View Full Version : which L lens should be the first to buy?
After doing a bit a research--Have a bit of an itch to buy a L series Canon lens.
Just not sure which on.
I have 85mm f/1.8 and a zoom lens--18-200mm f 3.5-5.6-canon on a 550d body
Wondering which L LENS --- ? EF 16-35 mm f/2.8 L
EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS
or others?
sounds like you've decided to get an L before deciding what kind of focal length you're after! what kind of photography do you prefer? a 100-400mm would greatly expand your focal length range
I would like a great lens to take holiday architecture--NYC, HK , Rome , as well as full body portraits--im off on holidays next friday--Only 11 days to go----yipee--5 1/2 weeks
cant wait....
Maybe when I have the cash again get a lens that allows my wife to take action pictures of me playing--Im a fast bowler (Cricket) --cricket season restarts in October. So not sure if the 18-200mm canon that I have at moment will take close up pics from the boundary?
What do you think?
DAdeGroot
04-05-2010, 9:46pm
16-35 is nice and having f/2.8 is useful, esp in low light, BUT the 17-40L will get you a similar field of view at half the price with only one stop slower (f/4) and has cheaper filters (77mm compared to 82mm on the 16-35).
ameerat42
04-05-2010, 9:52pm
Given that it's an L lens you're after AND your camera is a 1.6x crop sensor AND you're interested in architecture AND in full body portraits, then the 24-105 would end up being a bit too narrow IMO (equiv. 38-170 mm approx). At least the 16-35mm would give you a wider field, being 25-56mm equiv. But having said that, you might find the second one still a bit narrow for architecture, especially for inside architecture. (???). Am.
tomtom1
04-05-2010, 10:03pm
17-55 f/2.8 given you have a crop body. It's not L but the name of the lens shouldn't really be a consideration.
24-105 or 24-70 if you are getting ff later.
Tricky
04-05-2010, 10:26pm
16-35 or 17-40 if it has to be an L... or 10-22mm if the priority is to take travel pictures in Europe (mine lives on my camera when travelling and taking pictures of architecture, monuments etc; you really need wider than 16mm for that on a cropped body).
carrg1954
04-05-2010, 10:32pm
I'd be looking at your current photos on seeing what is your most used focal length. I'd then go for something in that range. Consider if the current lens is a limiting factor. I would caution about getting a 70-200 f4 unless you plan it mostly for outdoors. That said a f4IS is very sharp, though I'd suggest much too short for cricket. If you have load of cash 3.4k at least then get a new 70-200 f2.8 mk2 reports are these are taking 2x convertor very well so will then do double duty in the cricket season. Its easy to talk about but seriously be careful you pick the right one for you. Also think if you are going to go full frame later, then best not to look at EF-S gear best of luck.
bigdazzler
05-05-2010, 7:41am
dont disregard the Sigma 10-20 .... thats one funky lens and a little cheaper than the Canon 10-22 ;)
The 16-35 would never be a bad buy, particularly if you plan to upgrade to full frame in the future.
One tip I will give you, an ultra wide lens (Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22) is HEAPS of fun to travel with .. your photos will be a whole heap more interesting. :th3:
The Sigma is a great lens, I had one and was extremely happy with it! The 16-35 II is a great lens also, very nice but alas its not cheap, so you need to decide if you really need that extra stop with it and the extra IQ it provides.
You've got a bit of a mixed bag lens wise, in all honesty I think if you are going travelling a wide will be best but you've stated you want to get an L, any wide angle L isn't wide on a 550D so it's a bit of a problem. Unless you are getting FF in the next 12 months or so get something that will be wide on the 550D would be the go I'd say.
16-35 or 17-40 if it has to be an L... or 10-22mm if the priority is to take travel pictures in Europe (mine lives on my camera when travelling and taking pictures of architecture, monuments etc; you really need wider than 16mm for that on a cropped body).
+1 is a great walkabout lens
carr0t
05-05-2010, 12:15pm
I would say from the choice that you have listed above, the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS would be the way to go. This is my every day walk around lens and i love it. I don't think you will go wrong with this lens. However for portrait photography, i love using the 70-200 f/2.8.
Good luck with your purchase.
dulvariprestige
05-05-2010, 4:50pm
For the price of the 16-35, you could almost get a 24-105 and the sigma 10-20, I have both, and if I only want to go light, these are the two that i take, also, if you weren't worried about having L glass, the sigma 24-70 2.8 and 10-20 will definitely be under the price of the 16-35 alone.
For the price of the 16-35, you could almost get a 24-105 and the sigma 10-20, I have both, and if I only want to go light, these are the two that i take, also, if you weren't worried about having L glass, the sigma 24-70 2.8 and 10-20 will definitely be under the price of the 16-35 alone.
+1 on this idea: have had the Sigma 10-20 and later got the Canon 10-22mm and did not notice much difference on my 1.6 crop body 50D: great for wide angle landscapes and architecture work and the 24-105mm is a very very good walk about IS lens which is very sharp and reliable I have found (particularly hand held) across the 24-105mm range which brings in the idealised portrait lengths on your crop body between 85-130mm , perfect. Plus you don't to lug the weight and awkward carry of the 70-200mm 2.8 around all day -
The only concern would/could be not having the 2.8 faster apeture indoors or when you are shooting moving subjects cf the 4.0 but I find most of the time bumping up the ISO a stop or 2 covers the deficiency pretty well.
You might want to look at the 16-35mm later on but to begin with I would go with the 10-22mm Sigma and Canon 24-105 IS USM pairing. I found them both to be very good travel lenses.
bigdazzler
05-05-2010, 6:29pm
Most times you wont shoot wide open at UWAs anyway .. no need when shooting landscapes, casue most times youll be on a tripod anyway and handheld shutter speeds arent imperative.
Personally I dont think fast apertures on UWA lenses is a must have.
what great advice guys
thanks heaps
Should I buy here online r via shop (Im in Melbourne) or in HK (i leave oz next sat morning and spend 3 days in HK)--then off to europe for 5 weeks and then lastly 1 week in NYC before return to reality
or NYC
where would be cheapest--for 10-22 mm and 24-105mm-canon with filters i guess
?
bigdazzler
05-05-2010, 6:56pm
B&H or Adorama in NYC would be good value at the moment with the AUD so strong. But I guess thats at the end of your trip, so that kinda sux ..
Id wait and buy in HK ... that way theres no risk with anything "mysteriously going out of stock" like they regularly do in some of these online stores. Buy in HK and then you got it in your hot little hand and ready to fire it up !! :th3:
dulvariprestige
05-05-2010, 6:59pm
If you buy online, i'd make sure it's an Australian shop that you're dealing with, and that they have stock on hand, you'd hate it if your lenses didn't turn up in time.
I've dealt with Cameras direct on the gold coast, and Discount Digital Photographics in Brisbane, both sell grey products and are great to deal with.
ATM, cameras direct are showing the sigma 10-20 for $697 and the 24-105 for $1,355, both in stock
thanks again
is there any diff b/w sigma and canon lens (eg 10-22mm)?
and what lens cover size do i need for both of these?
dulvariprestige
05-05-2010, 8:54pm
I think the biggest difference between the two is the price, a $1,000 for the canon, as David mentioned, he didn't notice between the two, I'm not sure if he meant in IQ or the extra 2mm you get with the canon, both lenses use 77mm filters and have quick focus drives, I've never used the canon, but I'm very happy with the sigma, I've used it on fast moving objects and never had any problems with focusing issues.
I think the biggest difference between the two is the price, a $1,000 for the canon, as David mentioned, he didn't notice between the two, I'm not sure if he meant in IQ or the extra 2mm you get with the canon, both lenses use 77mm filters and have quick focus drives, I've never used the canon, but I'm very happy with the sigma, I've used it on fast moving objects and never had any problems with focusing issues.
has anyone used this site to buy lenses or gear?
As they are quite cheaper than the sites that were mentioned earlier in this thread from brisbane?
I have the 24-105, its absolutely sucks on a cropped sensor camera. Its literally almost useless. It just sat in my room while i used my 50mm 1.8. Then i went full frame and it is brilliant. Never comes off.
My bro has the 17-40, its awesome on the cropped sensor and insane on the full frame. I think the 16-35 is overkill, its way more expensive than the 17-40 and would you ever need f2.8 on a landscape lens?. Plus with the 17-40 you can get on from b&h for less than $800 AUD Delivered to your door. Its a bargain. No stamp duty or tax. Do it :)
dulvariprestige
06-05-2010, 5:46am
Which site are you talking about
I have the 24-105, its absolutely sucks on a cropped sensor camera. Its literally almost useless. It just sat in my room while i used my 50mm 1.8. Then i went full frame and it is brilliant. Never comes off.
My bro has the 17-40, its awesome on the cropped sensor and insane on the full frame. I think the 16-35 is overkill, its way more expensive than the 17-40 and would you ever need f2.8 on a landscape lens?. Plus with the 17-40 you can get on from b&h for less than $800 AUD Delivered to your door. Its a bargain. No stamp duty or tax. Do it :)
But who is to say it's only for landscape? I use mine a lot for action shots plus as someone else said that extra 1mm is a reasonable difference. Just because it's wide doesn't mean it's only a landscape lens.
I also found the 24-105 very good on a crop body, I guess it all depends on what we shoot at the end of the day.
But who is to say it's only for landscape? I use mine a lot for action shots plus as someone else said that extra 1mm is a reasonable difference. Just because it's wide doesn't mean it's only a landscape lens.
I also found the 24-105 very good on a crop body, I guess it all depends on what we shoot at the end of the day.
Er the OP did. He said for holiday architecture and full body portraits. He has an 85mm and an 18-200mm. So why would he want a 24-105 as well? 24mm on a cropped body would be TERRIBLE for holiday architecture/street photography.
If the 1mm difference is worth hundreds of dollars then so be it. But i would think the 5mm on the other end that are lost may be even worse in terms of general usability.
bigdazzler
06-05-2010, 2:37pm
24mm on a cropped body would be TERRIBLE for holiday architecture/street photography.
.
Why would it ?? Architecture ok. But 36mm equiv. would be perfectly usable for holiday/street shots. I think youre exaggerating mate, but as always it depends on what you want to take pictures of.
Er the OP did. He said for holiday architecture and full body portraits. He has an 85mm and an 18-200mm. So why would he want a 24-105 as well? 24mm on a cropped body would be TERRIBLE for holiday architecture/street photography.
If the 1mm difference is worth hundreds of dollars then so be it. But i would think the 5mm on the other end that are lost may be even worse in terms of general usability.
I never said for him to buy the 24-105, I actually recommended he buy a WA for crop if you read further up. I'm just stating that the 24-105 isn't terrible on a crop body, which you did say and is an over exaggerated comment.
I would dare say that extra 1mm, f2.8 and better IQ is worth the money in my books and many others. I'd love to go buy a TS-E so I could really get into architectural photography but I can't afford to drop $2500 on a single purpose lens then another $1800 WA zoom for the rest of my photography. At least with the 16-35 I can do action work, landscape, architectural etc... with the most versatility and best IQ in the most cost effective package for those applications. That's why it is recommend, it's a very versatile lens, more so than the 17-40.
JM Tran
06-05-2010, 3:25pm
look I'll settle this debate for u kids
Buy the Canon 28-300 L!!!!!!
its got the zoom, the IS, its white and u can legally say u own an L lens!
OP didnt mention anything about wanting good IQ though, hehehehe
bigdazzler
06-05-2010, 3:39pm
its white and u can legally say u own an L lens!
cause of course thats all that matters in this game ... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
See you teased me before and now you got me started .. :action::lol:
its got the zoom, the IS, its white and u can legally say u own an L lens!
I thought it was the red ring....
Don't want those sony or nikon guys with white lenses thinking they own a real lens ;)
I have the 24-105, its absolutely sucks on a cropped sensor camera. Its literally almost useless. It just sat in my room while i used my 50mm 1.8. Then i went full frame and it is brilliant. Never comes off.
The 24-105 is great on a cropped sensor.... provided you also own a 10-22 and don't mind swapping lenses every now and again (or own a second body). The 10-22/24-105 were made for each other... ;)
The 24-105 is great on a cropped sensor.... provided you also own a 10-22 and don't mind swapping lenses every now and again (or own a second body). The 10-22/24-105 were made for each other... ;)
Amen: I had that combo and it worked really well for me. still wondering why I sold the 10-20 and went with the Canon 10-22mm L ..not much difference from where I stand cept it cost more.. doh.
When I bought the 40D some time back I agonised over what lens to put on. I still had the 20D with its standard grade 17-85mm, so in the end I went for the L 24-105mm. As K Rudd would say. 'you know something'...I have never regretted the decision.
ravescar
10-05-2010, 12:07pm
For a crop sensor, 17-40mm f4 L for me.
For a ff, 24-105 f4 L would be a good bet.
For a crop sensor, 17-40mm f4 L for me.
For a ff, 24-105 f4 L would be a good bet.
Exactly. Couldn't agree more.
wattsgallery
11-05-2010, 12:15pm
Just spent 2 weeks testing a 24-105 on a 5d II and a 40D.
I found the IQ of the lens on the 40D nice and a noticable improvement to the non L lenses I had used (but not the L primes). I agree the focal length is restrictive at the wide end but I also had a 10-22 so that matched ok. To the OP I think the Canon 10-22 is the best bet to really open up your photographic opportunities in the short term on a crop camera. If buying Sigma make sure you have time to test it and replace in case you get a poor copy (I had to do that for 10-20 I bought years ago).
Interestingly I was surprised that I didn't love the lens on the FF. The range was good but for that sort of money I wasnt happy with the vignetting and distortion at the 24mm end and a soft area in the middle of the range (around 70mm). I also wasn't happy with the lens/barrel creep. I also found f4 a bit restrictive some times. Perhaps a bad sample (but it was on loan from Canon). Probably convinced me not buy one myself but given the IQ and versatility I can see why people do love it.
Good luck.
ravescar
11-05-2010, 3:36pm
Vignetting and barrel distortion are easily corrected using eg DPP.
kwokask
11-05-2010, 5:02pm
My first L lens was the 70-200 f/4L - had to have the white colour with red ring.
alistair
11-05-2010, 10:43pm
With the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L is it just a toss up between the longer focal range or the faster lens or is there noticeable difference between image quality etc...
wattsgallery
12-05-2010, 4:41pm
With the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L is it just a toss up between the longer focal range or the faster lens or is there noticeable difference between image quality etc...
In the limited use I have had of the 24-70 there is an IQ diff in its favour but in real life whether it is a dealbreaker is your call. Some other factors are weight and IS.
Ill start by saying that I hate when a thread starts by specifying the brand/level of lens wanted yet the use isnt the main feature of the purchase. I have used both the lenses you want, and the 17-40, and 24-70 on crop and full frame. I dislike all of them on crop. They are either way to long or have too short a range. If i was buying for crop there is no way I wouldnt buy the 17-55/2.8 IS. Good focal length rated by lots of people to be better than the two other Ls. Plus 2.8 and IS.
James Axford
12-05-2010, 10:40pm
i own both the 17-40 and the 24-104 for a fair while... both good lenses.
I think I see more amazing photos coming from the 16-35 than these though.
I wold get one but i already to too many WA's :)
James Axford
12-05-2010, 10:48pm
double post
The_Camera_Poser
14-05-2010, 8:01pm
Canon 17-40L from the US, and a Canon 70-200/4L, and get a monopod if you need one.
Why compromise? :-)
I highly recommend the 24-105mm. I have it on my 40D and took it to Europe. It was brilliant next to 10-22mm. The 24-105mm is crazy sharp even at F4. The 24-105mm is definitely not wasted on a crop body.
24-105mm Macro Style - Click if you want it bigger.....
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4303272428_de74cc1670_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nige_mar/4303272428/sizes/o/in/set-72157623118208704/)
sonofcoco
17-05-2010, 8:50pm
My first (and currently only) L lens was the 70-200mm f4L. It's a beautiful lens, but I think first you should work out exactly what you want it for and then come up with a list of lenses that would suit the purpose. I was planning to get a 17-40mm f4L lens a couple of months back, but ended up going for the 10-22mm at the last moment after doing some reading online. Decided the UWA was a better option than the 17-40 as I won't be upgrading to full-frame for some time...unless I win the lotto.
The 10-22mm is a fun lens.
dulvariprestige
17-05-2010, 9:50pm
Last week I added a 5d classic to my list of gear, and while I didn't mind the 24-105 on my 7d, and still don't,But this lens is definitley more versitile on the 5d, so now I've decided to sell the 10-20 and get a 17-40 as this will give me UWA on the 5d and wide angle on the 7d.
I now see why people love full frame.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.