Old 12-13-2011, 05:49 AM   #1
Amtrakdavis22
Senior Member
 
Amtrakdavis22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 308
Default Canon Lens Question

Hello group,

I was wondering if you could help me decide on a lens upgrade. With the holidays coming around, I'll have the option of buying my first Canon L series lens. I was thinking I would upgrade my wideangle lens first because out of the two I have (18-55mm, 55-250mm) that one is the biggest disappointment. I also shoot a lot of wideangle shots when shooting trains. So does anyone have any feedback on either of these two lens. For the record, I use a Canon Rebel XSi so I do not have a full frame sensor. I was thinking I might try out Barrowlenses.com and rent one of these lenses for a few days. That way I could try it in the field. Does anyone here own these lenses?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...f_2_8L_II.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...4L_IS_USM.html

If anyone has any other suggestions I would really appreciate hearing them.

Thanks everyone!
__________________
Amtrakdavis22

Flickr

RailPictures.Net
RailVideos.Net

Youtube Videos
Amtrakdavis22.com

"Love the sound of that shutter!" -Peter Lik
Amtrakdavis22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 06:03 AM   #2
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

The 24-105L will likely be the second L lenses I buy (after the 70-200 4L). I understand it is AMAZING!

Edit: I got trolled with this post.
__________________
Be governed accordingly,

PFL

Last edited by crazytiger; 12-13-2011 at 05:38 PM.
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 06:29 AM   #3
mark woody
Senior Member
 
mark woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mudgee N.S.W. Australia
Posts: 641
Default

I now only carry three lenses, Canon 24-105 f4 L is usm, 70-200 f4 L usm and 50 f1.8, the 24-105 is almost always on the camera, a 450D/XSi all my shots since Jan 2011 were taken with either of the zooms, I do sometimes miss the extra MM's of the 55-250 though, I used the 55-250 until Oct 2009 with various other trial lens most of the shots from Oct 2009 till Jan 2011 were with the 70-200L, I am really happy with the L series.

Last edited by mark woody; 12-13-2011 at 09:11 AM.
mark woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 09:44 AM   #4
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

24 mm isn't that wide so get this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._f_4L_USM.html if the 24-105 looks good to you go with it.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 10:38 AM   #5
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

I you want to save some money, you can buy a used EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM off of a place like KEH for a little over $100 and it's just as good as the 24-105, but not as wide and no IS. I have this lens and it's great.

The 16-35 would be a waste of money on a crop camera. You could save a lot of money if you want a wide L by buying a 17-40L
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 11:47 AM   #6
Jeff Terry
Senior Member
 
Jeff Terry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Newport, Minnesota
Posts: 46
Default Go for the 24-105 f4

I love my 24-105 f4. I purchased it as a replacement for my 28-70 f2.8, which was destroyed at Train Festival in July (don't ask...).

For wide angle use, I use a Canon 10-22, which is a digital only lens:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...5_4_5_USM.html

The build is just as good as an L-series lens (cost is up there too) but it can't be branded an "L" because it's in Canon's digital-only line for APS sensor cameras. I've been very happy with it, but if I had to choose, I'd go with the 24-105.

I tried out a Canon 17-40 back in September, and liked it, but not enough to give up the 10-22.

Jeff Terry
Jeff Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 11:52 AM   #7
Wizzo
Senior Member
 
Wizzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 545
Default

I agree with Richard - although the 24-105 F4 L is superb, 24mm on a Canon crop sensor is only around 40mm equivalent on a full frame camera.
The 17-40 F4 L is also good and much cheaper (and lighter) than the other lenses you were considering.
I have 3 L's, the 17-40 F4, 24-105 F4 and the 70-200 F4
__________________
STEVE

Press here to see my pics on railpictures.net

More pics here D1059 on Flickr
Wizzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 12:33 PM   #8
Mr. Pick
Senior Member
 
Mr. Pick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 662
Default

Good luck picking a lens. If you're like me, you can quickly study yourself right into "analysis paralysis." Every lens out there has proponents who think it's the best thing since sliced bread, and also a bunch who say it was the worst lens they ever owned.

I've bought and sold a few trying to find the right combo for me. I've got three now that I carry with me all the time, and they work pretty well, though I'll probably still try a couple more just to see if I like them better.

Combo right now is (all Canon) the 15-85 is usm, 50 1.4, and the 70-200 4L IS. I've found I can cover most any situation with these three. The 15-85 gets the most work. The range is great. I find I need to go below 24mm on my crop sensor quite frequently, but that may just be me. Can't say enough good things about the 70-200. Great lens - I find myself backing off from scenes just so I can use it. Amazing IQ. The 50 1.4 is also a great lens and gets pulled out anytime light is low.

Good luck! The good news is all those lenses will make great images for you.
Mr. Pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 12:39 PM   #9
Mr. Pick
Senior Member
 
Mr. Pick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 662
Default

Please remove - duplicate post.

Last edited by Mr. Pick; 12-13-2011 at 04:40 PM.
Mr. Pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 12:55 PM   #10
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
I you want to save some money, you can buy a used EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM off of a place like KEH for a little over $100 and it's just as good as the 24-105, but not as wide and no IS. I have this lens and it's great.
How does it compare with the 17-85? That's what I have now, and if it really is that good, I'd love to give it a whirl.
__________________
Be governed accordingly,

PFL
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 02:09 PM   #11
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb 16-35mm & 24-105mm both rock.

Get the 16-35mm.

Sure it is $1,650.00, but it will work on your camera and you will like the results.

The main difference between it and the cheaper 17-40mm is that the 16-35 does not distort the image as much.

I have been using the 16-35 for a number of years and I really like it.

I also use it in doors for birthdays and such with a flash.

Shots that were taken with it.

Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 324016
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 324322
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 325091
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 382759
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 362384
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


The 24-105mm is a good lens and I have one of those too, but it is not a wide angle like the 16-35mm.

The other reason to buy L's is because I assume one day you will want that 5DMKII and then you will have the lenses for it.

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 12-13-2011 at 04:07 PM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 02:51 PM   #12
PLEzero
Senior Member
 
PLEzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 675
Default

If you want a wide angle lens go for the 17-40 f/4 or 16-35 f/2.8. They're both good choices. The 16-35 is quite a bit faster so if you take a lot of low light photos you should probably spend the extra cash.

If you want a wide angle lens and purchase a 24-105 f/4 you're going to be very disappointed with a crop sensor camera.
__________________
Brad Morocco
Candyland, PA
My Flickr Photos
My RP.net Photos
PLEzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 03:11 PM   #13
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazytiger View Post
How does it compare with the 17-85? That's what I have now, and if it really is that good, I'd love to give it a whirl.
Picture quality is better, focus is faster and more accurate. But it is considerably less wide, which is an issue if you are on a crop body, and it does not have IS. But I have found the IS on the 17-85 (I also have this lens, although it has not been out of my bag in over a year) lacking. The bigger issue is the 28 vs 17 on the wide end, that's considerable on a crop body.

I have the 17-40 for wide stuff and it's excellent, as-good as the 16-35, but is F4 vs F2.8.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 03:13 PM   #14
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLEzero View Post
If you want a wide angle lens go for the 17-40 f/4 or 16-35 f/2.8. They're both good choices. The 16-35 is quite a bit faster so if you take a lot of low light photos you should probably spend the extra cash.
It's ONE STOP faster, and I dont know how often people shoot trains at f2.8.

Quote:
If you want a wide angle lens and purchase a 24-105 f/4 you're going to be very disappointed with a crop sensor camera.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 03:34 PM   #15
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Started with a 17-40, then a year later bought a 100-400, then a couple of years later bought the 24-105. Looking back, I wish I had done it differently, starting with the 24-105, which I use the most.

The 17-40 stays on my 5D, the 24-105 on my 60D and the 100-400 interchanges with either body. I've got my entire preferred zoom range covered now, so I'm pretty happy with that selection, but I just would just do the purchasing order a little differently if I had to do it again.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 03:52 PM   #16
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Started with a 17-40, then a year later bought a 100-400, then a couple of years later bought the 24-105. Looking back, I wish I had done it differently, starting with the 24-105, which I use the most.

The 17-40 stays on my 5D, the 24-105 on my 60D and the 100-400 interchanges with either body. I've got my entire preferred zoom range covered now, so I'm pretty happy with that selection, but I just would just do the purchasing order a little differently if I had to do it again.
Consider selling the 100-400 and buying a 70-200f4 (non-IS), it is very cheap (relatively speaking for L glass), and excellent IQ. I have the 100-400 and dont use it too often, not just for train stuff because I find it too long on both ends.

Alternately, there is a 70-210 USM variable aperture lens that is no longer made, it is very good as well, close to the L lens. You can pick it up for under $200 if you can find one. Dont get the 70-210 F4, it is older, push-pull and IQ is not stellar.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 04:02 PM   #17
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
....I have the 100-400 and dont use it too often, not just for train stuff because I find it too long on both ends.....
Really?

I use mine all the time.

Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 379297
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 360202
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 346363
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 299980
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 300394
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 287341
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 05:35 PM   #18
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Picture quality is better, focus is faster and more accurate. But it is considerably less wide, which is an issue if you are on a crop body, and it does not have IS. But I have found the IS on the 17-85 (I also have this lens, although it has not been out of my bag in over a year) lacking. The bigger issue is the 28 vs 17 on the wide end, that's considerable on a crop body.

I have the 17-40 for wide stuff and it's excellent, as-good as the 16-35, but is F4 vs F2.8.
Thanks a bunch. There definitely is a big difference between 17 and 28. [DUH!]
__________________
Be governed accordingly,

PFL
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 07:08 PM   #19
PLEzero
Senior Member
 
PLEzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
It's ONE STOP faster, and I dont know how often people shoot trains at f2.8.
Sure, it's technically one full stop but you hit 3.2 and 3.5 on the way between them on the one-third scale. It doesn't seem like much but it low light situations every little bit helps. Go take a train photo at dusk or dawn with f/4 and f/2.8. Let me know which one turns out more favorable. I never specifically wrote train photos, I wrote photos. There are a lot of other things you can take photos of besides trains. In most cases, f/4 is going to be plenty for train photos but if he takes a lot of night shots, inside family events, etc. the 16-35 is going to be a lot more helpful than the 17-40.
__________________
Brad Morocco
Candyland, PA
My Flickr Photos
My RP.net Photos

Last edited by PLEzero; 12-13-2011 at 07:14 PM.
PLEzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 07:57 PM   #20
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Consider selling the 100-400 and buying a 70-200f4 (non-IS), it is very cheap (relatively speaking for L glass), and excellent IQ. I have the 100-400 and dont use it too often, not just for train stuff because I find it too long on both ends.


Why would I want to give up 320mm just to have a medium length zoom lens with no IS?

Just because YOU don't use it very often, it doesn't make it worthless for others.

Not sure what you mean by you find it too long on both ends.

As of now, I'm covered from 17mm (full frame) to 640mm (crop). What you're suggesting is for me to give up 321mm - 640.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias

Last edited by JimThias; 12-13-2011 at 08:04 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 08:33 PM   #21
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Why would I want to give up 320mm just to have a medium length zoom lens with no IS?
Image quality between 100-200 is superb on the 70-200 over the 100-400, and you are 30mm wider than the 100-400. I find the IS on the 100-400 not terribly great also. It was one of the first IS lenses made, and honestly not great.

Quote:
Just because YOU don't use it very often, it doesn't make it worthless for others.
By now you should have figured out that my opinion is the only one that matters

Quote:
Not sure what you mean by you find it too long on both ends.
What I meant was too long on the short end, and I dont find the need to go much longer than 200 most of the time. That did not come out so well.

Obviously this is all my opinion, take it as you may, it's what works for me. Obviously one size does not fit all. I think personally if I had to do it all over again, I would have bought the 400/5.6L prime and saved some money. Even when I use the 100-400, most of the time, it's @400, not much inbetween.

Last edited by troy12n; 12-13-2011 at 08:36 PM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 08:49 PM   #22
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Image quality between 100-200 is superb on the 70-200 over the 100-400, and you are 30mm wider than the 100-400. I find the IS on the 100-400 not terribly great also. It was one of the first IS lenses made, and honestly not great.
But that's just it, I don't need the redundancy of 70-105mm f4 when I already have it on my 24-105 (AND with IS!).

I've never really noticed any IS issues with the 100-400. Maybe I just don't pay that close attention, or maybe it works well on my lens. I do know that I've had good luck with the IQ on it, and it's been rare that I've had any issues in that department.

100 looks good (all taken with my 5D):
Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 383047
Photograph © Jim Thias



200 looks good:
Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 354080
Photograph © Jim Thias



300 looks good:
Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 289358
Photograph © Jim Thias



400 looks good:
Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 345530
Photograph © Jim Thias


Now tell me again why I'd want to give up that range?
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias

Last edited by JimThias; 12-13-2011 at 08:55 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 11:44 PM   #23
PLEzero
Senior Member
 
PLEzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Now tell me again why I'd want to give up that range?
Because the image quality between 100-200 is superb on the 70-200 over the 100-400. Pay attention, Jim!

On a serious note, Jim's examples all look great. The Canon 70-200 series is an excellent choice no matter which version you have but that doesn't mean the 100-400 is a crap lens In this case it's all about the photographer and less about the equipment.
__________________
Brad Morocco
Candyland, PA
My Flickr Photos
My RP.net Photos

Last edited by PLEzero; 12-13-2011 at 11:50 PM.
PLEzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 11:50 PM   #24
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLEzero View Post
Because the image quality between 100-200 is superb on the 70-200 over the 100-400. Pay attention, Jim!
Oh yeah, that's right...I guess my shots should have been rejected for PIQ then!

__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 12:30 AM   #25
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Oh yeah, that's right...I guess my shots should have been rejected for PIQ then!

Yea, those all suck!
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.