| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2006 07:38:49 AM · #1 |
The DPC crowd is so far responsible for most of my hardware and I'm satisfied with what I have. So once again, I turn to the crowd and ask for a suggestion:
I currently have this:
EF 16-35 2.8L
EF 50mm 1.8
EF 70-200 2.8L IS
EF 100mm 2.8 macro
I'm looking at one or the other of these three:
EF 24-70 2.8L
EF 85 1.2L II
EF 24-105 4.0L IS
I know... totally different lenses - but which one should I get first? I might also totally drop the 24-70 idea and go with the 24-105 instead as a choice when I only want to bring ONE lense on business trips.
I have managed so far without the 24-70 since I use my 50 or 100 often as walk-around lenses.
Does anyone here have the new 85? Is it worth the dough? |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 07:48:01 AM · #2 |
My vote would go to the 24-70L. Although I do try to use my 50mm and 85mm as ofte as I could and this lens now sees more shelf time than I thought it would, it´s still my nr.1 lens for "do it all, never leave home without it when you don´t know what you are going to expect". If I HAD to sell all but one of my lenses, this is definately the one I would keep, it´s solid all around.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 08:28:04 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by TrollMan:
I currently have this:
EF 16-35 2.8L
EF 50mm 1.8
EF 70-200 2.8L IS
EF 100mm 2.8 macro
|
I have a very similar set-up to yours. I do have the 24-70mm and it is my most used lens. The 24-105 would be an even better range, but I really do use the 2.8 quite often on my 24-70. That extra stop is worth it. My vote is to go for the 24-70. I think it would fill your gap nicely.
Jenn :)
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 08:32:07 AM · #4 |
i wouldn't think the 24-105 would be an option simply because of the f4 ... seems very limiting to me.
i'd say the 24-70 (and the 85 1.8 is spit in the ocean compared to what you'd spend on the other choices, get that too) |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 08:35:51 AM · #5 |
| The 24-70 is *the* perfect compliment to the 70-200. The performance on the 5D is amazing. The 24-70 has less distortion at the wide end than the 24-105, which may be important if you shoot architecture or stitch panos. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 08:37:30 AM · #6 |
| I'd say the 24-70 as well. I absolutely love mine, and like Larus, have it on the camera most of the time. It pairs up perfectly with the 70-200 IS. The 85 1.2 would be a helluva lens to have for portraits and studio work, but IMO not for a walk-around travel lens. The 24-105 makes sense to have the extra reach on a walk-around for business trips, but I've read that one has a little more distortion and vignetting on the wide end, something to consider on a full-frame camera. Here's a comparison of the two on Luminous Landscape. |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 08:47:42 AM · #7 |
I guess that, depending on your style, the 24-70 is either the most used, or least used, of the 16-200mm f2.8 holy trinity. I know people who go both ways. For me, I have not bought it because I think that it would be least for me (and so far, admittedly on a 1.6 crop, that has seemed true).
Now - the 85mm 1.2L - that is a lens that I have read about with a great deal of interest recently. Especially on full frame sensor (hitting the portrait sweetspot).
f1.2. f1.2. f1.2.
Makes one think...
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 08:50:22 AM · #8 |
I don't know how well eBay functions in Norway, but if it is anything like the UK, you could buy one of the options from Hong Kong, import it and probably sell it later post-import for pretty much the same price if you find that you don't use it.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 09:13:26 AM · #9 |
Thanks everyone - the 24-70 will be in my bag soon.
I went through the same ordeal (16-35 vs. 24-70) when I bought my 16-35 but it turned out later that it was a good choice since I started doing real estate photography as a side line. 16mm on a Full Frame is a must when photographing tiny bathrooms etc.
It would have been nice if I could afford to just buy all of them at the same time :)
I can't wait to get it! |
|
|
|
06/30/2006 10:43:31 AM · #10 |
teh 24-70 is a nice lens.
the 85 1.2 is an outstanding lens.
the 24-70 will take 'normal' type pictures, nothing all that special.
the 85 1.2 will take award winning ground breaking pictures.
1.2 man! have you seen that lens? It weighs like 30 pounds and is qa foot in diameter. Well, i may be exaggerating a bit, but it is huge and heavy. if you like primes you'll love this lens, and on a 5D - wowee baby!
the 24-105 is not impressive. shoot in the studio and you'll use it alot, or as one lens solution it might work.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 11:52:47 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
teh 24-70 is a nice lens.
the 85 1.2 is an outstanding lens. |
Agreed - some of the early commenters appeared to mistake the brand new 85mm f1.2 II L lens being discussed with the far less interesting 85mm f1.8.
The reason to get the 24-70 is if you keep on finding that you are regularly finding that 70mm is too long and 35mm does not give you enough zoom (it happens to me occasionally, but not often, and there is always the trusty 50mm).
|
|
|
|
06/30/2006 12:11:50 PM · #12 |
I have an 18-50 and 70-200 (on a 1.5 crop body) and don't miss the 20 in the middle.
70-200 on a full frame is so outstanding a combo i can't stand it. (i got use a 5D and 70-200 2.8 IS...it made me want to throw away my new 30D and 70-210 2.8 (non IS). I am hopeful tokina's new 50-135 2.8 due this fall is good a the range and ap work for me.
bambio cantrell uses the older 85 and makes nice shots with it. the 1.2 is better. it's just so damned BIG. the back of the lens has a recess to allow access to the lens release button! the front of the lens reminds me of the bottom of a champagne bottle in size.
Message edited by author 2006-06-30 12:12:24.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 05:37:30 PM EST.
