Topic: Lens choice (Read 4039 times)

MBury · « **on:** August 30, 2006, 04:18:37 pm »

Hello all,

I've got the following set; Canon 1DIIn, 17-40 f/4,28-135 ISM and a 70-200 f/2.8.

When buying the 1D, I considered that the gap between the 17-40 and the 70-200 could be nicely filled with the 28-135 when required. However, the image quality of the latter has become rather disappointing compared with the other two,so I avoided using it. Still, I need something in between 40 and 70 and I'm not quite where to go. I'm considering two options ( The 24-70 is about the maximum I can afford at the moment so the new 50L is not an option ):

24-70 f/2.8 L
50 f/1.4

The 50mm would fill the gap quite nicely, has the advantage of the extra stop and is supposedly a very good lens. The 24-70 would give me more alround performance, as I'm mainly shooting in the 2x to 200 range, and saves me lens-changes ( risk of dust ).

What's your take on this?

Best regards, Michel

benInMA · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2006, 04:32:31 pm »

Get the 50, it's way less expensive and gives you some added low light capability.

boku · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2006, 07:41:35 pm »

You also have two other choices

24-105 IS f/4 L
non-Canon lenses

My recommendations and reasons (that suit me only):

1) 50mm, nah, for walk around situations, too many lenses to carry. But if I was into portraits, that would be the answer.
2) 24-105, nah, had one, it was a lemon. This would be my choice because of the zoom range and IS, but my bad experience scares me away.
3) non-Canon, nah, I'm a glass snob and admit it.
4) 24-70, yup, that's all that's left. Too bad it's so damn big and heavy.

David Anderson · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2006, 08:31:55 pm »

A 50 1.4 is a good idea IMO, having one good low light lens is a good idea, it's the one place the zooms don't quite cut it..
Nice for narrow depth of feild as well..

The 50 is also a small lens, so it only ads a bit of weight to your bag..

macgyver · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2006, 10:06:30 pm »

Well, what do you shoot?

jimhuber · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2006, 10:17:02 pm »

Quote

Well, what do you shoot?

More to the point, what apertures are you shooting at? Reviews like this one by William Castleman have so far convinced me that when using apertures of f/8 and smaller the image quality of the 28-135 is as good as the L 24-70 and L 24-105 IS even on my full-frame 5D. On my Rebel XT I don't hesitate to use any aperture on the 28-135.

Also, DxO Optics cleans up the soft corners of the 28-135 quite nicely. I made 12x18 inch prints of test shots at various apertures, and the corners of the DxO-processed images looked as good at f/3.5 as those shot at f/8 and processed with ACR. The DxO software is much less expensive than the L zooms and can be used with many lenses.

But I also believe I may be the last defender of the 28-135 left on this forum. I just haven't yet convinced myself that I need to cough up over $1,000 USD to upgrade, even though I believe that on a full-frame body like my 5D an L 24-105 IS and a 70-300 DO IS would be a killer two-lens walk-around solution, and I already own the 70-300 DO (and love it!).

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2006, 10:26:51 pm »

I wrote-up a comparison of the 28~135 and the 24~105 on this website. You may find it useful. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...es/24vs28.shtml

Bob: yes, a sour experience is a bit hard to overcome and it happens. BUT this 24~105 - when you a get a good one - which it seems most users do - is really a very fine lens. At the same time my older 28~135 is no slouch and much less expensive, but the 24~105 does have the image quality edge, and a more up-to-date, better IS.

MBury · « **Reply #7 on:** August 31, 2006, 11:13:57 am »

Quote

I wrote-up a comparison of the 28~135 and the 24~105 on this website. You may find it useful. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...es/24vs28.shtml

Bob: yes, a sour experience is a bit hard to overcome and it happens. BUT this 24~105 - when you a get a good one - which it seems most users do - is really a very fine lens. At the same time my older 28~135 is no slouch and much less expensive, but the 24~105 does have the image quality edge, and a more up-to-date, better IS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75010\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've been shooting with the 28-135 for some time, but found it to lack in sharpness and contrast around my 'problem' range of 40 to 70. And above 100 its even more noticable ( ok, I compare that to the 70-200 f/2.8 L ).

When shooting landscapes, I tend to stop down, but when shooting sports ( in which I usually stand in close range, think court or halfpipes etc.) I shoot wide open to isolate the subject.

So the idea of having a 50 f/1.4 would allow for some quite nice shoots in close range. Still leaving me fornuable for lense-changes outdoors though.

My local dealer will have the 50 f/1.4 in stock somewhere in the coming week, so I will have a try. Also, he has both a used 28-70 f/2.8 L and a 300 f/4 L ISM in mint condition. So I might be able to afford the 300 or the 28-70 with the 50, which should have me covered quite nicely ( sorry, I can't afford a 300 f/2.8 at the moment ).

jimhuber · « **Reply #8 on:** August 31, 2006, 03:21:59 pm »

If you're shooting sports with any regularity I'd definitely go for the 28-70 or 24-70 f/2.8 zoom. I usually shoot sports (mostly my son's soccer games) with fast primes: 85 f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 macro, 135 f/2L.

Quote

I wrote-up a comparison of the 28~135 and the 24~105 on this website. You may find it useful. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...es/24vs28.shtml

I read this review more than once with a great deal of interest, and came away with these observations:

At 28mm the 24-105 has less distortion, but that was entirely expected.
In both full-frame shots the shadow areas look a bit brighter with the 24-105, but on the house shot I believe it's partially due to the slight difference in the position of the sun (see the bushes on the left side of both driveways). On the brick wall shot it may just be better lens contrast - it's difficult to tell on a web jpeg.
On the brick wall 100% crop the 24-105 is noticeably less soft and shows better contrast.
On the house 100% crop I see essentially no difference, at least none that would show up in a 12x18 print.

So if you're trying to cover a 40mm to 70mm gap, is it really worth the considerable cost to upgrade? For me, so far the answer is no, and here's why:

Shooting landscapes I use the 17-40L and the 70-300DO much more often than the 28-135. *
If I stop down the 28-135 to f/8 through f/11 on the 5D I'm pleased with the results on 12x18 inch prints, which is what I usually make.
On my Rebel XT "spare" body I'm always pleased with the 28-135 at any aperture.
(DxO Optics Pro helps the 28-135 a great deal with the previous two points)
I have fast primes in the same focal length range for sports or posed portraits (see top of this post).

* caveat: I'm still somewhat on the fence regarding the 24-105L because I rarely use the 17-40 any wider than 24mm, so the 24-105L could conceivably replace two lenses for me. I wouldn't sell the 17-40, but at times it would be very nice to carry only two fairly small, light, inconspicuous lenses, hence my earlier comment:

Quote

I believe that on a full-frame body like my 5D an L 24-105 IS and a 70-300 DO IS would be a killer two-lens walk-around solution

So far I'm happier with three lenses and the $1,300 still in my pocket (24-105 f/4L + UV filter + FedEx shipping from B&H (FedEx because I like my lenses to arrive intact)).

Author Topic: Lens choice (Read 4039 times)