Lens advice....

[specialman]

...So I'm in the middle of trying to pry open the company purse strings to upgrade our 10 camera kits.

We run 17-40mm f/4s, 100mm macro and the like on a real motely crew of bodies, ranging from 10D to 40D. Thing is, anything older than the 40D is pretty much worn out these days so I've put in for some 50Ds and some 75-300mm IS lenses.

Anyway, the main problem is this; due to our previous 'Einstein' who decided that mid-range zooms would be perfectly catered by the standard EF 28-80/90 (utter rubbish) we are now in a position where we need a whole fleet of lenses in or around this focal length.

We already run one or two 28-105mm and 28-135mm lenses, which do the job and will stay, but I was looking a either the 24-85mm or the 28-105mm.

I think the 24-85mm might be the better bet because A) it's cheaper (always good with the boss) and B) it seems to be a bit better going by the reviews.

Anyone got ideas about these lenses?

Before anyone bangs on about 24-70mm f/2.8s and 24-105mm f/4s they aren't an option - they're too expensive.

Cheers in advance

 

[RicherSea]

What kind of stuff are you shooting, and what is your end output?

 

[specialman]

Subject: anglers, anglers with fish, fish - anything fishy. We shoot for an angling publisher.

End product: Monthly A4 national magazines aimed at anglers with so-so paper quality.

I use Nikon so don't really have a clue about Canon

 

[mikeyt]

tamron 28-75 2.8 is a belter. The one I had was as sharp or sharper than my canon L 24-70.

not as wide though. Obviously.

 

[specialman]

The Tamron is a good piece of kit I'll agree, probably much better than the Canon alternatives I've highlighted. Got a Tamron 17-50mm myself and it's awesome.

For the moment I've just gone with Canon as the choices to present tot he boss because A) Tamron/Tokina doesn't really mean anything to him, and B) we bought a load of 3rd party lenses once (Sigma 17-35mm) and they performed badly; poor edge sharpness and irregularities in the focussing on the old EOSD bodies. That's why I'm not going anywhere near the Sigma 24-70mms, even if people do say they are good.

It's very hard to convince non-photographers who hold the purse strings just how valuable a fast aperture, or better build quality is when making a purchase, even when that purchase will be used extensively through the year for several years. If I had carte blanche I'd keep the 17-40s, the good flashes and the macro lenses and just buy 24-70mms, 100-400mm ISs and some 7Ds....


....or alternatively I'd get Nikon because I know they work better

I will suggest also instead of the Canon 10-22mm that we go for a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 instead - better lens IMO. Anyone agree/disagree?

Oh, also, is there any of the modern Canon flashes that do wireless via optical triggers? We can't afford PWs and Skyports galore so optical it'll have to be; but I can't see a light sensor on the 430 or the 580 - are they just wireless through a master flash and a slave flash?