Lens choice, opinions?

John Mc

John Mc

Messages
742
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
So currently sitting in my savings, and growing might I add, is funds for a Canon 5D3. I'm in a bit of a dilemma when it comes to lens choices however. Currently in my arsenal that is be compatible are my 50mm f1.4 and my 70-200 f4 L.

I've been looking at a 24-105 f4 L, mainly because its cheap second hand. But mostly because it covers such a wide range with the added benefit of IS it would be ideal for weight reduction if I only really have space for one lens. This is most likely what I'll purchase but I have a niggling feeling it's not right. The reason being is down to the genre I love the most, Landscapes.

I feel that 24mm wont be wide enough, despite on my 7D I've always been happy with 17mm. I've never really been interested in UWA lenses before. Used a couple of times but the novelty wore off. But after seeing a friends photo set last week, I've been loving the images you can capture. He has a 16-35 f2.8. I like the features this offers, and I can't seem to find a con except, it won't suffice for a general go to/all round lens. I do have the 50mm to bridge the gap between 35mm to 70mm , but changing a lens may and often would mean missing a shot.

Price is obviously also an issue, would it be worth sinking additional money on a lens that I can only realistically shot landscape on? I do plan to shoot landscapes at night,albeit in a few years time when I've perfected my landscapes again. Would it be better sticking with my original plan for the 24-105 and shell for a set of Lee filters and a geared head instead? And upgrade in a few years? Or shell out big for the 16-35 initially and add filters later?

I'm open to suggestions and thoughts.

John
 
Given your love of landscape the new Canon 16-35 F/4.0 L IS, of which I have used and wish I hadn't as I now want one dearly, I would have thought to be the ultimate purchase.
My thoughts on this over the 16-35 F/2.8 (non IS) is although a stop faster, when shooting landscape who uses F/2.8?
And landscapes mostly are shot with a pod so the IS on the F/4.0 won't be needed but how many times are you restricted by a pod?
Thus the IS 4 stops would certainly be used quite often I feel.
The gap between 35 to 50 and then to 70 can easily be taken care of by a step or two at most back or forth, very rarely is there not the space to physically move yourself.
Good luck with your choice & with the full frame 5d mkIII this would be a great combo.
I have now seen & read over & over the good results from this lens, yes twice the price (at least) but it would be a one off purchase.
 
I'll second the 16-35 f4
This lens is so good it made my sigma 35mm f1.4 art redundant.
 
I do agree that I wouldn't use f2.8 to shoot landscapes often, but it would be used when shooting night landscapes when trying to capture stars.I'm about 90mins away from the highlands, so on a clear night I'd get a lot of visibility of the stars. And the reviews of the f4 version is looking to be outstanding. But taking a few steps forward wouldn't have desired effects if I'm stuck behind barriers. And I don't use Is when on a tripod, but would be useful for a walk about.

The 24-105 would be my better option I feel, as it provides one lens to cover a large range if I've only got space in my bag for one. But I'm still unsure!
 
Maybe find a hire shop and try both?
Shame about the barriers?
I would have thought that no one uses IS on a pod. As put in my thread;- And landscapes mostly are shot with a pod so the IS on the F/4.0 won't be needed...
Anyhoo... good luck with your dilemma!
 
24-70mm f/4 IS or 16-35 IS. I'd seriously scrap plans to buy obsolete and not extremely sharp for todays standards 24-105. Also have you seen distortion at 24mm? Just call it 28-105mm.
 
Daugirdas the 16-35 f/4.0L IS I refer to is the new one released this year, it has received nothing but praise about its sharpness right into the corners and with very low chromatic abrasion. Are you thinking about the older 16-35 F/2.8L non IS?
 
I think you need to look into the definition of obsolete. The lenses are in current production and still produce exceptional images.

The main reason I'm looking at a 24-105 is down to budget restrictions. After shelling out over 2K on a camera, I'll have to sell my current camera and lens. Which I'll make around £450-500 if I'm lucky. I'd ideally like the 16-35 f4. But I still feel I wouldn't be happy with the aperture for astrophotography as I'd need to up the iso greatly. One of the main reasons I'm looking at the 2.8 version, why I don't want to spend a lot over my budget on a lens I'd end upgrading a year after purchase.

The 24-105L provides me with a wide enough lens for landscape, to a long enough lens for travel (so I'd only need one/two lenses on holiday) for this reason I'm most likely getting this lens.

With budget in mind, I feel the two options are the 24-105 Is, or if I decide to go for a wide angle, the 17-40 f4. Both these options give me money left over(if bought second hand) to purchase a decent filter system.
 
Last edited:
John Mc said:
I think you need to look into the definition of obsolete. The lenses are in current production and still produce exceptional images.

The main reason I'm looking at a 24-105 is down to budget restrictions. After shelling out over 2K on a camera, I'll have to sell my current camera and lens. Which I'll make around £450-500 if I'm lucky. I'd ideally like the 16-35 f4. But I still feel I wouldn't be happy with the aperture for astrophotography as I'd need to up the iso greatly. One of the main reasons I'm looking at the 2.8 version, why I don't want to spend a lot over my budget on a lens I'd end upgrading a year after purchase.

The 24-105L provides me with a wide enough lens for landscape, to a long enough lens for travel (so I'd only need one/two lenses on holiday) for this reason I'm most likely getting this lens.

With budget in mind, I feel the two options are the 24-105 Is, or if I decide to go for a wide angle, the 17-40 f4. Both these options give me money left over(if bought second hand) to purchase a decent filter system.
Click to expand...

24-70 f/4 IS is £500 ish lens and far far better than the film era 24-105. Just because the old dog has a red ring it doesn't make it good. Other questionable L's include 17-40, old 16-35, 100-400 and 50/1.2.
 
daugirdas said:
24-70 f/4 IS is £500 ish lens and far far better than the film era 24-105. Just because the old dog has a red ring it doesn't make it good. Other questionable L's include 17-40, old 16-35, 100-400 and 50/1.2.
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing that because it has a red ring, it's good. I am however saying I'd be happy with its results I'd have after using the 24-105. The 24-70 may be out of my budget if want to purchase filters. And whilst all I'd really need would be a CPl to begin with, I wouldn't mind one or two Nd grads and a 10 stop.
 
Having owned quite a few of the lenses you mention I'd probably go with the 17-40 if you're looking for a wide angle.

The 24-105 isn't that great - but if you want an allrounder and the versatility of that zoom then it does the job. I think you'd regret buying it for landscapes though.
The 16-35 isn't very sharp at 2.8. You have to stop it down to f/4 before you see good results. So you may as well pay significantly less for the 17-40 AND gain 5mm on the long end. That's arguably more useful than the wider 16mm.
 
Quick update, used the 24-105 this weekend on a friends 6D. Impressed with the quality overall. But disappointed a little with the vignette at the wide end.

Checked a few reviews however on the 24-70. Really impressed. So much so I'm trying to stretch my budget to purchase one. Will be looking to hire one in a few weeks for hands on testing/ reviews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top