DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Would you sell 3 lenses for 1?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 40, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/22/2006 11:35:36 PM · #1
Hey all,

Lately I've been reading all about Canon L lenses and would REALLY love to have one. Problem is I am a typical starving college student. I have been thinking of selling my 3 lenses in order to buy 1 L lense. Here is what I have:

Canon 18-55mm Kit Lense
Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 w/ IS

What I want:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM
(Or one with similar zoom length good for close up as well as portraiture.)

I'm sure I will still have to shell out a little more cash to get the L lense, but at least not all of the $x,xxx.xx

So would you recommend doing this? The reason I would like to do it is of course for the quality. I want to become more serious about photography and even try to make some money with it. Though I'm not sure sacrificing the 3 lenses I own (which pretty much cover all the focal lengths I would need for now) for 1 lense. Any advice would be MUCH appreciated, particularly from those that have upgraded from "consumer" lenses to pro lenses. Thanks!
 08/22/2006 11:39:01 PM · #2
You are really going to limit yourself with any range that you can get in one lens. If you did what your suggesting, you cut down your telephoto range by 2/3rds. Not sure what type of shooting you do, but I was my 70-200 with 1.4 TC alot more then I use 28 on my 28-75. I certainly wouldnt do it. Although I'm sure the L would be nice to have, its not worth losing all that range and versatility over right now.

MattO
 08/22/2006 11:39:34 PM · #3
Originally posted by JonPM:
The reason I would like to do it is of course for the quality. I want to become more serious about photography and even try to make some money with it. Though I'm not sure sacrificing the 3 lenses I own (which pretty much cover all the focal lengths I would need for now) for 1 lense. Any advice would be MUCH appreciated, particularly from those that have upgraded from "consumer" lenses to pro lenses. Thanks!


Personally, I think you are placing too much value on equipment and too little on skill. You don't need an L lens to be serious and damn sure don't need it to make money.

Trading off those lenses for one lens is, in my professional opinion, not a good choice.
08/22/2006 11:43:31 PM · #4
Im thinking that youd be happier with the tamron 28-75, 50 f/1.8, and canon 70-200 f/4L--

Im not sure how much the 24-105L costs, but I think my 3 lens choices would be as cheap if not cheaper, (and a helluva set up)
 08/22/2006 11:46:11 PM · #5
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by JonPM:
The reason I would like to do it is of course for the quality. I want to become more serious about photography and even try to make some money with it. Though I'm not sure sacrificing the 3 lenses I own (which pretty much cover all the focal lengths I would need for now) for 1 lense. Any advice would be MUCH appreciated, particularly from those that have upgraded from "consumer" lenses to pro lenses. Thanks!


Personally, I think you are placing too much value on equipment and too little on skill. You don't need an L lens to be serious and damn sure don't need it to make money.

Trading off those lenses for one lens is, in my professional opinion, not a good choice.


I agree with Leroy (fotoman)...I have about 7 lenses and each one does something specific for me that the others don't. I think you'll miss the wide and telephoto end with the lens you are choosing - though it would be an awesome lens...I have a Nikon 18-200 VRII lens, one that everyone wants, but I only use it 20% of the time. I perfer some of the others.
08/22/2006 11:49:18 PM · #6
I would probably do it. Then you just have one lens to worry about carrying around, you'll have IS, and of course it'll be better quality than the other three (that telephoto might be close though).

Of course it does depend on whether or not you shoot telephoto or super wide a lot. 24mm on a crop sensor is barely wide angle, and 105mm is sort of long, but definitely not as long as 300.
 08/22/2006 11:57:38 PM · #7
I just don't think it would be a good trade, aside from the IS your really not getting much as far as telephoto you already have. F4 my not be the best choice for a 24-105mm lens for speed anyways. Have you tryed a 50mm 1.8F yet? Not real spendy and well worth it.
 08/22/2006 11:59:22 PM · #8
In this case, for me, no.

I think buzzrock hit the killer combo for ya there.

08/22/2006 11:59:45 PM · #9
Originally posted by MQuinn:
Have you tryed a 50mm 1.8F yet? Not real spendy and well worth it.


Ditto that. IMO the must-have lens.
 08/23/2006 12:19:48 AM · #10

You are going to find that the "L" glass is everything that you have read about and once you start using one, even if you kept your other lenses, you would find you would use them less and less as you tried to shoot as much as you could with the "L" lens. There is a reason Canon's good glass cost more... it's sharper, the images crisper with better contrast than most non-L zooms and even some non-L primes. They are also built a bit better and can take a little more abuse and use than the cheaper lenses. Not that you would want to abuse it... not at what it costs. :D

A lot of people start off with the 70-200 4.0L lens. Then they either move to one of the wider zooms (the 24-70 2.8L is a great lens) or they move up to the 70-200 2.8L lens if they need something faster. Since I bought my first "L" lens, the 70-200 4.0L a number of years ago, I've bought only "L" glass. I got the 24-70 2.8L then the 70-200 2.8L IS, then the 100-400 4.5/5.6L and most recently the 17-40 4.0L lens. There is also a reason why the Canon forum says buying the first "L" is about as addicting as it gets. :D

While you will probably change camera bodies a bunch of times over the years, the "L" glass with stay with you for a long time. And though it isn't always the equipment that makes "THE" photographer, if you have good equipment, you can become "THE" photographer that much sooner.

Mike
 08/23/2006 01:42:00 AM · #11
You'd still be about $600 short if you sold all 3 of those lenses and tried to buy a 24-105 F/4 IS($1250). So since you'd still have to come up with about $600, take the $600 and buy a 17-40 F/4L($675ish) to start out with or a 70-200 F/4L($575ish)and a 50mm F/1.8($75ish)and keep the others and sell them off when you can to help pay for the 24-105.

Kit lens is worth about $55
Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM is worth about $120 w/hood
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 w/ IS worth about $400 maybe $450

Message edited by author 2006-08-23 01:44:25.
 08/23/2006 02:13:32 AM · #12
I've used the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM on my dads 5D and we both agree that it's one hell of a lens - but thats on FF camera so its a whole different kettle of fish.

but I can't imagine that you would be happy with just that one lens on a 350D, not wide/long enough at either end IMO. But put it on a 5D and you're in heaven

You've already got a similar range with the 28-105 - would you be happy if that was the only lens you had? the L glass is better but if you aren't happy with the photos you are getting now I don't think you'll be happy with the 24-105.
 08/23/2006 02:40:19 AM · #13
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
I've used the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM on my dads 5D and we both agree that it's one hell of a lens - but thats on FF camera so its a whole different kettle of fish.

but I can't imagine that you would be happy with just that one lens on a 350D, not wide/long enough at either end IMO. But put it on a 5D and you're in heaven

You've already got a similar range with the 28-105 - would you be happy if that was the only lens you had? the L glass is better but if you aren't happy with the photos you are getting now I don't think you'll be happy with the 24-105.


You can't even compare that 28-105 to the 24-105 IS. There are no similarities whatsoever, other than focal length, that are even worth mentioning. The 24-105 IS F/4 even on a 350/XT takes 500% better photos than that cheesy 28-105. I know, I have both lenses. One is for sale, take a guess which. I think he would be happy with the results a 24-105 would give him on a XT. I am. Besides it's easy to upgrade bodies when you all ready have good glass.
 08/23/2006 02:57:27 AM · #14
Damn you people, you're not making this easy! LOL just kidding, there's a lot of great advice here. I'll try to comment on all of them.

foto - I agree about skill. But I also realize that I eventually will buy L glass, and my current lenses aren't exactly going up in value. Plus like others have mentioned these L lenses will (or should) last you many years.

buzzrock - thanks for the advice! I will def. look into that L lense. The thing that worries me is the lack of IS, which is great when I use my 75-300 at the longer ends.

MadMan - now you're talking my language :P Right now I use my 28-105 like 90% of the time, 75-300 like 8%, and the kit 2 or less.

MQuinn - I've been meaning to look into that 50mm everyone is always talking about. I might just have to get it

MikeJ - You're like that little red devil sitting on my right shoulder telling me I should go ahead and do it, LOL. No really, what you said pretty much wraps up my whole idea of doing this. I understand that L glass isn't going to make me pro, but lately I've been getting discouraged when I see photos (that looked awesome in the viewfinder) that come out soft. Sharpening usually does the trick but sometimes the photo is just completely no good.

NstiG8tr - yeah I figured. Lucky for me credit card companies love college students :P I'm going to look into that 70-200 some more, I just wish I could get it with IS at the price!

dr_timbo - Like I said to MadMan, right now I use my 28-105 like 90% of the time, 75-300 like 8%, and the kit 2 or less. So honestly I don't really think I would miss the other lengths right now. Of course later that would change when I delve into different types of photography. but hopefully by then I will have graduated and started making some real money :)

Keep the advice coming please! This is getting interesting.
 08/23/2006 03:06:47 AM · #15
removed (doing research on L lens)

Message edited by author 2006-08-23 03:10:58.
 08/23/2006 03:13:25 AM · #16
Originally posted by crayon:
removed (doing research on L lens)


well yea ... :-)
glass is sharper, more contrasty, more colorful ... the IS natural follow up from F4 L glass if you really need it, and not to mention build quality that is nonplusultra

so to say :-)
 08/23/2006 03:17:57 AM · #17
I would for sure... You won't get much for the 18-55 so keep it for the the extra width (just in case). Do it NOW! I have the 17-40 f/4L and wouldn't trade it for the world... I have been eyeing off the 24-105L and 100-400L. For me you can't go past an L lens. Run and sell those suckers :)
08/23/2006 03:25:10 AM · #18
After a quick "research" on L lens and it's miracles, I have to conclude and advise Ron on ONE thing...

Once you use an L lens, non-L lenses will no longer appeal to you.

wow.
 08/23/2006 04:12:13 AM · #19
I bought the 24-105 a couple of weeks ago. I love it. The sharpness and contrast are awesome. I debated whether I wanted it or the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 or the Tamrom 28-75. I chose the 24-105 for the extra focal length and IS over the 24-70 so I wouldn't have to switch it out with the heavy 70-200 I have if I needed a little extra focal length. Yea sometimes you can zoom with your feet but sometimes ya can't. My next lens will be a really wide one but then again I plan on buying the 5D sometime in the near future and might not need something really wide since I have the 17-40 and the 5D is FF. I'll probably go the 100-400L IS route.
I guess my point again is, if lens quality is an issue for you then get the good stuff when you can. Even if it's good 3rd party lenses like the 28-75 Tamron. My advice(and my purchasing plan, which is complete), take the $600 difference you were gonna have to spend to get the 24-105 and buy an "L" in that price range to start off with. The 17-40 is a good replacement for the 18-55 kit lens. Save your money and get another to replace the 75-300. The 70-200 will do that with a teleconverter. Save some more money and replace the 28-105 with "you know what". Somewhere along the line throw in a 50mm F/1.8 and maybe a 100mm macro if you like that kinda stuff.
Secondly, don't let people jerk ya about how a "L" lens on a XT isn't gonna get you better photos. That just isn't true. Granted the lens can't do everything for you but it sure gives you an advantage.
Camera bodies come and go about every 12 months. Good glass will stay with you forever no matter what body you put it on and you'll never lose that much on resale.
Personally, I started out with a cheaper body so I could enjoy my hobby and buy the lenses I wanted when I could. I have an ultimate goal and I keep the bigger picture in mind.
 08/23/2006 05:22:59 AM · #20
Hi Jon,

It would be useful if we could see some of your photos so that we can see the kind of thing you photograph and what might be good for you.

Originally posted by JonPM:
I agree about skill. But I also realize that I eventually will buy L glass, and my current lenses aren't exactly going up in value. Plus like others have mentioned these L lenses will (or should) last you many years.


Remember that your current lenses will not depreciate massively either - your lenses are okay, it won't matter so much if they go wrong or break (whereas you may have the odd repair bill for an L lens).

Originally posted by JonPM:
I understand that L glass isn't going to make me pro, but lately I've been getting discouraged when I see photos (that looked awesome in the viewfinder) that come out soft. Sharpening usually does the trick but sometimes the photo is just completely no good.


There are a couple of issues here. Photos straight from a DSLR do come out soft and usually require sharpening (especially when resized) regardless of what glass you are using. If the photograph is beyond sharpening, it is probably out of focus. Depending on the subject matter, that might require a change of technique, rather than equipment. If your subject matter is fast moving, then the faster focussing mechanisms of L glass might help (but bear in mind that what you are looking for is a faster focussing lens, rather than merely a sharper lens).

L glass is sharper than pro-sumer/consumer glass, but (again depending on the nature of your subject and how you are using the images) you may not need/notice it.

If you can afford it, the L glass is great for many purposes. However, I recommend identifying quite specifically what it is that you want out of a lens before you go and buy it (especially at these prices). For example, there are plenty of examples of people getting rid of their 70-200 Ls for a lower grade 75-300 because they find that a foot long white lens is an impediment to getting street candids.

Message edited by author 2006-08-23 05:24:18.
 08/23/2006 08:33:09 AM · #21
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
I bought the 24-105 a couple of weeks ago. I love it. The sharpness and contrast are awesome. I debated whether I wanted it or the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 or the Tamrom 28-75. I chose the 24-105 for the extra focal length and IS over the 24-70 so I wouldn't have to switch it out with the heavy 70-200 I have if I needed a little extra focal length. Yea sometimes you can zoom with your feet but sometimes ya can't. My next lens will be a really wide one but then again I plan on buying the 5D sometime in the near future and might not need something really wide since I have the 17-40 and the 5D is FF. I'll probably go the 100-400L IS route.
I guess my point again is, if lens quality is an issue for you then get the good stuff when you can. Even if it's good 3rd party lenses like the 28-75 Tamron. My advice(and my purchasing plan, which is complete), take the $600 difference you were gonna have to spend to get the 24-105 and buy an "L" in that price range to start off with. The 17-40 is a good replacement for the 18-55 kit lens. Save your money and get another to replace the 75-300. The 70-200 will do that with a teleconverter. Save some more money and replace the 28-105 with "you know what". Somewhere along the line throw in a 50mm F/1.8 and maybe a 100mm macro if you like that kinda stuff.
Secondly, don't let people jerk ya about how a "L" lens on a XT isn't gonna get you better photos. That just isn't true. Granted the lens can't do everything for you but it sure gives you an advantage.
Camera bodies come and go about every 12 months. Good glass will stay with you forever no matter what body you put it on and you'll never lose that much on resale.
Personally, I started out with a cheaper body so I could enjoy my hobby and buy the lenses I wanted when I could. I have an ultimate goal and I keep the bigger picture in mind.


Of course anybody would prefer the L over the non L and it will give you better results even on a 350D. I wasn't "jerking" anybody around, of course given the choice you should always go for better quality glass but that wasn't the question that Jon was asking.
The question was "should I trade 3 of my lenses for one L lens" and my opinion was that I don't think you'l be happy with only one lens, espically on a 350D, not because of quality but because of the 1.6 multiplier effect. As I stated in my previous post, I've used the 24-105 on a 5D and and it's an awesome lens, but change the focal lengths by 1.6 and you have a beautiful lens that covers all of the lengths that I hardly ever use - and I haven't seen any of Jon's photos so I have to speak from my experience and what works for me. And for me a 38-168mm lens, regardless of quality, wouldn't get a lot of use.
Personally I would be more likely to spend the money on a wider lens but thats just me.
Actually if I was looking to make money from photography I would be more likely to spend the money on lighting equipment, that will make a bigger difference to the final quality of any portrait shot than an expensive bit of glass.
 08/23/2006 08:50:55 AM · #22
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
Actually if I was looking to make money from photography I would be more likely to spend the money on lighting equipment, that will make a bigger difference to the final quality of any portrait shot than an expensive bit of glass.

Great point.
 08/23/2006 09:07:02 AM · #23
The 18-55 and the 28-105 definitely need to go.

I would do the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Canon 17-40 f/4L and keep the 75-300 IS. You can upgrade the telephoto end later when you know what range to go with.

You have been told that images straight from the camera are soft etc... this is more noticeable (in my eyes) on the 20D/30D than it is on the 350. The 350 is set up to sharpen a bit more in camera... Still, this is somewhat irrelevant. A sharper lens is a sharper lens.
 08/23/2006 09:11:57 AM · #24
i'm looking at that aperture. f4??? the lens you're going to buy might have great glass inside, but as a lens itself the performance you're going to be offered is less than what you've already got.

i'd stick with the three lenses you've got. as long as you keep them clean, you can produce great quality photographs.

when you leave college and get a job where you've got money to burn, then buy yourself better gear. for now, you've got a good kit. keep it!!!

one last thing: good glass is no match for skill. some great shots being produced in challenges where the camera and gear is worth less than $1000. don't think that it'll make you a better photographer, it's just a more expensive lens to drop! :(
 08/23/2006 09:14:46 AM · #25
I'd do it - wouldn't give it a second thought
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 01:36:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 01:36:13 AM EDT.