General Purpose Lens Replacement

09/15/2004 03:37:02 AM · #1

My Canon 28-105mm USM lens bit the dust the other week and I am looking for a replacement. I found the Canon 16-35mm f/4L today and I am debating whether to get that or the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L.

I am probably leaning toward the 16-35mm right now, especially with the 1.6x crop factor on the 10d making the lens almost equivalent to the 24-70 on a 35mm body. If I went with this choice, I'd probably sell my Sigma 12-24mm; 12mm is nice, but it's almost too much for me and I'd prefer better optics instead.

My current lens set is:

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5
Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (broken)
Sigma 105mm Macro f/2.8
Canon 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6

Right now, my ideal future lens set would consist of:

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
Sigma 105mm Macro
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS

I realize I am missing the ranges of 36-49mm and 51-69mm, but I think those choices would make for a pretty thorough and high quality lens set.

Another strong possibility is the much cheaper and slightly slower 17-40mm f/4L lens.

From an best optical quality, bang for the buck, and usability, what do you guys think will be my best bet?

Message edited by author 2004-09-15 04:45:10.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

09/15/2004 04:12:37 PM · #2

bump, bump bump..

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

09/15/2004 04:16:41 PM · #3

What about the 17-40mm L or is it out of your price range?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

09/15/2004 04:29:56 PM · #4

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

What about the 17-40mm L or is it out of your price range?

I think I mentioned it, but the 17-40mm f/4L is another strong candidate. It's also half the price of the 16-35mm f/2.8L. I don't think I'd really benefit much from an f2.8 over the f4, but I want the best lens optically speaking.

jmlelii

Nikon D850

09/15/2004 04:44:56 PM · #5

Why not go with the 28-135mm USM IS?

Here is a sample image I shot with it...

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

09/15/2004 04:47:55 PM · #6

Originally posted by VisiBlanco:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
What about the 17-40mm L or is it out of your price range?

I think I mentioned it, but the 17-40mm f/4L is another strong candidate. It's also half the price of the 16-35mm f/2.8L. I don't think I'd really benefit much from an f2.8 over the f4, but I want the best lens optically speaking.

Oh ya, you did. Reading to the end of a post is usually a good thing. ;o)

09/15/2004 04:49:09 PM · #7

If you don't need the f/2.8 I'd get the 17-40mm f/4L. It's the best bang for your buck. A fantastic lens, very sharp.

09/15/2004 04:51:22 PM · #8

Originally posted by jmlelii:

Why not go with the 28-135mm USM IS?

Here is a sample image I shot with it...

The 28-135mm is nice, but it's still really a consumer level lens. I'm replacing my now broken 28-105mm lens which is quite similar and I've now got my sights set on some L glass. :)

09/15/2004 04:53:57 PM · #9

Originally posted by doctornick:

If you don't need the f/2.8 I'd get the 17-40mm f/4L. It's the best bang for your buck. A fantastic lens, very sharp.

Yea, that's what I am thinking. I'm really only concerned with faster lenses on the telephoto end of the spectrum. Unless there is a reason why the 16-35mm is superior to the 17-40mm or there is another option I haven't explored, I will probably go with the 17-40mm.

09/15/2004 04:58:50 PM · #10

I'm not saying the 16-35 is not good, I have it and it's a fantastic lens, see shots below shot wide open at f/2.8 with no flash, ISO 400. But Best bang for your buck is the 17-40.

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

09/15/2004 05:02:40 PM · #11

Someone want to contribute to my non-existent glass collection :-(?

I had cash for a lens saved up until I borrowed a friend's crappy lens and broke it, no matter how crappy - it had to be paid for.

So I opted for the 28-105 USM which I like...but....like you said: it's consumer.

So...here's an opening for some L glass if you'd like to make a donation -----------------------------------------------------

09/15/2004 05:05:54 PM · #12

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Awwww! The 28-105 is a very good lens stopped down. Only problem is you don't have the wide angle which may or may not be a problem for you.

Does Canadian Tire money count? ;)

09/15/2004 05:07:26 PM · #13

Originally posted by doctornick:

I'm not saying the 16-35 is not good, I have it and it's a fantastic lens, see shots below shot wide open at f/2.8 with no flash, ISO 400. But Best bang for your buck is the 17-40.

Oh yea, I've looked at some reviews and both are awesome lenses. I think budget wise, I'll probably end up selling my 12-24mm Sigma and buy the 17-40 (which really isn't much more than what I can sell the 12-24mm for). And then I'll keep saving for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM lens.

I just wanted some feedback to make sure I wasn't making a fatal mistake in lens ranges/selection or if there were some problems with either the 17-40mm or 16-35mm that I hadn't heard about.