Topic: Help choosing new travel lens (Read 6196 times)

islandboy · « **on:** July 07, 2007, 11:43:44 pm »

Hi All,

I am getting ready to purchase a lens and need some help from more experienced photographers. I shoot primarily travel photography with a mix of landscapes, architecture, building interiors and museums. In the past I traveled with a Canon G for portability reasons but of late, I have been disappointed with the photos and would like to take my 20D on my next trip. I am looking for a good all-around lens. I currently have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 that I have been using but would like something with a little more reach. I have looked at both the Canon 24-70 2.8L and the 24-105 4L. Because I shoot some building and museum interiors in relatively dim light hand-held, I am concerned about how the 24-105 will perform. My logic may be off but I would think that even though the lens is slower than the 24-70, with the combination of IS, which should get me 2 to 3 stops, and a higher ISO, I should be able to use a slower shutter speed and get enough light to make the shots. I don't shoot moving objects in low light so subject movement wouldn't be an issue. If the 24-105 wouldn't work well enough, I don't know that the 24-70 is going to get me too much more than my current lens especially considering the cost. I've also read quite a few reviews on the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 which seems like a good low cost alternative but I would prefer not to lose on the wide end (even though I have the 17-50) and I am willing to invest more if it will get me a lens with crisper image details and better contrast and color. Thanks for you help.

marcmccalmont · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2007, 02:05:38 am »

When I first got my 5D my thinking was old school (last camera was a Nikon f100) so I purchased a 24-70 2.8, I then tried the 24-105 4.0 IS and sold the 24-70. Using DXO as a RAW converter with the included lens modules there was no difference in sharpness and quality but more good shots hand held with the 24-105 IS and a bit more reach when you need it.
Marc

tived · « **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2007, 09:20:15 am »

Next time I go travelling it will be with a 5D/30D/400D (one of them)
my 16-35,
50mm f/1.4
and the 70-300DO
and a small tripod strong enough to hold up any combination of this.
This is oppose to my last setup, 1Ds, 16-35L, 24-70L and 70-200LIS, damn that was heavy.

Henrik

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2007, 09:40:30 am »

The 24-105 IS L is ideal for use with my 5D. But on the 20D, with the smaller sensor, I would want to have something wider as well. I would be sure to have your 17-50 along as well. I have a 17-40 (Canon) which was my main ens when I was using a 10D.

islandboy · « **Reply #4 on:** July 09, 2007, 06:00:21 pm »

Quote

The 24-105 IS L is ideal for use with my 5D. But on the 20D, with the smaller sensor, I would want to have something wider as well. I would be sure to have your 17-50 along as well. I have a 17-40 (Canon) which was my main ens when I was using a 10D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks guys. Still up in the air but really leaning towards the 24-105. Tried the 28-105 this weekend and despite the good reviews I've read, I was very disappointed. The lens lacked contrast and I found that even in moderate light levels, the autofocus hunted - especially at the telephoto end. I had a hard time in normal room light getting the focus to lock. That lens is out for sure.

OwlsEye · « **Reply #5 on:** July 10, 2007, 10:23:44 pm »

Quote

Thanks guys. Still up in the air but really leaning towards the 24-105. Tried the 28-105 this weekend and despite the good reviews I've read, I was very disappointed. The lens lacked contrast and I found that even in moderate light levels, the autofocus hunted - especially at the telephoto end. I had a hard time in normal room light getting the focus to lock. That lens is out for sure.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm a nature photographer, but am facing a similar dilemma. I'll be doing some shooting in Venice and Prague this month. Rather than bring my pack of 1DII's & super-teles, I'm taking my 5D, 20mm f2.8, and 24-105 IS. I did some shooting in my hometown (a tourist city) and think that this combo is ideal for intimate city work.

I'm curious with what you will decide.
regards,
bruce
[a href=\"http://www.btleventhal.com]http://www.btleventhal.com[/url]

Fred Ragland · « **Reply #6 on:** July 10, 2007, 10:56:18 pm »

The 24-105 f4 IS has become my workhorse lens. The photozone review matches my experience with it on a full frame 1Ds2. Much of my work is architectural and cityscape. When combined with DXO, this lens on a full frame camera is an exceptional performer.

stever · « **Reply #7 on:** July 10, 2007, 11:41:29 pm »

i've used both the 20D and 17-85 and 5D and 24-105 for travel

although i prefer the 5D and 24-105 for the extra f-stop and resolution, the 20D and 17-85 is a well-matched combination (i don't think the 20D can take advantage of the extra resolution of the 24-105 at longer focal lengths -- the 24-105 is better at shorter focal lengths, but it's not short enough on the 20D for general travel use including architecture)

both combinations work well for museums, the IS being a critical factor

the 28-135 IS is not such a bad lens on the 20D, but then you need a 10-22 as well (and the same is true for a 24-105 -- 36mm equiv at the long end just won't work for architecture)

i also use a 70-300 DO or 100-400IS if i'm going to be on a boat or expect details that i can't get close to

islandboy · « **Reply #8 on:** July 17, 2007, 07:12:44 pm »

Quote

i've used both the 20D and 17-85 and 5D and 24-105 for travel

although i prefer the 5D and 24-105 for the extra f-stop and resolution, the 20D and 17-85 is a well-matched combination (i don't think the 20D can take advantage of the extra resolution of the 24-105 at longer focal lengths -- the 24-105 is better at shorter focal lengths, but it's not short enough on the 20D for general travel use including architecture)

both combinations work well for museums, the IS being a critical factor

the 28-135 IS is not such a bad lens on the 20D, but then you need a 10-22 as well (and the same is true for a 24-105 -- 36mm equiv at the long end just won't work for architecture)

i also use a 70-300 DO or 100-400IS if i'm going to be on a boat or expect details that i can't get close to
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127517\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I tried the 17-85 and found it had a lot of barrel distortion at the wide end and so I found myself zooming on my landscape shots to avoid it. I don't know if you found the same thing - I would think it would be even more noticeable on your 5D. It also is a little too slow at telephoto which would cause some problems for my inside shots hand-held. If I could find a good quality, relatively fast lens in that zoom range, my decision would be easier.

stever · « **Reply #9 on:** July 17, 2007, 08:54:55 pm »

both the 17-85 and 24-105 have distortion, particualrly noticeable at the wide end shooting straight lines

i use the PTLens plug-in to correct the lens distortion and geometric distortion from tilting the lens for architectural subjects (just remember not to frame too tightly when shooting up or down)

distortion is a problem with every zoom to a greater or lesser degree, i'd guess the 17-85 and 24-105 are about average

Goodlistener · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2007, 09:22:19 pm »

"Travel Len" is a big topic, and Canon 24-105 IS is a really good choice, but for a lot of money. I got a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 constant aperture lens a while ago because it has a very good reputation for image quality, its not too big and heavy, keeps a nice wide aperture, comes with a lens hood and does not cost too much. Like about $340 delivered.

How do I like it? Just fine but I need to get a better understanding of RAW image processing before I can really say for sure how good the lens is, because righ now the post-processing I do is only very basic. Its a good option if the "Buy a $1,000 lens" advice is not practical. Its a good option if the $1,000 lens is possible, because the basic quality is there. Cognoscenti point out that the Tamron lens does not focus as fast as a Canon ultrasonic wave motorized lens does. And they are right but the point is not critical.

Digital photo review has detailed statistical factual kinds of data on many different models.

gubak · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2007, 06:47:58 am »

Hi!
50mm f/1.4 lens is a good choice for your camera! Easy to use and you can take with it very quality landscape pictures!

islandboy · « **Reply #12 on:** August 23, 2007, 12:15:44 pm »

Quote

Hi!
50mm f/1.4 lens is a good choice for your camera! Easy to use and you can take with it very quality landscape pictures!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks everyone for your help. The 50mm is a good lens but not nearly wide enough on my 20D to shoot landscapes or even building interiors. I think Stever is right as well that even a 24 is not quite wide enough on a crop body. I have a trip coming up to Thailand where I'll be taking my Tamron 17-50/2.8 and my Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS. I'll see how those lenses work out on the trip before I make any decisions to buy.

Nill Toulme · « **Reply #13 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:26:47 pm »

I recently traded the 17-85 IS "travel lens" on my 400D "travel camera" for the Sigma 18-200 OS. So far I like it a lot in that role, as well as for general knockaround use. Overall in that sort of context I personally find IS to be of more value than a larger aperture.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Nill Toulme · « **Reply #14 on:** August 23, 2007, 01:27:54 pm »

Whoops double post! How to delete?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Author Topic: Help choosing new travel lens (Read 6196 times)