Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: 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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=127332\")
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]
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
"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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.toulme.net)
-
Whoops double post! How to delete?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)