Help With a Lens

T

thelongmile

Messages
46
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello everyone,

I'm looking at taking my first step into the pro lens market, and I've been slowly eying up the 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L lens for my Canon 40D. However, since I'm relatively new to looking at pro lenses, I'm wondering what else is on the market. I've seen some nice reviews for Tokina, even a few Sigmas. I know that the Canon L range is somewhat pricey in comparison to some other alternatives, so I was hoping for a few recommendations to point me in the right direction.

The lens is generally going to be used as an all rounder, and the reason I've been eyeing up this particular one is because I've been playing with a friends 24-70mm. It is beautiful and seems to suit my definition of 'all rounder' very well, but I'm wondering if I can get the same bang for less buck. Or even more bang for the same

So, any advice is very much appreciated here
 
Last edited:
kokakaste2 said:
Have you looked at 24-105L? If you don't need f2.8 then it is also a nice option :)
Click to expand...

Ahh sorry, I should have said, I am indeed looking for an f2.8 since I'm also looking to use it in reasonably low light, but thanks for the suggestion! although I am aware that the size of the optic (I think that 24 is 77mm) might help a bit in lower light
 
Seeing as its a crop sensor how about the old favourite Canon 17-55mm IS.

Constant f/2.8 and gives a more useful field of view once you consider the 1.6X multiplying factor, don't forget the 24-70 is more like a 38-112mm on a full frame

All depends if you don't need the wider end, personally find it very handy and the 24-70 would be a less useful range for me
 
tijuana taxi said:
Seeing as its a crop sensor how about the old favourite Canon 17-55mm IS.

Constant f/2.8 and gives a more useful field of view once you consider the 1.6X multiplying factor, don't forget the 24-70 is more like a 38-112mm on a full frame

All depends if you don't need the wider end, personally find it very handy and the 24-70 would be a less useful range for me
Click to expand...

Ah I hadn't thought about that, although I'd be somewhat concerned about the sharpness of the lens with it not being a 'pro' version. Thats one of my other chief concerns since I 'may' be moving into this professionally, I'd rather spend more on decent glass that will last me a lifetime, will check out that lens though!

By the way, has anyone had any thoughts on this?
http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx165prodx-a.html

I know of at least three people who have purchased the 11-16, and all have fallen in love with the optical quality etc
 
Last edited:
I may be off tangent here somewhat but how about Tamron 17-50mm F2.8? It's a rather inexpensive piece of kit but offers plenty of bang for your money.
 
although I'd be somewhat concerned about the sharpness of the lens with it not being a 'pro' version
Click to expand...

Don't be, its up there with the best of them for sharpness, if Canon made EF-S lenses in the L range this would definitely be one
 
neoboy said:
I may be off tangent here somewhat but how about Tamron 17-50mm F2.8? It's a rather inexpensive piece of kit but offers plenty of bang for your money.
Click to expand...

The XR Di II LD IF?

If so I've looked at that one very closely, but from what I'm reading the close focus is a little soft and indeed quite soft at narrow aps, not so good in low light. It certainly seems like a bargain for what it can do, but one of my big issues is that I'm starting to shoot quite a bit in reasonably low light, so the size of the element makes a difference to me on this, plus (and this is where it gets tricky) fixed lens hoods or non rotating front elements are appealing to me quite considerably.

Fortunately I do have the money to spend, but I am open to all options. Currently I've seen the Canon at around £700, I can generally go as high as 900 if need be, but if I can get slightly more bang for the buck even better.

I am starting to lean toward the recommendation from tijuana taxi, with the obvious appeal of a red ring aside, it's certainly looking very nice. The focal range of both the 24-70 and the 17-55 are both exactly what I'm looking for in terms of range, more than perfect for what I'm intending to do. Although I admit that I am planning on a 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM at some point, purely for the appeal of the white lens and the red ring even though I know that there is a sigma that seems to be rated almost as highly as that one, but I have to face I need to have at least one red ring in my collection (silly me!)
 
I looked at both the Canon 17-55 and the Tamron 17-50 opting for the Tamron as I found it to be a really good lens for about half the pric of the Canon ( I decided to go with the VC model as I really struggle with camera shake .)
 
thelongmile said:
The XR Di II LD IF?
Click to expand...

Yeah as tempted as I am to invest into an L lens myself, I'm thinking whether I'm really at a stage to warrant using such an expensive piece of equipment yet. Tamron is less than half the price of the Canon 17-55 IS so in my case a perfect upgrade for me to take it further, but of course I don't know what you using so may not be the case for you.
 
How do you find the 17-50 VC John?

Read that a few people rate the non stabilised version better although i don't suppose you could tell without a comparison so just your opinion would be of interest.

I tried several different lenses in that range, but the Canon blew me away with the picture quality compared to the others, but about the only one i didn't try was the Tamron. Mainly because at the time it didn't have VC and I too suffer from the shakes a bit

Longmile, not sure whether or not the 24-70 has IS, but the two extra stops it gives on the 17-55 could be a real bonus in lowlight. One point though, if you do fancy my suggestion don't forget to keep a few quid back for the hood, tight sods don't include one which is a bit much I reckon given the price.
 
Last edited:
neoboy said:
Yeah as tempted as I am to invest into an L lens myself, I'm thinking whether I'm really at a stage to warrant using such an expensive piece of equipment yet. Tamron is less than half the price of the Canon 17-55 IS so in my case a perfect upgrade for me to take it further, but of course I don't know what you using so may not be the case for you.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong it certainly looks like a good lens, unfortunatley my reasons for 'justification' extend to the fact I've shot some celebrities, and I've been invited to do some more (basically I've been booked to be the photographer at Wales ComiCon) as well as shooting people like Gareth David-Lloyd, Neil Rayment etc, set photography for films. It's all kicking off rather quickly and I was given one golden rule when it came to cameras, "get the best glass you can afford", but I to am struggling to find out if what I'm looking at really is the best, or if there is an equally good lens for the same kind of price or even lower, of course there lies the question, do I actually need it!

So I'm open minded, any advice I get from this thread I'll add into the equation as I'll be buying at the end of the month, so I'm just hoping I will be making the right decision!
 
Just remembered there is a new Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 HSM DC EX OS
It gets good reviews and comes in cheaper than the Canon, no idea if anyone on here has one, but must be worth considering

You mentioned the 70-200 earlier, had one and its a very weighty lens, I wouldn't be getting another unless I could afford the IS version. Think for me the f/4 would be far more manageable and cheaper too which is a nice bonus.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to shooting people I'd go for the 24-70 L. Other lenses are available !
It's built to take it, it's super sharp, it'll hold it's value. Buy once, buy right.
 
Unless you've plans to upgrade your body to full frame - an f2.8 lens on a cropped sensor camera like the 40D - the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 is pretty much the ideal lens. It's regarded very highly and I certainly wouldn't be put off by the fact that it doesn't have a red ring.

24-70L is a fantastic lens but remember - you'd be paying for quality glass which your 40D's sensor wouldn't even be making use of.
 
"24-70L is a fantastic lens but remember - you'd be paying for quality glass which your 40D's sensor wouldn't even be making use of."

Indeed, but I think that the important thing here is possibly the "L." Soz to the OP if I'm being a little unkind but personally I'd always pick the right / most right tool for the job rather than give the badge too much weight.
 
Another thumbs up for the 17-55/2.8 IS. Coupled with the crop sensor, it will be awesome. Mine was as sharp as a tack and was a real joy to use. Once I moved FF I got the 24-70. I am happy with this lens, but I wouldn't have changed the 17-55 for it if I could have kept the EF-S format on a FF - Does that make sense?
 
I'm sure that the 17-55mm is a lovely lens and it has IS and USM too but one thing that puts me off, besides the price :) is the size of it.
 
Too small? You're kidding right? :lol:

L1.jpg
 
No, I previously agreed that the 24-70mm was probably the wrong choice for a crop camera. For me it'd be wrong for two reasons, zoom range and it's physical size.

I've not tried the 17-55mm as I prefer relatively compact equipment and so went for the much lighter and more compact (and much cheaper) Tamron. Personally I believe that any IQ differences will be insignificant although IS and USM are lovely and big plus points for the 17-55mm.
 
I think the EF-S 17-55 would suit your crop camera however the 24-70 is a great lens for portraits and i loved it when i was a Canon man.

Dont buy something where in 2 months time you regret it and start again, if your heart is set on the 24-70 really, then just get it and enjoy.
 
Hello everyone.

First of all, thank you to everyone for your replies, they've been brilliant and wonderfully helpful.

To answer some of your questions, yes the red ring does have an appeal, but I thought it better to ask since it's just a 'likeness' rather than an overwhelming desire. I am indeed looking at upgrading the camera in the future, and wanting to invest in a decent lens that will stay the course.

I am sorely tempted by the 17-55 given it's size, the IS and the price, however after playing with the 24-70, I'm still somewhat concerned about the quality of the image (granted this is a superstition and you have all told me otherwise, so I have a solution... read on). Also am I right in thinking that the optic rotates? One of the key things for me here is the ability to use filters and gradient filters, so if the optic rotates, that could be a serious issue. My understanding is that the 24-70's optic doesn't rotate, but does extend. I will need further playing.

I've done a little research into the Tamron and I've been somewhat put off about the tales of softness, vignetting and more, so I'm more or less not considering it, it just doesn't seem to fit the bill (other than the price being nice of course!)

So, I've decided now that I've narrowed it down to two, I'll do the next best thing. Rent. I'm going to rent or loan both lenses for a week, and see what I make of them. I'll be using them on a shoot I have booked, so sadly I won't be able to post pictures (legal) but I will report back.

Once again, thank you everyone for the advice. Oh and Tijuana Taxi, RE the 70-200, not too heavy for where I would use it, and I'm afraid I would have to be a tart on this one... 'cause you know.. it's white :P (I'll allow myself one tarty camera item even if it isn't the most appropriate)
 
Last edited:
Good for you, we all deserve at least one pimptastic lens , hopefully Santa is bringing me mine from the family
My birthday the same week so will be a dual present and its not too outrageous, 400mm f/5.6 L for birdies and beasties

By the way the front element doesn't rotate on the 17-55mm, so no problem with filters and have had a CP on mine
 
tijuana taxi said:
Good for you, we all deserve at least one pimptastic lens , hopefully Santa is bringing me mine from the family
My birthday the same week so will be a dual present and its not too outrageous, 400mm f/5.6 L for birdies and beasties

By the way the front element doesn't rotate on the 17-55mm, so no problem with filters and have had a CP on mine
Click to expand...

Fantastic, thanks for letting me know. So it's really down to quality and how I feel about it. Also, the 400mm... OOOH, cue me cooing, swooning and generally falling in love
 
Hello Everyone, I thought I'd give you a little update on what I've decided to do (and actually done it)

After deliberating over and over and over again about which lens to go for I eventually decided to plop for a second hand 24-70 L lens. The appeal of having glass quality that renound, and the ability to properly use it if I upgrade to full frame, were to big of a lure. The other lenses suggested were brilliant, but since one of them was an EF-S lens, it meant I wouldn't be able to use it on a 5D or 1D for example.

It arrived yesterday, and I've been snapping away quite happily for a while. The focal length issue really isn't an issue at all, it's plenty wide enough, plenty long enough, and the overall quality of it is simply stunning, The weight is actually quite nice and I feel quite a bit more stable taking pictures.

Of course, even with the crop, I'm quite happy, which leads me to my next dilemma. Trade in my 40D and 30D and diabolical 70-300mm Sigma Lens and go straight for a 7D... yes yes I know I talked about a 5D, but hey, this looks awesome, even with the crop.

So Expect a post from me soon... Thanks again all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top