Lense help - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/29/2009 03:03:43 PM · #1

I've had a Canon 350D for about 2 years or so now and currently have the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens as well as an EF 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6. The lenses I have now are pretty good however I'm looking for a little advice on an upgrade. I was wondering if there is a lens out there which can be considered an "all purpose" lens? I know that Nikon makes a 28-200mm lens, does anyone know of a Canon equivalent? I've been looking but no success so far. If not what would be the best combination of quality lenses to cover from wide angle to telephoto? Hope this makes sense. Price doesn't matter, i'm just looking to see how much this could cost.

Thanks alot, I appreciate the help

Message edited by author 2009-07-29 15:15:49.

Five_Seat

Canon EOS-6D

07/29/2009 03:33:19 PM · #2

Cheapest - EF 18-200/3.5-5.6, it came out about the same time as the 50D, last fall - around $600

Highest Quality:

EF 16-35/2.8L II - $1300
EF 24-70/2.8L - $1200
EF 70-200/2.8L IS - $1700

Also worth considering the EF 24-105/4.0L, which is ~ $1000, although on a crop factor body, it may bot be wide enough...

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/29/2009 04:04:50 PM · #3

On the wide end, for "biggest bang for the buck" you could consider:
- The Canon EF-S 10-22, about $700
- The Canon 17-40 f/4 L, also about $700
If you like an ultra-wide view, the 10-22 may be for you. If you are satisfied with view at the wide end of your kit lens, choose the 17-40.

A fast prime should be a part of your plan. I'd consider the Canon 50mm f/1.4, at about $400.

For telephoto, one of the Canon 70-200mm lenses. There are two versions, each available with and without IS (image stabilization). If you don't mind weight, have the bucks, and need the f/2.8 aperture, the 70-200/2.8 L IS at $1700 is the way to go. If you don't want that weight and can live with f/4, the 70-200/4 L IS ($1025) is every bit as good (just a stop slower). The non-IS versions are optically good, but IS is a really big benefit on a lens of this length, so if budget permits, go with an IS version.

Message edited by author 2009-07-29 16:05:15.

drick172

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

07/29/2009 05:02:44 PM · #4

I hear that the Nikon 18-200 is a superb lens. I also think Nikon is announcing a new one this week?? There was no canon equivalent - until the new canon 18-200/3.5-5.6. I have not seen the images of the new canon 18-200, so I don't know if its comparable.

I would love to have the 24-105 IS L to compliment my 70-200 IS L 2.8. I see and hear the 24-105 is as sharp as the 24-70 and my 70-200. With the 24-105 I would loose the 2.8 but gain the (2 stop) IS. A fair trade off for me.

I think the 24-105 is an outstanding all purpose lens. But I also hear a rumor that Canon will soon announce a 24-70 IS L 2.8. That would make the decision between the 24-70 and 24-105 hard.

What I am taking about is quality not cost vs performance. The cost vs performance I think is an individual preference.

07/30/2009 11:43:01 AM · #5

Thanks for the suggestions, here is what i'm thinking tell me what you think. Situation 1:
- Sell both lenses (probably for a combined $350-400?)
- Buy the EF 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4L

Situation 2:
- Sell the EF 28-105 ($200?)
- Keep the EF-S 18-55
- Buy the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the 70-200 f/4L
- Eventually selling 18-55 and purchasing the EF-S 10-22

Right now i'm leaning on option 2, any other combinations you can think of? I know I said that price doesn't matter but who am I kidding? Realistically if this will happen soon looking to spend about $1200, probably looking at buying off ebay or used.

What about some third party lenses like Sigma or Tamron? Do they have a good quality "all in one" lens within my budget?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/31/2009 08:05:04 AM · #6

Bump

Been reading about the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 and the 18-125, they look pretty solid any advice on the two?

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

07/31/2009 09:06:08 AM · #7

ouch - double post!

Message edited by author 2009-07-31 09:06:27.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/31/2009 09:06:08 AM · #8

Its not easy to give someone advice on which lenses to buy or how to prioritize without knowing what they like to shoot. If you were a landscape photographer, I would suggest putting your money into high performing wide angle lenses such as the Canon EF-S 10-22 and the Canon 17-40L. If you were a portrait photographer I would suggest primes such as the 50 and either 85 or 100. Wildlife? The 100-400L. For general all around shooting there are a ton of good lenses.

If I was remaking my lens arsenal today, from scratch, I would probably buy, considering cost and quality, in this order:
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 Aspherical - great walking around lens with good low light capabilities (though the focus is slower than the Canon lenses in lower light)
Canon 17-40L - a little slow but produces beautifully (cheaper alternative - Tamron 17-35 aspherical)
Canon 50 F1.8 II - great all around low light lens, plastic but great and very inexpensive
Canon 70-200L 4 IS - I would take the IS over the faster lens (cheaper alternative - Sigma)

After these were purchased, I would get the other lenses I currently have - 100-400L, the Tokina Fisheye, the Canon 70-300 non-DO and the 100 2.8 macro, in that order. When I first started in digital, the 100 2.8 was the best lens I owned and so rarely took it off my camera - excellent macro, portrait, low-light, all around lens.

It all depends on what you shoot. But you will learn, as the rest of us have, that buying cheap lenses now just means you are going to have to upgrade later. The bargain lenses give you the quality you pay for and are not worth it in the long run except for the experience you gain. If I wanted to cover a wide range to start out, cheaply, so I could add in better quality lenses later, I would probably buy the Canon EF-S 55-250. At $250, it covers a huge range, is lightweight, and produces decent images.

Good luck and happy hunting!
BTW - this is solely my opinion, not gospel or fact. My name is not Ken Rockwell and I do not know the mysteries of the universe.

rodneyg

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

07/31/2009 09:56:30 AM · #9

My 70-200mm F2.8 IS is practically glued on to my camera. I really love this lens despite the weight and expense.