Advice on Canon EF lenses for a newcomer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Creo
  • Start date Start date
C

Creo

Guest
Just got myself a nice condition 5D Mk1, and all I have is a couple of VERY old Canon lenses from the dim and distant past.
I bought the camera with the intent of getting a couple of better lenses for it but have become so confused reading reviews all over the net about EF lenses that my brain is melting, so would welcome some suggestions and advice from enthusiasts who really know their lenses.

My main interest will be landscapes, especially wide angle, so need a wide angle lens. The 17-40L lens seems to be a suitable candidate but a lot of the reviews are less than glowing. Trouble is Canon dont seem to make much in the way of non-zoom wide angles, the 20mm gets poor reviews, so not sure what to do. A "walkabout" lens would also be good, and the 24-105 seems suitable but again read of many failuries of it after a couple of years and given the price of these lenses I am a bit hesitant.

So, any solid recommendations? Many thanks.

BTW It would be reasonable to ask why I would get a 5D before fully understanding what lenses I intended to buy. Reason is I have a Sony RX10 which I like but hanker to the format I used to use, i.e. 35mm, and the 5D seemed the cheapest route, just in case it didnt work out for me!
 
Welcome Creo. It would be helpful for people to know what your budget is so that recommendations can be made?

You say your interest WILL be landscapes. Do you have a tripod, filters etc? If not you will need them.

As regards lenses. I'll start.

I do a fair bit of LS and primarily use two lenses. Canon 8-15 Fisheye and 24-70 f/2.8 MkII. I have found the latter lens brilliant although not cheap. The fisheye I use more for dramatic wide angle views. I highly rate both of them
 
The new 16-35mm F4L (not the F2.8) might be worth considering for your landscape. Looks like it's a bit sharper and I think it's cheaper although don't quote me on that! It's a zoom but should be pretty damn sharp from what I've seen around so far.

I can't say I've read much about 24-105mm failures but then again I don't own one and haven't looked at purchasing one so I haven't really looked. The Sigma 24-105mm might also be worth looking at if their latest lenses are anything to go by.
 
@BMD and Phal - Thank you for your suggestions. I have Polarising and ND filters for my Sony RX10, but of course will also need them now for the Canon 5D also. Will cross that bridge when I come to it. Yes, have just purchased a Manfrotto tripod.

My great and glorious plan (which doubtless will come crashing down) was to get all set up with the 5D then sell my RX10 and accessories to help retrograde fund it.

Not interested in fisheye as I dont like the effect, some distortion with wide angle is fine for me, but not the whole hog. Ideally I would like something in the 16-20mm range. The 16-35 F4 sounds interesting, but cant see it for sale, the Canon press release quotes £1199 which is too much I think. I guess the 17-40 is favourite unless I find something else.
 
One cheap but ok option is the Canon 20-35mm USM. I had one and used it on my 20D and 5D. It's compact and light and the only real downside I could see was some distortion, not extreme but there and easily corrected post capture with a lens profile.

I also had a Sigma 12-24mm which is IMVHO simply a great lens.
 
Not sure what you've been reading Creo, but both the 17-40 and 24-105 are fine lenses. They are both pro-spec from Canon's premium L-range.

17-40L is a great landscape lens and there's nothing to touch it for the money. There are better lenses than the 24-105L in the 'standard' zoom range, but not much, not for the same cost, and it's versatility is second to none.
 
17-40 and 24-105 are both good lenses, if you work out how many have been made the faulty ones would be a very small percentage.
If you want high quality wide angle try the 24mm mk ii f/1.4
 
Both the 17-40 and 24-105 are perfectly decent lenses which should server you well and would be my recommendations!
 
I think that some of the coolness towards the 17-40mm may be from people using or thinking of using it on Canon crop bodies on which it is more likely to be thought of as rather ordinary as there are one or two sexier 17-50mm f2.8's available.
 
It will be hard to find a cheaper lens than 17-40mm, but like you say it is a bit rubbish in the periphery. If you double the budget you may go for the new 16-35mm f/4L IS, or one of the 24-70mm Ls.

I wouldn't say 24-105mm is that bad, but certainly not as good as the more modern equivalents. The worst thing about it is the distortion at 24mm making it effectively a 28mm when corrected.
 
tijuana taxi said:
17-40 and 24-105 are both good lenses, if you work out how many have been made the faulty ones would be a very small percentage.
If you want high quality wide angle try the 24mm mk ii f/1.4
Click to expand...

I believe 24mm prime is only special because it can do f/1.4 and autofocus. Optically samyang version is a little sharper. On the other hand 24mm TSE L is something out of this world, but rather pricey! I'd love that TSE.
 
Thanks for the suggestions.
I have now pretty much decided (at least for now) to keep my RX10 as a general or "walk about" camera, I am extremely impressed by its performance, and use the 5D for wide angle, so my budget has fallen drastically and really need to get a wide angle lens for £600-ish.
This means most likely candidates are the 17-40L or the Sigma 12-24. Both similar prices.
I might hire them and try them out before committing the spend.
 
Might be worth putting your location in here. There are a number of very friendly members who are happy to meet up and let you try things out if it can be arranged.
 
daugirdas said:
It will be hard to find a cheaper lens than 17-40mm, but like you say it is a bit rubbish in the periphery. If you double the budget you may go for the new 16-35mm f/4L IS, or one of the 24-70mm Ls.

I wouldn't say 24-105mm is that bad, but certainly not as good as the more modern equivalents. The worst thing about it is the distortion at 24mm making it effectively a 28mm when corrected.
Click to expand...

Out of interest, I just measured it. Assuming 24mm is correct (at infinity focus, and Canon's claimed AoV suggests it is) then with barrel distortion corrected the effective focal length increases to just 24.9mm.

daugirdas said:
I believe 24mm prime is only special because it can do f/1.4 and autofocus. Optically samyang version is a little sharper. On the other hand 24mm TSE L is something out of this world, but rather pricey! I'd love that TSE.
Click to expand...

I think you would Daugirdas :) I hired one for a couple of weeks and it'd really suit your style. Sharpness is fantastic, but perhaps even better is its ability to shoot undistorted panoramas, with anything up to a field of view equivalent of around 12mm focal length, while simultaneously doubling the frame area and pixel count (y)
 
Last edited:
Bythesea said:
Might be worth putting your location in here. There are a number of very friendly members who are happy to meet up and let you try things out if it can be arranged.
Click to expand...

I thought I had, but appears not.
I am near Petersfield, south Hampshire area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top