OK... My Lens Dilema... Canon!!!

captures.in.time

captures.in.time

Messages
1,764
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just bought a 24-105mm to replace my 28-135mm. That decission is done and dusted. I will now sell my 28-135mm to raise funds to pay off part of the 24-105mm (yes a small part... but every little helps!)

I also now have a Sigma 15-30mm lens... which i've never really used enough... but when I do im not sure im all that happy with the shots anyway... the 15-20mm end produces some whacky distortions and I almost feel its too wide for my needs which is mainly landscape. I feel the new 24-105mm will cover most walkabout travel situations... and I know I would like something wider... but a bit of me is just not sure about keeping the 15-30mm.

So 1st Question... should I sell ithe 15-30mm and put the funds toward my 24-105 also... I dont actually need something that wide for the moment as with my wedding and honeymoon coming up I wont have that much time for photography... we will then prob be moving house which will involve selling two flats and buying a house so again I dont see much time for photography in the few months after that either... Infact prob up to christmas!

Then once everythings over... I was thinking a 20mm prime might be the ideal tool for landscapes... although im worried I'll miss the zoom flaxability... Has anyone traded a wide angle zoom for a fixed focal length 20mm... what do you think???

I guess the two lenses I was thinking of where the canon 20mm f2.8, or should I think about the 17-40mm L f4... which isn't too badly priced for an L series lens and gives me a better wide angle range than the sigma does? Or can you suggest any other good lenses? I should say i'm using a full frame 5d!
 
Mmmm interesting I have the Sigma 10-20 mm and find it’s a very good lens. but no good for a 5D may be change for a 50D
you then go one saying you not be doing much photography yet you have just bought a new lens? I guess after your married there be no new kit then lol
 
The question you need to ask yourself is what focal length have I taken all your landscape images at, so I would have a look back at all your images and check, this way you can determine if you need ultra wide lens or not. The 24-105mm combines well with the 5D. When a friend ask a similar question, he found most of his landscape shots were between 30-35mm, so it answered it for him, he saved the money on that lens, but bought a long prime instead. (money always seems to burn a hole in ones pockets, never stays long enough (y))
 
The bulk of my work with all my lenses has been in film... so impossible to tell now... my gut feeling is between 20 and 35mm though. I only moved into the world of digital in September last year!

I prob will have a better idea after my honeymoon... where I only intend to take the 24-105 as I cant get carried away with my photography as I tend to do when I travel. I'll see if I crave for anything wider... I think I will in the likes of venice etc!

There will be more photography once we settle down into a new house together... My fiancee is a tog too... but maybe not into it as much as me... It's just I feel the time is not right to spend more money on equipment just now... and I'll have more to spend in a years time as there wont be flowers, coaches, meals, drink, photographer etc to pay!

Is there any sigma/ tamron alternatives... although I must admit... I prefer Canon!
 
Chaz Photos said:
Mmmm interesting I have the Sigma 10-20 mm and find it’s a very good lens. but no good for a 5D may be change for a 50D
you then go one saying you not be doing much photography yet you have just bought a new lens? I guess after your married there be no new kit then lol
Click to expand...

I think as i'm an old school film buff at heart... but moved to digital for practical keeping up with the times reasons I'll stay with the 5d!

It's a fab camera and very similar to my EOS3 which I knew inside out... So i'll stick with the larger format
 
A HUGE vote for the 17-40 here. I only have 12 months inexperience as a dslr user under my belt, but this lens is rarely off my camera. I love the range AND the quality is superb to my eye.
 
markelliot said:
I think as i'm an old school film buff at heart... but moved to digital for practical keeping up with the times reasons I'll stay with the 5d!

It's a fab camera and very similar to my EOS3 which I knew inside out... So i'll stick with the larger format
Click to expand...

I understand BUT have to say looking at the spec
The 50D has 4752 x 3168 Pixel density 4.5 MP/cm² ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 (H),6400(H1),12800(H2)

The 5D has 4368 x 2912 Pixel density 1.5 MP/cm² ISO rating 100 - 1600 in 1/3 stops, plus 50, 3200 as option

I think I would have the 50D
 
Chaz Photos said:
I understand BUT have to say looking at the spec
The 50D has 4752 x 3168 Pixel density 4.5 MP/cm² ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 (H),6400(H1),12800(H2)

The 5D has 4368 x 2912 Pixel density 1.5 MP/cm² ISO rating 100 - 1600 in 1/3 stops, plus 50, 3200 as option

I think I would have the 50D
Click to expand...

So what your telling me is my camera (5D Mk1) is rubish in terms of IQ compaired to a 50D???

Is this true???

M
 
there are arguements favouring the 40D vs the 50D for image quality due to excessive pixel density.
The 5D with good glass is a lovely camera.
 
^^^ Thanks... was begining to question my judgement when I bought the old 5D when I did know at the time the MKII was comming... but chose the MKI as could never have afforded the new MKII!

And also I think as a travel and landscape photographer mainly... this was a good choice to go for...

And the MKI still has a good few years of life in it yet does it not???
 
I'm sure you'll get a few years good service out of your 5D. I bought mine after the mk2 was announced and I expect to have it for at least a couple of years.

The 24-105 is a good all round lens. The problem I find with it is the barrel distortion at the wide end, but you can correct that in software.

I got the 17-40 zoom to use with a crop format body, and still have it, so I've started using that in the 24-28 mm region to avoid the distortion that you get with the 24-105.

So its quite useful to have the 17-40 even though 17mm is normally too wide for me. (It also suffers from barrel distortion when wide). It might be worth keeping your sigma zoom for the same reason?

Your photography isn't guaranteed to improve if you swap your kit all the time, even if, on paper, your new purchase is "better".
 
markelliot said:
^^^ Thanks... was begining to question my judgement when I bought the old 5D when I did know at the time the MKII was comming... but chose the MKI as could never have afforded the new MKII!

And also I think as a travel and landscape photographer mainly... this was a good choice to go for...

And the MKI still has a good few years of life in it yet does it not???
Click to expand...

Mark, you do seem to fret a lot mate. About not very much TBH.

Your photography doesn't appear to be very demanding equipment wise. General walkabout. And for that you have a 5D and 24-105 L. Frankly, a much better combo does not exist. And even when there are slightly better alternatives about, your present camera will not stop working ;)

If you have not got a good flash gun, then get something like a 580EX as priority. Maybe with an accessory diffuser like LumiQuest or StoFen. That will make a big difference to stuff like social snaps on honeymoon.

Only then look at lenses, and if you're not happy with your wide zoom for some quality related reason, then 17-40L is an excellent replacement. At the other end, 70-200 4 L is very hard to beat indeed. Maybe you might like to slot a 100mm macro in there, for close ups and shallow DoF portraits, perhaps a nifty-50 for low-light stuff, but now you're getting very picky.

If you apply yourself to what matters - seeking out, creating and capturing great subjects - most photographers could manage a lifetime with just a 5D and a 24-105 lens.
 
I guess I do... my mother always said I was a worrier...

Can I clear up one point though... I'm in now way thinking a change of equipment will better my photography! I started off 20 yearts ago with a pentax K1000 and know its all about the man behind the lens not the equipment... my photography def is walkabout and hence my 24-105 choice. The purpose of this question was more to ask if people thought a prime lens at 20mm would be better than the current 15-30mm Sigma which I struggle with... I guess I feel having the fixed focal in the 20mm prime would force me to work harder and to that avail better my photography!

I dont do social snaps with my SLR... I just carry a we samsung compact for that... The SLR is so big and I just find it makes people uncomfortable in a social situation to have this big camera pointing about my friends... So I dont think I need a flash just now.

A macro lens and a nifty 50 are on my list as I do want to broaden my photography horizons and do some in the house stuff... water drops close up's etc!

I guess my lack of aplication at the mo is down to a lack of time due to a wedding comming up which seems to take all our weekends planning and doing stuff at the mo... she wanted the full on big day and I wanted it too but did not think about making our own table name tags etc...

HoppyUK said:
Mark, you do seem to fret a lot mate. About not very much TBH.

Your photography doesn't appear to be very demanding equipment wise. General walkabout. And for that you have a 5D and 24-105 L. Frankly, a much better combo does not exist. And even when there are slightly better alternatives about, your present camera will not stop working ;)

If you have not got a good flash gun, then get something like a 580EX as priority. Maybe with an accessory diffuser like LumiQuest or StoFen. That will make a big difference to stuff like social snaps on honeymoon.

Only then look at lenses, and if you're not happy with your wide zoom for some quality related reason, then 17-40L is an excellent replacement. At the other end, 70-200 4 L is very hard to beat indeed. Maybe you might like to slot a 100mm macro in there, for close ups and shallow DoF portraits, perhaps a nifty-50 for low-light stuff, but now you're getting very picky.

If you apply yourself to what matters - seeking out, creating and capturing great subjects - most photographers could manage a lifetime with just a 5D and a 24-105 lens.
Click to expand...
 
I've got exactly the same lenses as you and TBH I hate the Sigma 15-30mm. Distorts like heck, flares worse than 70's trousers and is hopeless at getting a focus lock on a dancing couple at a wedding. I tried it against the Canon 16-35mm at a training day and it had the shot and back in the bag while mine was still hunting!

If it's for landscapes, you should find the 24-105mm is great and for the odd occasional landscape don't rule out shooting a little longer and stitching in software. You can go as wide as you like then. Might save you a few pennies there if it's only an occasional wide shot you are after. :)
 
Okay bud ;) Once you've got the basics sorted - and you have certainly done that in style with a 5D and 24-105L - the rest is very subjective. Depends what you want to do.

As I have said, the first thing I would add is a good flash. These are often over looked in preference to lenses but after a camera and walkabout zoom, it is the first extra thing I put in the bag (and often the last) plus a LumiQuest Quik for bounce and fill flash stuff. The Canon 5D doesn't even have an on-board flash does it. You are seriously missing out there. I'll leave that thought with you.

On the wide lens thing, unless you are unhappy with the optical performance of your current lens, I would not change it for a fixed 20mm. I am not a big fan of primes generally, except when you need a really fast aperture where zooms can't compete. And this is why.

When I'm on general walkabout photo duty and see something I like the look of, I will wander around until I find the right angle. Then I'll move in the get the right perspective, and things look balanced and right. This is my shooting position, and it's fixed. I then select the lens focal length to get the best framing.

I think this is a good way of working and you just can't do it with a fixed focal length. I have used fixed lenses a lot in the past and it's frustrating to the point where I start wanting to move things about in the picture so that they will fit the lens. You can do that a bit with people, but it's essentially the wromg way of going about it.

I do not susbcribe to the view that fixed lenses make you think, and use things like foot zoom etc. These are just ways of working around the limitations and being in possession of a zoom does not make you stop thinking. If you want to have a go with this bizarre school of thought, then set your current lens at 20mm and put some tape around it. If that sounds like a crazy notion, it is. Just as crazy as buying a fixed focal length lens when there are very good zooms to be had.
 
^^ Glad to hear it's not just me who experiances issues with this lens... I think I am going to sell it just now....

^ As for what I will buy to replace it... that's a dif story... Are the primes not the best in IQ??? something very much required for landscape work...

I'm not sure I agree with your point re zoom lenses but you know what you might be right... I'll go out even for an hour next weekend with my sigma and do a bit of a test... I'll set it to 20mm and see how I get on... maybe you are right... that said I still dont think i'll keep the current lens and possibly think about the 17-40mm
 
markelliot said:
^^ Glad to hear it's not just me who experiances issues with this lens... I think I am going to sell it just now....
Click to expand...

If you want to use this range more than now and again, probably a good move. Not that there's anything wrong with 70s flares ;) but it is undoubedly the weakest link in you bag.

markelliot said:
^ As for what I will buy to replace it... that's a dif story... Are the primes not the best in IQ??? something very much required for landscape work...
Click to expand...

Primes will always be better, in theory, but that's not how it usually works in practise. With a prime, the designer has far fewer compromises to make, so they can concentrate on making one or two things outstanding. That tends to be a big, fast maximum aperture with primes, but if you take a zoom and a prime and compare them at f/8, you will be very hard pressed to separate them.

So unless you want f/2 or f/1.4, I would say there is not an overwhelming reason of image quality to go for a prime. And you are also fortunate in that you 24-105L is a damn good wide angle on full frame. All of which leads me to suggest that 17-40L would be a very sound choice (but amongst a lot of other good choices).

markelliot said:
I'm not sure I agree with your point re zoom lenses but you know what you might be right... I'll go out even for an hour next weekend with my sigma and do a bit of a test... I'll set it to 20mm and see how I get on... maybe you are right... that said I still dont think i'll keep the current lens and possibly think about the 17-40mm
Click to expand...

Give that silly test a whirl! You'll have moved it off 20mm within minutes! Then get the 17-40L. That's a seriously tasty outfit you're building there :)
 
I am not saying the 5D is not a good camera BUT I am hoping to change my old 300D and the 50D is what I will be getting.
The 5D MK1 or even the 5DMK2 are both good cameras I know the 5D is loved by a lot of wedding photographers.
I like the speed of the 50D as I like to try some wildlife and sport work
It just my 2p’s worth
 
Chaz Photos said:
I understand BUT have to say looking at the spec
The 50D has 4752 x 3168 Pixel density 4.5 MP/cm² ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 (H),6400(H1),12800(H2)

The 5D has 4368 x 2912 Pixel density 1.5 MP/cm² ISO rating 100 - 1600 in 1/3 stops, plus 50, 3200 as option

I think I would have the 50D
Click to expand...

I accept that the 50D is better for sports, wildlife than the 5D, due to the autofocus speed, cropped sensor etc, but even with the newer technology the ISO performance of the 5D knocks spots off the 50D and also there are advantages to full frame (especially for lenses).

The ISO performance on the 40D is even better than the 50D at the higher ISO's, it all stems from the extra megapixels crammed into the 50D sensor creating more noise. As sensor density increases, so too does high ISO noise.

So the choice of camera body really comes down to what you need it for. Landscapes, portraits and indoor 5D, motorsports and wildlife 50D.

Peter
 
Hoppy/ Chaz/ Pete

Thanks for your comments. I've been on buisness for a few days without internet access hence no reply.

I think for now I will sell the 15-30mm. I might look at the 17-40 for the future... but before I sell I will try that silly excercise with the 15-30mm taped at 20mm.

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top