UWA upgrade & walk-around zoom upgrade

benj1867

benj1867

Messages
661
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
So currently I use a crop body (7d2) with a 10-22 and a 24-105 f4. Over the winter i will be purchasing a full frame body to go alongside the 7d2. I have sold my 24-105 and in the process of selling the 10-22.

As for the replacements, in the UWA category I've kinda nailed it down to either the 17-40 or one of the 16-35's (unless someone can advise me of better alternatives).

As for the walk-around I'm currently looking at either a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC or the Canon 24-70 2.8 ii, with the 24-105 mk ii (cost depending) also an option.

My budget is variable as I want lasting quality, my main areas of photography are currently aviation and landscapes/cityscapes but this may broaden.

If you have made it this far then I salute you and thank you for taking the time. I look forward to hearing your suggestions and top.

Cheers all
Ben
 
I've had both the 17-40 and 24-70 and been happy with them, be cautious with the 17-40 some units are incredibly soft wide open
 
benj1867 said:
So currently I use a crop body (7d2) with a 10-22 and a 24-105 f4. Over the winter i will be purchasing a full frame body to go alongside the 7d2. I have sold my 24-105 and in the process of selling the 10-22.

As for the walk-around I'm currently looking at either a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC or the Canon 24-70 2.8 ii, with the 24-105 mk ii (cost depending) also an option.
Click to expand...
Why on earth did you sell the 24-105? It's a great walk-around lens on a full frame body. At the very least it would have got you started with the new camera until you could assess what you needed on the basis of actual use.

Some 24-70mm lenses are very good - the Canon f/2.8 II is very very good - but you might find 70mm a bit restrictive in a walk-around lens. Remember you've been used to 105mm on a crop body, which has a field of view equivalent to about 165mm on full frame, so 70mm will feel less than half as long. That might be an issue for you - I know it would with me.

benj1867 said:
As for the replacements, in the UWA category I've kinda nailed it down to either the 17-40 or one of the 16-35's (unless someone can advise me of better alternatives).
Click to expand...
The 16-35 f/4 is more expensive than the 17-40 because it has IS, and I think optically it's a bit better but not amazingly so.

The 16-35 f/2.8 II is more expensive than the f/4 because it's f/2.8. That's a big deal when you're talking ultra wide.

The 16-35 f/2.8 III should be absolutely spectacular, based on all the other pro-spec zooms which Canon have introduced in the last few years. Expect a big jump in optical performance. But the price is eye-watering.

One other lens that perhaps should be on your radar is the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8. I've heard some good things about this but have absolutely zero personal experience. Autofocus performance on Tamrons is usually poor compared to Canon USM, but with an ultra wide that shouldn't be a big issue.
 
I sold my 24-70mm f2.8 walkabout lens & bought a 24-105 f4....

It fits nicely with my 16-35 f4 :)
 
I agree with the advice on keeping the 24-105mm it's still a decent lens and a great length on a crop but that ship has sailed!

In your position I'd get a 16-35mm f4 unless your into Astro and need f2.8 pair that with a 24-70mm and you are off to a good start!
 
cheers guys, i liked the 24-105 but really wanted to go 2.8 for the replacement. Losing the length at the top end wasnt a deal breaker as ive got a 70-200 2.8 that will cover it nicely when on an FF body. Ill have a proper look at the Tamron as an alternative as i hadnt considered it before.

Does anyone have any real world experience with the newest Tamron 24-70 2.8? Ive heard rumblings of it being fantastic but not previously owning a Tamron lens im unsure on quality and focus accuracy/speed.

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