DSLRUsers.com

Hiya guys,

Just got some money in from a client that I was seriously looking as writing off as a bad debt, so I have some money to spend Can you guys help me figure out how?

At present I've got a 40D with the following:
Tammy 90/2.8
Sigma 24-70/2.8
Canon 70-200/2.8L

So... Ive got a China trip coming up soonish and was looking at perhaps getting:
a) Canon 10-22 ( reviews have said this lens is almost at an L Quality build - but not terribly fast also reviews have said that getting any third party lens is a gamble trying to get a 'good copy' )
b) Canon EF 24-105/4L IS. ( A lot of people compare this to the 24-70/2.8 and struggle to choose between the two, I'm in the same boat. ) Was going to sell the Sigma 24-70 if i get this lens.

That leaves me with a Wide Angle, Medium tele, and a tele all with 77mm filters and L quality to glass to boot with the walkaround obviously being the 24-105.

What do you guys think about this? Would you choose a different selection? Or are there any better lenses that I could perhaps get than the above?

Thanks guys,

I vote Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and then the Canon 17-40 f/4L or the 10-22. Maybe get yourself a 580 EX II as well.

edit: I should probably explain myself. The 17-40 is not a very wide lens, but it is L glass and it is meant to be as good as the 16-35mm f/2.8L at the 17mm end. I have used this lens on a number of occaisions and have been fairly impressed by it. Why the 24-70 f/2.8L, purely because it is the Canon version of this lens and not the Sigma, I must be a brand whore, but I would ditch my 3rd party stuff as soon as I can replace is with the Nikkor stuff (provided the quality is better). I dont know if you have any flashes yet, but if you dont then grabbing one cant be harmful.

Bear in mind you'll be stuck if you want a fast f2.8 if you go the 24-105..... and personally I love my f2.8 glass....

Although I have Nikon gear...... but the 28-70 is such a nice lens.

aim54x wrote:Why the 24-70 f/2.8L, purely because it is the Canon version of this lens and not the Sigma, I must be a brand whore, but I would ditch my 3rd party stuff as soon as I can replace is with the Nikkor stuff (provided the quality is better).

Possibly you are. I've got a mix of Canon glass and Sigma (including my beloved 28-70/2.8L), and I'm not anything like convinced enough that the Canon equivalents are worth the extra money. Replacement for replacements sake, when you could be buying extra glass options, or lighting options, seems a trifle foolish to me.

My vote is to buy some light gear, it's extraordinarily good fun. And useful. And to be sure you can cope with f4 on the 24-105.

I can only comment on the wide angle option.

I borrowed a friends ( 5 month old ) Canon 10-22mm for about 2 months and was a little disapointed. I was expecting better for a Canon lens. I can't really say why I wasn't happy, I just wasn't. I wouldn't call this close to an L glass by any means, unlike the Canon 100mm macro ( that should be an L without the price tag ).

So I ended up buying the Sigma 10-20mm only 5 weeks ago ( through this forum ) based on my experience as the extra cost of the Canon wasn't worth it in my eyes. Yes you hear stories about bad copies of the Sigma, but I have 2 Sigma len's and there both great. I think the bad copies are a little over-rated and if you buy the lens from some where reputable then you should be able to take it back for an exchange.

I'd buy the Sima 10-20mm and put the extra $$$ towards the Canon 24-70 L. This is going to be my next lens when I have the $$$.

Cheers

Get the 10-22 as you already have the 24-105 covered with the 24-70 and the 70-200.

I had the 24-105 and while the extra reach and IS was nice, I found myself constantly wanting 2.8 so sold that off for a 24-70. Image quality wise, I found the 24-70 had a bit more contrast than the 24-105.

A nikon D300

10-22 and a 580EXII

Thanks a lot guys for all your input...

It seems that most people are going the 2.8 on the 24-70 over the f4 IS on the 24-105.
I know its probably more usable to 2 stops but canon claims 3 stops functionality with this lens, is there any reason why 2.8 would be better than those extra 2-3 stops down from f4 other than to separate the foreground from the background? Ive gotten quite used to stopping down my sigma 24-70 cos i find its a little soft at 2.8 thats all, and for most of the part i find that even 2.8 isn't sometimes fast enough for low light indoors.

IS will only help you if in low light if you're trying to capture a stationary object. If someone is moving, IS isn't the way to go as you'll need a faster shutter speed. To compensate for that, you use a wider aperture. This is the advantage of the f2.8 over f4. Another way to alleviate this is to get the 50mm f1.4 or the 85mm 1.2 or 1.8

Funny you should mention that That was the road that i was thinking of going down.... God, this is going to hurt me something savage... I think after this I'm going to ask Gary to ban my account from the Bargain's page!.

Right on PiroStitch!!! I actually use my Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 wide open a fair bit, a few of my friends have the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L but I have never heard of them having problems with softness. I think the best solution would be f/1.4 + IS/VR for fast primes and f/2.8 + IS/VR for fast zooms.

I dislike using flashes so I often find myself bumping up the ISO and shooting wide open to get enough light, so fast lenses are a priority for me.

The other reason that I have read on this forum, and makes sense to me, about the advantages of f/2.8 over f/4 is the sharpness at f/4. A f/2.8 lens being stopped down to f/4 would mean it should be sharper than a f/4 lens wide open. The logic seems correct, whether or not you will notice a difference is another thing, I don't own any f/4 lenses so I cant really compare.

Shoot wrote: is there any reason why 2.8 would be better than those extra 2-3 stops down from f4 other than to separate the foreground from the background?

Hi Rob.

Looks like some valuable input for you.

As Wayne mentioned, the difference between the IS at f/4 vs shooting at f/2.8 becomes evident when you're shooting a moving subject.

Regardless of the lens, you can always open your shutter for a longer period, and IS lets you do this while still handholding the camera. The technology is great, but when you're slower than 1/30 and your subject contains movement, that will show in the image. That may, or may not, be desirable, bit the deal is that with a lens that opens to f/2.8, you start to use slower shutter speeds at a later point in the EV equation.

Also, a faster lens should also acquire focus more swiftly (more light), and as has also been mentioned, shooting f/4 on a 2.8 lens is already getting towards your lens's sweet spot, whereas f/4 on a f/4 lens is wide open, and perhaps not the optimal point for that lens.

Thanks so much for all the info guys, I really appreciate the time that you have all taken to help me out

I just read something also that I wasn't aware of and that's that when 1d body's and up start being used they have super quick af focus points which only work with lenses 2.8 or faster. So.. that makes the choices easier.

I think now in light of all the good advise, I'm going to get the 16-35/2.8L for low light and Landscapes, i know its no where near as wide as the EFS 10-22 but when I decide to go to FF its going to be very similar to the 16-35. Ill just have to cope with the limited FOV for the time being and get a little more proficient at stitching images but will gain the ability to shoot in lower light situations indoors and out and have a usable landscape lens.

I know I should get the 24-70/2.8 but I was really trying to avoid taking lugging around the 70-200/2.8 all over the place especially in China where the air isn't apparently so good that a shot at 200m isn't really worth taking. I'm still struggling with the idea of this as you can tell. I guess that for the most part I visualize myself not shooting moving things at night at long focal lengths, and would more errr towards the side of night time city scapes and building shots, and in the daylight would love the added focal length of the 105 to not have to constantly switch to the 70-200 and miss shots.

I'm starting to ramble.. I'm pretty set on the 16-35L but still not 100% on the 24-70 ( which i do already have in a Sigma Version, perhaps that more the issue that I'm having to warrant spending 1k+ on a lens that I already have, albeit no where near as good IMO ).

Thanks for all that info guys, I really do appreciate it and can definitely see your point of view on the 24-70/2.8

I may get shot here, but have u considered getting the Sigma 18-200mm HSM OS for your travel kit? that way you can be very light, and it is no where near as exy as the 24-105 which will essentially be a large overlap over the 24-70.

Or if you want a travel "kit" lens - what about a 70-200mm f4L ? Smaller, lighter, cheaper - I know of a bloke on a another forum who is selling due to upgrading to a f4IS from f4.....

Hummm looking at all these options and weighing up the very likely possibility of upgrading bodies in the near future, perhaps when the Canon FF become affordable I think at this stage I'm becoming a bit of a 'brand whore' also as Aim put it

I'm going to go the 16-35II/.2.8L for landscape / WA, and ill get the 24-70/2.8L + and extender for my 70-200/2.8L.
By my calculations these should be great focal lengths for a Crop body, and when I get a FF body, everything should roughly move down a whole lens step so the 24-70 will become my WA-50mm, and the 16-35 like a Super WA 10-20. At present and correct me if I'm wrong but on a 1.6 i should be getting a 80Degree FOV at 16mm which i can handle for Landscapes.

Thanks so much for all the advice guys.

Wocka wrote:I borrowed a friends ( 5 month old ) Canon 10-22mm for about 2 months and was a little disapointed. I was expecting better for a Canon lens. I can't really say why I wasn't happy, I just wasn't. I wouldn't call this close to an L glass by any means, unlike the Canon 100mm macro ( that should be an L without the price tag ).

I've had the 10-22 for about 6 months Wock and I've no doubts it would be an L lens if it wasn't EF-S. It is the most fun lens money can buy, is sharp as a tack and has sensational colours. Sometimes it's too wide and one does have to be careful in composing a shot.

For architecture, large group shots etc it can't be beaten on a 1.6 crop body.

Just my two bob's worth...

Ozi

Awwwwww I knowwwwwwww I'd love to get that too I had a look at the pics from Dave's 10-22mm... It's now sadly a case of $$ with the 16-35 and 24-70 an extender, and a flash trigger I've spent more than I thought I would...

Shoot wrote:I've spent more than I thought I would...

Don't ya hate it when that happens.