lens shopping is no fun - DPChallenge Forums

09/20/2006 06:42:01 AM · #1

My concerns are (in this order) image quality, dust, weight, price. I am sold on fast glass, unless f4 really is okay for what I want to do. My interests are mostly landscape and architecture (especially inside churches etc.) and travel photography. Of course I want to be able to take great shots of my kids too. So Here's what I've come up with.

Canon 30D (might still get the 20D to put more towards glass)

16-35 2.8 L or 17-55 2.8 IS (not L though)
or
24-70 2.8 L (not IS)
and later
70-200 but I can't decide on f2.8 or 4 because I heard 2.8 is HEAVY.

I really want a great walk-around lens because we live in Germany and we are always out checking out the country. And I heard the the variable focal lengths are not as good (f3.5-4.5 for example)
So any advice is appreciated. Also, does it make any sense to get the kit lens? or should I just get the body only?

All together I can spend about $3000 but need accessories too (bag, filters, battery grip, CF card etc.)I have not considered third party because then there would be just TOO much to choose from!!

THANK YOU!!!!

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

09/20/2006 06:53:24 AM · #2

everyone told me the 24-70 was heavy before i bought it ...

they were right, it's very heavy ... but freakin' awesome. it was the obvious choice for me as I don't usually need to go that wide.

09/20/2006 07:28:13 AM · #3

if you're primary interest is landscape and architecture, than you don't need 2.8 on the wide end. you'll always want to use a tripod in those situations, and 2.8...hell, 4.0 isn't going to do you any good anyway. so, consider the 17-40L instead of the 16-35L. frankly, it's better glass.

09/20/2006 07:34:37 AM · #4

17-40 was definately another consideration, the only thing holding me back was the low light inside churches and castles. Wouldn't I need something more than f4 in those situations? And if I get the 17-40 how should I cover the range in between it and the 70-200...

09/20/2006 07:40:38 AM · #5

Originally posted by oravsky123:

well, two things can be done to solve the low-light problem. a tripod, which I realize is not always practical, or a faster ISO. either the 20D or 30D can handle very fast ISO's, so going to 400 will easily compensate for the slower glass. if you're concerned about noise and are looking for a high quality shot in those situations, you must use a tripod, no getting around that regardless of the glass you use.

as for bridging the gap between 40 and 70, I use the 50 1.4 and that works perfectly for me. I have the 24-70 in my bag, but I rarely take it with me. it's a great lens, but the 50 is better and most compositions allow for forward or backward movement, negating the need to have a 45mm or 60mm, for example.

I carry the 17-40, the 50 1.4, and the 70-200IS, with a 2x extender for extremely long range, and I'm completely covered 99.5% of the time.

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 07:42:36.

09/20/2006 07:47:20 AM · #6

so 17-40, 50 1.4, and 70-200 and f4 is fine?
If f4 is okay then I have to consider the 24-105...

round and round I go lol

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/20/2006 07:51:21 AM · #7

you need more people to chime in with their opinions here.

f/4 is okay at the wide end, not necessarily as good the longer you get. if you're looking at a mid-range zoom, the 2.8 is probably the way to go, since that lens will often play an all-purpose roll for you and you don't really want to limit the capabilities of your all-purpose glass if you don't have to.

mist

Canon EOS-60D

09/20/2006 07:52:45 AM · #8

With the 30D you could use the 10-22mm and get really wide angle stuff for your landscapes. It can produce amazingly sharp images, too.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/20/2006 07:53:54 AM · #9

Originally posted by mist:

With the 30D you could use the 10-22mm and get really wide angle stuff for your landscapes. It can produce amazingly sharp images, too.

agreed! that's an awesome lens that, IMO, is every bit as sharp as L glass.

LoveSpuds

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

09/20/2006 07:55:40 AM · #10

I have the 17-40mm and the 70-200mm F4 L's and they are the biz. As suggested, I also picked up the 50mm F1.8 to fill in the gap, but the truth is, once the 17-40mm is on you won't take it off.

I have occassionally found the speed with my F4 lenses an issue, but I have a thing about depth of field so wouldn't want to use F2.8 because I would worry about the DOF to much.

DOn't get me wrong though, if I could afford it I would go for the F2.8 lenses, but I haven't got bags of money so will have to make do.

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/20/2006 08:12:19 AM · #11

I LOVE my 24-70L, but as mentioned for landscapes it doesn't go that wide especially considering the crop factor (38.4mm equivalent). I also have the 10-22, and second/third the notion for this lens. It's amazingly sharp, and and a lot of fun at 10mm. It doesn't have the "L" name or the trademark red stripe, but you'd never know it by looking at the photos it produces. It's also A LOT lighter than the 24-70, but still has a pretty solid feel to it.

Don't forget the petal hood (around $40) and an ultra slim polarizer. Quick note about the polarizer on this lens though: at such wide angles, only part of the sky will be darker (at the "sweet spot") and will be more like a gradiant across the sky if that makes sense.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/20/2006 08:33:12 AM · #12

Originally posted by photoheathen:

If you could suggest one lense for now with a 70-200 to follow what would it be?
Impossible question right lol.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

09/20/2006 08:48:33 AM · #13

If you are into landscapes: 10-22

Into anything else: 50mm

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

09/20/2006 08:52:23 AM · #14

If I were buying all over again,(and who knows with me I just might be!) This is the combination I would put in my bag, 10-22 canon, 24-75 Tamron, 70-200 f2.8 either sigma or canon depending on budget. You would have awesome range, great lens, and great focal length coverage.

MattO

ETA Lens shopping is fun! As long as someone else is paying the bill!

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 08:56:55.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/20/2006 09:56:38 AM · #15

10-22 over the 16-35?

mist

Canon EOS-60D

09/20/2006 09:59:29 AM · #16

Originally posted by oravsky123:

10-22 over the 16-35?

For landscapes on a 1.6x sensor? I'd say so. The 10-22 is incredibly wide. I found it a somewhat strange out of body experience to look through it for the first time.

For everyday use milling around town, probably not.

Message edited by author 2006-09-20 10:00:19.

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 (E-mount)

09/20/2006 10:02:07 AM · #17

Originally posted by mist:

Originally posted by oravsky123:
10-22 over the 16-35?

I found it a somewhat strange out of body experience to look through it for the first time.

Hmm sounds like fun lol.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6400

09/20/2006 10:18:07 AM · #18

I would seriously consider the 17-40 f/4L before purchasing the 16-35 f/2.8L. For most landscape and architecture work, you SHOULD be using a tripod and the single stop of difference in the lenses becomes less of a factor. I use the 17-40L and I'm very impressed with it's performance. It's a great lens.