjoying photographing in the future, everything at this point is appealing.

Not too much help I know, but I suppose if someone offered you one lens which you had to use for a year (along with the EF 70-200) in the $0 to $1,400 range, which would you choose?

The thing that's struck me is nothing seems to compare in sharpness/detail to the 70-200mm, that's to say in the sample and lenses I've looked at on pbase - Of course, as you've stated, it's a matter of personal choice.

It would be nice to see a lens with the sharpness of the 70-200, with something that can bring up vibrant colours - bright and striking.

I've ordered a couple of books on photography, one for CS3 and two others (one for Exposure which should be interesting) - However, I would like to keep the pictures as natural as possible at this time, so to reiterate; a lens with the sharpness of the 70-200 with something that can bring up vibrant colours.

Image Stabilising would be a very nice benefit.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dork Knight /img/forum/go_quote.gif The thing that's struck me is nothing seems to compare in sharpness/detail to the 70-200mm, that's to say in the sample and lenses I've looked at on pbase - Of course, as you've stated, it's a matter of personal choice.

Have you looked at the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L? It's not IS, but since it's a faster lens, it still would be pretty versatile. It would also give you a full range from 24-200mm. The only other way to get a really sharp lens is to look at primes, I'm afraid.

 

[Dork Knight]

I've taken a look at the 24-70 but I thought I favoured the 24-105 instead, however, I've just taken another look and I may have been wrong.

It's crazy the amount of pictures I've looked at these past few days, I'll definably have to take another good look at the 24-70.

I don't want to purchase a lens and then think a couple of weeks later; Why O Why didn't I purchase the other one instead.

 

[lan]

Unless you yourself have taken photos with the lenses and tried a few samples variations, it's impossible to come up with a real conclusion. So I suggest going to a photo store to try them or buy all of them and return/sell the ones you don't like. BUT since you're just starting it doesn't really make much sense to spend all that time and money IMO. I wouldn't worry about it and just get any of them. You need a place to start and a reference point. Sharpness and color saturation you can add in post processing to a certain point. In my taste, 24-105 maybe lacking a little in color but that is in relation to 24-70 not in an absolute sense. It's still a good lense.

You also have to realize 70-200 f4 starts at f4 and people will use that or 5.6. Other photos with 2.8 lenses maybe at 2.8 which isn't as sharp. Did you make sure to see only photos of those other lenses @ f4 or 5.6 also?

I suggest going with a 2.8 lens. You autofocus will be better. Background blue has potential of being better also. f4 doesn't look good IMO unless it's on full frame 5D. So my suggestion is either

Canon 17-55 2.8IS
Tamron 17-50 2.8

I would just go with the Tamron and with the $ saving get a flash and a low light prime.

 

[nytryder7]

Thanks raptor84 and lan.

I have a xti. I'll be shooting some amature sports but mostly auto racing once the season kicks off.

 

[Dork Knight]

Thanks Ian;

I've been randomly selecting images through pbase, any that have grabbed my attention and have exif info I've been paying attention to.

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dork Knight /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've taken a look at the 24-70 but I thought I favoured the 24-105 instead, however, I've just taken another look and I may have been wrong. It's crazy the amount of pictures I've looked at these past few days, I'll definably have to take another good look at the 24-70. I don't want to purchase a lens and then think a couple of weeks later; Why O Why didn't I purchase the other one instead.

Oh, I forgot this link! I KNOW you want to watch a bunch more pics...

-=Lens Sample Images Archive=- (work in progress) - Canon Digital Photography Forums

You probably have to sign up to see all photos, but all Canon owners should be there anyway, if nothing else just for the great Glamour & Nude forum...

Choosing lens is hard, for sure...

17-55 f2.8IS
Great range, fast and IS. If you have no plans of going full frame any time soon and think 17mm is wide enough (no plans on getting the 10-22mm), this is the lens to get I think.

24-70L f2.8
I know I've read some mixed reviews on this lens... noone saying it's a bad lens, but not as good as it's expensive. And heavy. Still a very good lens of course, but can't help but wonder if Canon will re-release it with IS, which will make second hand value drop a bit.
This lens just don't attract me much, so I have a hard time recommending it to someone else

24-105L f4IS
Great range for a walk around zoom and it has IS. f4 is a bit too slow though, you pretty much have to have a fast prime lens in your camera bag as well if you choose this one. 85mm f1.8 would be the natural choice.



Oh, and Ian... boring colors on 17-55 and 24-105? Naw, I don't agree, seen tons of shots with both of them that have great colors. But everyone are allowed to have their own opinion obviously

I should add my planned setup, might shed some light on things I recommend.

I'm waiting to see what the next incarnation of the 5D has to offer, I'd really like a full frame camera, but I think the 5D lacks a few things I want, especially for that kind of money... if the prices keep going down though, I'll probably get one anyway.

So, if I do get a full frame camera, this is the lens setup I'd have (eventually, in a couple of years perhaps):
* Canon 24-105L IS
+ Canon 70-300 DO IS
+ Olympus Zuiko 21mm f3.5 (With adapter. Tiny UWA, since the 24-105L isn't that great at the widest setting)
+ Canon 35L f1.4
* Canon 85mm f1.8
* Canon 135L f2
+ Canon 300L f4

+ lenses I have, * is on my wishlist


But... if the 5D mk2 doesn't have what I want or is too expensive, I can actually imagine staying with crop cameras for one simple reason - the 17-55mm IS lens.
So, if I end up staying at crop camp, I'll keep my 20D for a while longer, until the next 40D arrives. I'll sell my 35L, because it's not a lens I find that interesting on crop cameras, and I'll get this setup instead:

* Canon 17-55 IS
+ Canon 70-300 DO IS
+ Olympus Zuiko 21mm f3.5 (with adapter)
* Canon 85mm f1.8
* Canon 135L f2
+ Canon 300L f4


... that is, unless I skip the 17-55 and get the 10-22 and 24-105 instead, you never know. Damn, it IS hard to decide!

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by azt33 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does anyone have tips for a bag BTW? I have been looking at the Crumpler bags, as I used to have one for my laptop and really liked it. Do you think all my gear (which is not much right now) would fit in something like the Pretty Boy L? My gear: 350D, kit lens, 50mm f/1.8 II, 70-200mm f/4, spare batteries, some cleaning tools and some other small items.

You should check out this site, it's really weird to navigate it, but you'll get a good idea on how much a lot of bags can hold:

CamBags.com - Camera Bags Review Resource for D-Slr cameras. OVER 400 REVIEWS AND 1700 PHOTOS OF CAMERA BAGS FOR CANON & NIKON DIGITAL AND OTHER SLR CAMERAS

 

[raptor84]

Actually depending on your subject distance to the background and distance to the lens you can get quite decent blur at f/4.5 or even at f/4

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/...f94d736c_o.jpg

But man I've tried the 85/1.2 on a 5D and the bokeh was just...

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by martook /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, and Ian... boring colors on 17-55 and 24-105? Naw, I don't agree, seen tons of shots with both of them that have great colors. But everyone are allowed to have their own opinion obviously

Like I said post processing wise, you can change things. So maybe in the end result for some people there's no difference.

Straight out of the camera, the colors are flatter (read more boring to me). I have to process the images' colors to greater extent in those lenses than compared to 24-70 or 35/1.4.

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like I said post processing wise, you can change things. So maybe in the end result for some people there's no difference. Straight out of the camera, the colors are flatter (read more boring to me). I have to process the images' colors to greater extent in those lenses than compared to 24-70 or 35/1.4.

True, you can do a lot with PP of course, I haven't shot with any of the lenses, so I can't say how they look straight from the camera. But I do know I've never seen colors from any Canon lens that can beat the best Contax Zeiss and Leica lenses, some of those are just amazing. Dream setup would be a full frame camera with zeiss 21mm f2.8... that is one crazy wide angle lens. Crazy expensive too...

 

[Dork Knight]

Thanks for the info and link martook.

I couldn't stop thinking about this investment last night and this morning while drifting in and out of sleep.

The upgrade path I've been considering after the next purchase would be;

Flashgun; Metz 58 AF-1 C Digital, Speedlite 430EX or Speedlite 580EX II,
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM

Further down the line depending on how everything turns out;

Prime Lens, possibly save towards the EF 14mm,
Possible body upgrade

I think I'll go for the EF 24-70mm or EF 24-105mm to be honest, the only things which keep running through my mind are:

EF 24-70mm;
Larger and heavier than the 24-105 (probably nearly all hand held use),
No IS,
Faster at 2.8

EF 24-105;
f/4 same as my 70-200, so I have no 2.8 in my current line up,
Lighter and smaller than the 24-105,
Already own the 70-200,
IS

Time to look at more reviews and samples.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by martook /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I do know I've never seen colors from any Canon lens that can beat the best Contax Zeiss and Leica lenses, some of those are just amazing. Dream setup would be a full frame camera with zeiss 21mm f2.8... that is one crazy wide angle lens. Crazy expensive too...

I"ve never tried any of those Zeiss or Leica lenses but one things for sure, I could have a lot more toys and fun for their big prices.

Try the Tamron 28-75 also if you're interested in that range. It's f/2.8, it's cheap and will allow you to get flash and 10-22 NOW.