Looking for a quality walk-around lens

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/23/2005 10:03:07 PM · #1

I recently purchased a used Canon 35-350mm 3.5-5.6L, and after my first afternoon of shooting with it, I'm rather disappointed. For those interested in seeing a few of my comparison shots between it and the 50mm 1.8, please check here.

Because of these results, I intend to return the 35-350. I'm looking for suggestions on a high-quality walk-around lens which is good enough that I'll still be happily using it in 10+ years. Based on my research I'm currently leaning toward Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L, but I'd like to have a bit more range on the high end if possible. I'd appreciate any lens suggestions that you could offer. My budget for this purchase is +-$1,000.

My desired feature list (in no particular order):
- a zoom lens that is sharp across it's entire range
- speed (f3.5 or better)
- preferably a lens manufactured by Canon ("L" glass if that's what it takes)
- large zoom range (hence my purchase of the 35-350mm)
- I don't imagine that I'll use anything wider than 35mm

Any suggestions you can offer would be most appreciated.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

07/23/2005 10:12:37 PM · #2

The "large zoom range" and "quality" aspects directly compete. The greater the zoom range, the more compromises in the optical design.
If you have a shop that rents in your area, rent the 24-70. My bet is, if you get a chance to shoot with it, you'll buy it.

07/23/2005 10:13:52 PM · #3

How close were you when shooting? Is it possible you were closer than the minimum focus range for the 35-350? Could it be an autofocus problem? Seems to almost be out of focus, rather than just not sharp.

Could it just be a bad copy? Did you buy it new or used?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/23/2005 10:28:21 PM · #4

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Those comparison photos were taken about 10 feet from the brick wall from a tripod with the mirror locked up. I used the autofocus for all of the shots. I took 3 exposures at each f-stop, and selected the sharpest image from each trio for comparison.

The 35-350mm was purchased used from B&H, who said that they just got it back from Canon's repair facility. It could be a bad copy, but I'm inclined to believe kirbic, that the zoom range/quality trade-off is probably what I'm looking at. I was aware of the trade-off, but had hoped that if it was good enough to be an "L" lens that it would still be plenty sharp. That appears to not be the case. :(

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/23/2005 10:57:01 PM · #5

The Canon 35-350 is the best in its class for such a high zoom range. Any shortcomings should tell you just how hard it is to maintain a high quality image across such a broad range (you may have a bad copy though). No matter how much you spend, a huge zoom range will never match two good lenses designed for wide angle and telephoto, and those in turn will never match prime lenses at several different focal lengths. It's the nature of the beast.

I'd return that lens for another copy and if you're still not happy, go for a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L and Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS or 100-400 L IS. The end price will be higher than what you're already spending, but you'll be MUCH happier with the results. FWIW, although you're looking for Canon, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 offers image quality comparable to the Canon at 1/3 of the price (you pay for weather sealing and an edge in build quality and focus speed).

Message edited by author 2005-07-23 23:03:35.

CorySmith

07/23/2005 10:59:17 PM · #6

look into the 28-300 3.5-5.6 L
not a bad lens, a bit wider than the 35-350

PhilipDyer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/23/2005 11:00:15 PM · #7

I have the Canon 28-135mm IS and it spends way more time on my camera than any of my L lenses do. It's just a great general purpose lens that works perfectly for 80-90% of the shots that I want to take.

07/23/2005 11:07:41 PM · #8

Originally posted by Fetor:

look into the 28-300 3.5-5.6 L
not a bad lens, a bit wider than the 35-350

That was the lens that I really wanted, but even used ones seem to go for $1,800+. My plan had been to start off with the 35-350 and later upgrade to the 28-300 if I felt that it was worthwhile. Based on what I've seen of this lens I'm less inclined to force my shooting into a one-size-fits-all lens solution than I was originally.

07/23/2005 11:08:40 PM · #9

I agree with Phillip that a wide range may be worth some tradeoffs. Today we took a walk and I lugged my SLR and lenses. First I had on my 70-300 IS DO because it was perfect for the vista I wanted to shoot about 3/4 through the walk (we were on a hill with a great view but some houses in the way). But it was too much for the interesting scenes we saw on the way. And there seemed to be a pretty good set of clearings between the houses at the vista point, so I put on my 10-22. Argh, too wide. I should have just put on my Sigma 18-125 in the first place, and maybe left the other lenses at home. :(

You might look into that, or the Sigma 18-200. Not L quality though, but I think it's pretty good walk around lens, and it's not too expensive, so you can always get a few primes at your key focal lengths to supplement.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/24/2005 02:41:05 PM · #10

I plan to swing by the local camera store tomorrow and test out the following lenses. Are there any others that I should consider?
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I'd be interested in taking a few test photos with the
Tamron 28-75 /2.8, but since the price is relatively close to that of the Canon Canon 28-135mm, I expect that if the performance is the same, the Canon would be worth the extra money if only for the added range. I don't think that the shop I'm going to sells Tamron lenses, but I'll try this one if they do.

Originally posted by nshapiro:

You might look into that [the Sigma 18-125], or the Sigma 18-200. Not L quality though, but I think it's pretty good walk around lens, and it's not too expensive, so you can always get a few primes at your key focal lengths to supplement.

As I understand it, the DC classification on Sigma lenses means that they'll only work with digital cameras which don't have a full-frame sensor. Since I want this walk-around lens to last be well beyond my current camera, both the Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC and the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC have a strike against them out of the gate. I looked at a few reviews of each, and while all of them said that they are a good value considering their price and zoom range, each review left me feeling that either lens should be considered a way point on the way to better equipment.

Edit: typos

Message edited by author 2005-07-24 14:42:57.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/24/2005 02:46:03 PM · #11

According to tests I have seen, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 outperforms all these Canon zooms you have listed. It seems to be an extraordinary lens. I'm still waiting for mine, it's the hardest of all the lenses I ordered to find. That fact alone speaks volumes, considering that it's by no means a cheap lens.

YOu can browse shots from this lens int he DPC database: //www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=792

Robt.

07/24/2005 10:00:49 PM · #12

Bump for the evening crowd.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/24/2005 10:11:07 PM · #13

IMHO the problem with all the walk-around lenses you are going to test is that they are not wide enough on a digital camera. You might want to consider two lenses then--add the Canon 17-40/F4L to cover the wide end.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/24/2005 10:34:00 PM · #14

Originally posted by nshapiro:

I quite agree. I plan on using a fanny pack and taking the 10-22 and the 28-75, when I want to be unencumbered. If I could only have one lens, 17-40L would have been my choice for coverage vs quality. I was gonna buy it, until I fell in love with the 10-22.

Robt.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/24/2005 11:12:01 PM · #15

Maybe it's just because I've never had such a lens to work with before, but I can't imagine what I'd do with a lens that wide. Up until now my walk around glass has been the 50mm, and I find that the majority of the time I'm walking closer, rather than backing up, to get the shot that I want.

After looking at the first page of the site gallery for the 17-40mm, I don't see anything that looks like it couldn't have been done just as easily from a few steps farther away with a 50mm. I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing your advice, but aside from the (presumably) lower weight of a smaller lens, I don't see why a shorter focal length would be beneficial. What makes you recommend a wide-angle lens as better walk around equipment than what I've listed above?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/24/2005 11:25:42 PM · #16

The 17-40 is a very bulky and heavy lens. I shoot almost everything with the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 70-200 f/4L with a 1.4X TC. Since they're both 67mm, I can swap a good polarizer between them, too.

07/24/2005 11:58:41 PM · #17

Indoors is one good example where the wide angle lens will serve you well and where the 28 mm lenses may not be enough....

I am looking for the shot that convinced me to buy the 10-22 (I know you can't use that one!). Will post when I find it.