Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: TheApprentice on November 24, 2011, 10:19:36 am
-
Hi there...
I am going to get a 5D Mark 2 for Christmas, and I have about £2500 maximum to spend...
at the moment my only F/Frame lenses are the 70-200 F/4 IS and 50mm f/1.8 II
I mainly shoot landscapes, architecture, general photography, a few portraits and pictures of my dogs
I am going to get a decent prime lens later on next year, and I am thinking of the Sigma 85 f/1.4 or Canon 85 f/1.8
but in the meantime, I need something of a normal focal length to use...
My options that I am thinking of are:
24-105 F/4 IS kit
24-70 F/2.8 Kit
Body only + 17-40 and maybe 50 F/1.4 or similar
What does anyone recommend, and also are there any others I should think about?
many thanks
Will
-
Hi,
I have and use the 24-105. I also have a 20 mm and 40 mm Voigtlander lenses for this camera.
The 24-105 is a fine lens. It does show a moustache distortion at the 24 mm end which cannot be readily corrected and can be distracting if you photograph straight lines at that angle. If you use Lightroom, the program has a built-in profile that does a fine job correcting for CA and distortion for this lens.
I have not used the other lenses you mention so have no opinion there.
Jean-Michel
-
Hi,
I have and use the 24-105. I also have a 20 mm and 40 mm Voigtlander lenses for this camera.
The 24-105 is a fine lens. If you use Lightroom, the program has a built-in profile that does a fine job correcting for CA and distortion for this lens.
Jean-Michel
Thanks Jean-Michel...
I have been thinking of getting the 24-105 as it is lighter and cheaper. I am also going to get lightroom when I buy a new computer, so this sounds a good option
16-35mm version II is superb. I had the 17-40 for 5 years and replaced it with the 16-35 and haven't looked back. The 16-35 vII is just that much better.
The 24-105 IS is a good all around lens. It is my most used used next to the 70-200.
I have read many times that the 16-35 II is better than the 17-40, but quite a few people suggest that it is only better at wider apertures...
I am thinking of the Zeiss 21mm and 18mm for a wide angle anyway...
I think that I shall go with the 24-105 and see if it is wide enough. I will have enough left over from the 24-105 kit to put towards other gear anyway
Thank you both!
Will
-
This is a very big question, but I have a feeling that you will be happy with the 24-105mm L.
I think that the 24-70mm L will be replaced soon. Your 50mm prime will be a joy to use!
Most of my lenses are prime, the only zoom I have is the 16-35mm L II and its grate, but it's not a all around lens in my mind...
-
My most used lens is the 24-105 f4 second most used is 70-200 f4
I would buy the 24-105 kit
for the wide end I use a Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 with an adapter better than the Canons
Marc
-
I recommend the 24-105 as well. I use it for probably 95% of what I shoot. The 17-40/4 is my next favorite.
Eric
-
For the situation you describe, I would get the 24-105. I have it and its a great walk around lens. I shoot primes almoost exclusively, you are going to like the zeiss 21 a lot. :)
-
I recently upgraded to a 5DII from a failing 40D and went through much the same debate.
In the end, I went with the 24-105 kit lens rather than the 24-70mm. The logic was that the 24-105 probably makes a more generally useful walk-around (tourist) lens than the 24-70 thanks to the reach, IS and lower light. I use primes when I have a clear idea of what to shoot and when I need more shallow depth of field. I was positively surprised at the IQ from the 24-105 and 24mm end is usefully wide - though I sometimes wish it was a little longer.
For UWA I ended up with the 16-35mm. This is a harder choice as the IQ is only so-so for landscape (not very different from the much cheaper 10-22mm that it replaced, and quite a bit below the Zeiss 21mm at wide apertures). However, the Canon zoom is a reasonable and cheaper general-purpose compromise if you value the weather proofing, ability to use conventional (if large) filters and AF.
These would fit your budget if you can PX some older equipment.
-
Hi,
I use a 24-105 with a 7D at work and never fell in love with the lens. I find f4 to be too dark for my taste. Also I do not like the IQ much. This summer I bought a 5d MkII and a 24-70 f2.8 L. I took the combo with me during a trip in the Colorado Plateau and I have been completely blown away by the quality of the pictures I took, wonderful contrast, resolution and superb color rendition. For me the 24-70 is really a great lens, sorry if this goes against the suggestions by other users :)
Saluti,
Luca
-
Hi,
I use a 24-105 with a 7D at work and never fell in love with the lens. I find f4 to be too dark for my taste. Also I do not like the IQ much. This summer I bought a 5d MkII and a 24-70 f2.8 L. I took the combo with me during a trip in the Colorado Plateau and I have been completely blown away by the quality of the pictures I took, wonderful contrast, resolution and superb color rendition. For me the 24-70 is really a great lens, sorry if this goes against the suggestions by other users :)
Saluti,
Luca
The 24-70 is a bit better, but for general use I would prefer the 24-105 as the difference is so small and IS favors the 24-105. I made a test of the 2 lenses on a 5D a few years ago her: http://www.ronnynilsen.com/Essays/Test/24-70vs24-105/ (http://www.ronnynilsen.com/Essays/Test/24-70vs24-105/)
Ronny
-
I have both the 24-70 and the 24-105. The 24-105 is a good lens but the 24-70 is great. I can see the difference in the files and in prints. As some have suggested the variation is not huge but for me it makes a difference. The 24-105 is on my son's camera now.
Rob P
-
Wow, quite a few recommendations for the 24-105...
I think that what it seems to boil down to, is whether you want a good all-purpose lens, or if you want that extra few % of quality...
What my current thought is, is to look at the 24-105 and 24-70 and see if I immediately prefer one to the other...
if I don't, then the price saving from the 24-105 will help to buy a decent prime lens, or a UWA lens...
hmmnn... food for thought!
Thanks again!
Will
-
I shoot with the 24-105mm and Zeiss primes (21, 35/2, 50MP and 100MP).
I owned the 17-40 and then the 16-35II but was never very impressed with either. I found the 24-105 was better in the 24-35mm range.
-
You'll need something at the wider end of normal, and presuming you're shooting landscapes a zoom is more useful than a fixed focal length lens.
Just my take, there are 2 Canon lenses worth considering.
Canon's 24-70 f:2.8 is heavy like a brick, it does not provide image stabilization, and you'll constantly find yourself wishing for a few more millimeters at the long end. On the other hand it has very little vignetting if any, it is extremely sharp at any aperture from f:4 down, and the lens hood is actually useful because the lens barrel extends as you zoom wider, so coverage of the hood matches the focal length pretty well.
Canon's 24-105 f:4 is light enough to be handy, long enough to be useful for portaits in a pinch, and it's image stablized. On the other hand...it vignettes badly, even if you stop down, and corners tend to go a bit soft at any but optimal (f:8 to f:11) apertures. The lens hood is worthless because it's so shallow it never really protects the front element from rain or stray light. And no matter how carefully you use it, the images won't be quite as sharp as what you could have gotten with the 24-70.
I own both lenses. I routinely take the 24-70 and a 70-200 f:2.8 mounted on two bodies when I'm out shooting landscapes, and I'm generally very happy with the results. The 24-105 always seemed to deliver results that are...near great rather than great. I do however use the 24-105 all the time as my solo lens when I'm walking around with one body or shooting people pictures where more sharpness is not necessarily a virtue.
Don't bother looking at the 16-35; I've owned both versions, and they just don't measure up in terms of corner sharpness at any aperture. I much prefer using a better lens and stitching panos rather than wasting that good sensor with a mediocre lens.
-
The 24-70 is a bit better, but for general use I would prefer the 24-105 as the difference is so small and IS favors the 24-105. I made a test of the 2 lenses on a 5D a few years ago her: http://www.ronnynilsen.com/Essays/Test/24-70vs24-105/ (http://www.ronnynilsen.com/Essays/Test/24-70vs24-105/)
Ronny
The 24-70 is much better but far from great. The 50/1.4 isnt great either. I dont like the microcontrast and the colors of both. No comparision to 50/1.2 or even 16-35 II. The best for the buck is sigma 85/1.4.
But as a walkaround-kit youll get the y24-105 at an unbeatable price.
-
My copy of the 24-105 is quite good so as a general use lens I still highly recommend it
But when IQ is the most important I pull out the 28-70 2.8 it's even better than the 24-70 2.8
So If I only had the money for 2 lenses it would be the 24-105 f4.0 and the 70-200 f4.0
If I wanted 3 lenses then I'd add the Nikkor 14-24 F2.8
4 lenses I'd add the 400 F5.6
5th lens 100mm macro IS
6th lens 28-70 2.8
How much money do you want to spend to get just a bit better IQ?
Marc
-
This is getting more and more conflicting!
I think I need to try and find my own limitations...
If there were no budget, then I would have a Compact camera, Top of the line DSLR kit, Leica M9 kit, Digital MF kit...
alas, there are always limitations...
I think that my current limit is the 24-70 kit, which is £2500... however I then think of all the extra kit that could be bought if I settled for 95% of the quality...
I think that a few minutes spent with both lenses will reveal if there is any night and day differences between the two...
The price difference might be better spent on accessories such as a Lee Filter kit, which will probably be more beneficial to my photography than a slightly sharper/contrasty lens
after all, my photos are hardly going to be printed 20 feet high on a billboard!
again, I keep thinking that the 24-105 should suffice, and if not, then it will not lose too much value if I later decide to upgrade, especially when it 'only' costs about £450 in the kit with the 5D2 compared to £800 on it's own!
Unfortunately I have moved away for a training course with my job, so I don't know of any good camera shops down there, but I will hopefully find one when I come back home for christmas!
Thanks again
Will
-
If cost were not an object AND you weren't already planning on getting the Zeiss 21, I would recommend the 24-70 instead.
-
Hi again,
To paraphrase the "...best camera..." the best lens is the one you have at the time. The 5D2 is a great camera, so is the 24-105 lens. I do not think that you can buy a really bad lens today. I even use the 24-105 -- at 35 mm or 50 mm to document artwork -- at these focal lengths distortion is easily corrected and I spend more time gently forcing the artwork itself into a flat plane and square. Before the 5D2 I used a Hasselblad with an 80 mm lens for this kind of work, and before that a Cambo with a 150 mm lens. No complaints from clients getting any of these images, in any format shot with any lens. So stop fretting, get the 5D2, get the 24-105 since the two together are probably a 'best buy' combo. Forget all the other stuff, well maybe get a UV and Polarizer filter and an extra battery, and go photograph and PRINT your images. Use the extra money to get a backup hard drive or two so you will not lose all your images when your one hard drive goes poof!
You cannot go wrong with any of your choices, pick one and go photograph.
Jean-Michel
-
The 24-105 is a good zoom especially between 24-50mm. In fact it is sharper than my 24-70mm that I once owned.
-
Re. The Canon 24-70 and 24-105, these have very strong field curvature, which can show up as a noticeable drop off in sharpness at the extreme corners, even when well stopped down. Personally, I would not use these lenses for architecture or landscapes unless I was sure that I'd always be cropping out the extreme corners. For portraits, weddings, events, photojournalism, that would be another matter. However, this will depend upon how much the photos will be enlarged.
-
Re. The Canon 24-70 and 24-105, these have very strong field curvature, which can show up as a noticeable drop off in sharpness at the extreme corners, even when well stopped down.
Yes, that is an important point. Strangely, most lens reviews ignore this issue. Here is a website which illustrates the problem on the 24-70 with sample photos:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1
-
Hi,
I use a 24-105 with a 7D at work and never fell in love with the lens. I find f4 to be too dark for my taste. Also I do not like the IQ much. This summer I bought a 5d MkII and a 24-70 f2.8 L. I took the combo with me during a trip in the Colorado Plateau and I have been completely blown away by the quality of the pictures I took, wonderful contrast, resolution and superb color rendition. For me the 24-70 is really a great lens, sorry if this goes against the suggestions by other users :)
Saluti,
Luca
Another vote for the 24-70 over the 24-105. Based on my experience, the 24-70 is in a different league. Best of luck with your decision.
-
The 24-105 corrects just fine in LR so I don't see it being an issue. If photographers or hobbyists want uber lens quality then primes are certainly a better choice and Zeiss primes are generally better than Canon's. As is, the 24-105 is what I consider a power lifter, it can do so much and with that level of convenience and good image quality, it's a good daily lens.
I've been shooting professionally for 13 years with 5 years before that as a hobby. One thing I've learned is that less gear is more pleasurable, more freeing, lends itself to more creativity. Too many lenses, too much gear bogs down the process and clouds creativity.
I agree entirely. I have other lenses, including the wonderful 100mm IS macro and the 85mm/1.8, but I find I use the 24-105 90% of the time.
Jeremy
-
The 24-105 corrects just fine in LR so I don't see it being an issue. If photographers or hobbyists want uber lens quality then primes are certainly a better choice and Zeiss primes are generally better than Canon's. As is, the 24-105 is what I consider a power lifter, it can do so much and with that level of convenience and good image quality, it's a good daily lens.
I've been shooting professionally for 13 years with 5 years before that as a hobby. One thing I've learned is that less gear is more pleasurable, more freeing, lends itself to more creativity. Too many lenses, too much gear bogs down the process and clouds creativity.
If you are you are referring to my comment, then you appear to be confusing field curvature with rectilinear distortion, which are not the same thing. Field curvature cannot be corrected with software. Once sharpness is lost, it cannot be recovered.
By the way, I should have mentioned that the field curvature to which I referred is only evident toward the wide end of the range. With the 24-70, this was from 24mm to about 30mm