• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Some suggestions please?

Z

Zallek

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
449
I've been tossing around what to buy for quite awhile now and Im still torn between a few 'upgrade' paths. Like everything I buy, I generally try and see how it'll effect my future purchases. Is it really worth buying cheaper lenses or EF-S mount lenses for my crop body when I'll eventually be using a 5D, or full frame?. Or should I just stick it out and buy a few high quality L-Series lenses and hope that that truly is the way to go.

I currently explicitly use my 50mm f/1.8 (which I may get rid of in favor of either the 1.4 or the 1.2L). because the kit lens doesn't do justice for anything imo. I also have a 55-200mm USM lens, but I'm not a huge fan of the aperture on such a 'short' zoom.

Basically my options that I've hopefully narrowed it down too, is suck it up and buy something like the 17-85mm IS EF-S lens for my walk-around, use my 55-200mm with my tripod when it comes in (for anyone thats curious, I've decided on the Manfrotto 190XPROB with the 804(?)RC2 head) and then buy more lenses when I get my 5D... Or, buy something like the 24-105mm L for my walk-around and a 100-400mm L for my landscape and whatnot. The other L-Series choice I've made for my self is the 24-70L and the 70-200L, most likely the f/2.8. I'm not entirely sure I *need* the IS feature for either of the zooms, it would be nice thats for sure though.

To me it makes sense to just step up and get the L lenses right now, but which of the 2 setups would be best advised?

24-70mm L f/2.8 with the 70-200mm L f/2.8 (The IS version is roughly ~$600 more).
Or
100-400mm L f/4.5-5.6 IS with the 24-105mm L f/4.0 IS

And just some background about my self - Im not an expert by any means, but I've been reading and trying to learn my camera as best I can. I also would like to eventually do this professionally, or at least as a side job beside my current career. Most of my exposures are portraits and mountain-ranges, although I would like to eventually get some city-scape going once I start travelling.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

-Edit-
I guess I should mention I'm using a 350D, but that shouldnt really be an issue.
 
I'd be more inclined to go for the f/2.8 lenses, unless you really feel like you need the extra range from the 100-400. If you're outdoors packing a tripod the IS becomes a lot less useful.
 
The 100-400mm is appealing but the aperture, not quite so much... Is the 100-400 my only choice in that relative range for an L lens? I noticed they have a prime 400mm but I'm not sure exactly how often I'd actually use the 400mm..

And how much heavier is the 24-70 than the 24-105? I've never held either but I keep hearing people saying how heavy the 24-70 is as if its a huge deal.

Thanks again.
 
Zallek said:
The 100-400mm is appealing but the aperture, not quite so much... Is the 100-400 my only choice in that relative range for an L lens? I noticed they have a prime 400mm but I'm not sure exactly how often I'd actually use the 400mm..

And how much heavier is the 24-70 than the 24-105? I've never held either but I keep hearing people saying how heavy the 24-70 is as if its a huge deal.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

You could look into the 300 f/4 IS also, it takes a 1.4x TC pretty well, but then you'd have a pretty big gap in your range from 100 or 70 to 300. The 70-200s are decent with the 1.4 TC also, so that's something else to consider if you don't see yourself shooting beyond 300 very often.

I use the 24-70 as my walkaround, it's heavy but definitely manageable. I use a hand strap and not a neck strap and usually work out of a shoulder bag, so I guess it might depend on how you carry it.

How badly do you need the f/2.8? If you're in good lighting and you're doing mostly landscapes, 24-105 + 70-200 f/4 IS might be a good combo too.
 
I never thought about getting a 1.4x converter, thats definitely an option. Lighting should be sufficient while hand held - I'll likely be outside. My light light lens is my 50mm for indoor use and whatnot so far and my tripod use would be for twilight shots, for the most part.
A 1.4x converter on that 70-200 would reach out to 280, so that should be sufficient... Until I find other reasons to reach out further.

As for a strap, I've been thinking about getting an R-Strap from www.blackrapid.com. Simple and very useful imo. And not to terribly expensive for what it is.

Another question, does the 24-70 have better overall image quality over the 24-105 due to the shorter zoom? I might try and rent them from my local dealer soon, just figured I'd get more information on'em before hand though :)
 
Zallek said:
Another question, does the 24-70 have better overall image quality over the 24-105 due to the shorter zoom? I might try and rent them from my local dealer soon, just figured I'd get more information on'em before hand though :)
Click to expand...

From what I've heard they're pretty close. A friend of mine used to use the older 28-70 for weddings but swapped it for a 24-105 when he got a 5D, so I'm guessing there isn't a significant difference in terms of sharpness.

BTW, if you're using a tripod a lot, the black rapid attachment might get annoying unless you find somewhere else to anchor it.
 
Eh, tripod usage will most likely be premeditated. I just want the strap for ease of use while doing some walk arounds :)
 
inside, or outside??

get the IS version of the 70-200 2.8. You will regret it if you don't. Get the 24-70. Then you aren't overlapping. This is the best combination of two lenses. Then you are 24-70 then 70-200. On the crop you are 38-112 and 112-320 all at large apertures.

Best choice, imho.
 
Most of everything would be outside. But yeah I've been leaning towards the 24-70 and 70-200. But is the IS really all that worth it with a f/2.8? And will a 1.4x converter work on a crop body (I just thought about that now heh)? If so how does the additional 1.4x add in? Would it be say 200x1.6 for the crop then 320x1.4? or would it be 200x3? I'd imagine it would be 320x1.4 but yeah I don't actually know haha.
 
They will multiply together. It will be 200 x 1.4 x 1.6 for a total of 448mm effective.
 
I think you need to figure out your range. 100-400 is pretty telephoto. :D That's not a normal choice for landscape lens but maybe you are taking things pretty far away. Also do you use 17-24 range?

Me, I love any form of image stabilization but it depends on what you like to carry. If you shoot f5.6-f11, you might need IS more than you think if you're hand holding things. Sometimes you want more depth of field or more detail.

I would get rid of 55-200 if it's non-IS but I'd keep 50 f/1.8. I don't think 50 1.4 or 1.2 are worth it. Get 35 f/1.4 instead :D

24-70 2.8 isn't that heavy. You just have to get used to it but on a smaller camera like 350D, the weight balance will be a bit odd. The grip would help here to hold it also.

I used to use 24-105 as my walk around but I find this lens to be pretty boring on a crop camera image wise. Compared to 24-70, I think this lens is less contrasty and has more muted colors. I only chose this lens because I like range, it has IS, and it's weather sealed (which is irrelevant if you don't have 1 series body).
 
The reason I say IS is if you say, "shoot I could have used IS" at least once you will regret spending the cash on the lower model. Its like when I was looking at that lens between others, it was silly not to wait. In the end I am not getting it, but thats a completely different reason.

As for what you are looking at doing remember larger the aperture (2.8) less of an impact the Teleconverter will make. Remember that a 1.4 will only allow a 4 aperture with AF minimum.

As for reasons. Spend the money now and keep those lenses forever.
 
I like the 24-105 over the 24-70. I had both and found that IS helps me with landscapes over the 24-70. I rarely use 2.8 on landscapes so speed is not necessary. While the 24-70 is not to heavy, I prefer the lightness of the 24-105. The IS helps when I am on a boat/train when traveling. Plus in places that does not allow flash, IS is great. If you plan to go FF then just stay with EF lens. I went XT --> 30D --> 5D. My lens are in my signature..
 
As for the comment about my 17-24 range. I've rarely used/wanted it. I never used the 18mm on my kit lens and the most common focal length I use (mainly because its the only lens I like that I have atm..) is 50mm from my 50 f/1.8. I think I've decided against the 100-400 and will be picking up at least the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, so I'll likely be grabbing the 24-70 as well. Unless I were to overlap and get the 24-105 for IS... I have said before "I wish I had IS" but I've never had fast glass before. But the f/2.8 is very appealing and you can always go up, not down stops without IS.

On the comment about the 24-105 and 24-70 L lenses, were you meaning only one of'em is weather-sealed? I thought all L lenses were weather-sealed? But like you said, its pointless without a 1 series body.

I also have the 350D battery grip since the camera is a lot smaller than I had originally thought after I brought it home heh.
 
70-200 2.8 is a good choice. It doesn't matter if 24-105 overlaps since you'll minimize switching lenses anyway.

Not all L lenses are weather sealed. Both 24-70 and 24-105 are.

2.8 isn't that appealing for me in the sense that sometimes I want more depth of field, better low light capability, or lighter weight. So I'll end up using something that's not 24-70. My choice is 24-105 also. If you're doing landscape, I don't think you'd be shooting at 2.8 anyway.
 
Ehh, I was just meaning the f/2.8 was appealing because if I *need* the 2.8, its there :D I take a variety of pictures but mainly its mountains/cityscape and portraits. I just like having the option of using a f/4 and then f/2.8 right after without switching lenses and whatnot.

I think the main reason for that is because of my 50 f/1.8. After using the kit lens at whatever it is.. 3.5-5.6? The low light capabilities of the 50 f/1.8 almost make me think I need the large aperture. I hate using a flash, and sometimes my 350D ends up being my camping camera (sort of a burden, but I love using it) for when I go wheelin'. At night, there aint much light :D
 
And one other thing, is the 70-200 f/2.8L IS weather-sealed as well? If so thats cool, if I ever get a 1 series.

So I guess I've decided. A 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 24-70 f/2.8L. Now I just gotta finish my truck so I have funds available haha
 
I don't think any DSLR body has IS built in? In Canons line up at least.. Maybe the 1Ds, but I might never own a 1D. My next body will be a 5D most likely.
 
Faster glass allows for a brighter viewfinder and faster focusing - you don't necessarily want to shoot wide open.
 
Yeah if you need 2.8 then you need it. :) I'm just saying in my own experiences, it's not that useful in the situations I'm in. Maybe for you it is but you haven't experience in 2.8 yet?

There are DSLR cameras with body stabilization, Sony, Olympus and Pentax. Basically nearly everybody except Nikon and Canon LOL.

Yeah the viewfinder and focus would be faster but on a rebel camera, it's really negligible anyway.
 
Yeah I sorta thought Canon didnt have in-body IS, but I knew Sony did. But I dont consider Sony cameras real cameras.. But Im just bias against Sony about a lot of things.

I've never experienced an f/2.8 lens no, but I have shot at 2.8 with my 50 1.8, if thats what you were referring too. But I dont understand the comment about faster glass being negligible on a rebel? Im not sure I follow?
 
Sony is a real camera. I'm just brand neutral :p I just use whatever tools are available.

The effect of the faster glass of having brighter viewfinder and focusing will be faster I say is negligible on a rebel. Why? The rebel already has a small dim viewfinder and it's focus isn't the best. 5D has better viewfinder but it's AF is not pro.

The latest sony focuses fastest in broad daylight. It's faster than both Nikon and Canon. I eventually settled for D300 because I was concerned with lower light AF speed. So my point is there are cameras which just focus better and have brighter viewfinders no matter what. Using the faster glass on a rebel won't really make a difference. My 24-105 is about the same as my 35 1.4.
 
Faster glass is always a good investment in almost all cases when dealing with Zoom's. The DOF alone is a good reason, along with better AF, even on a rebel XT (not first Gen rebel remember). Its not D300 speed if you are comparing the two.

I stand by my two choices.
 
lan said:
Sony is a real camera. I'm just brand neutral :p
Click to expand...

I didnt mean to offend if I came across that way, I just boycott Sony for my own reasons. In fact I didnt even realize they made true DSLRs lol. Ignorant yes, I know.
 
I dont like sony either, I'd grab the Olympus e510 but it only has 3 point focus. but Jeez $600 more per lense, thats crazy! The e510 camera isn't even $600 with IS built in and Kit lense. If Canon/nikon made a camera with IS built in I would likely grab that, but it looks like they have already decided against it for some dumb reason. So I'll have to play the waiting game a little longer I suppose or deal with 3 point Focus.
 
Well Canon and Nikon have IS built into lenses. This happened before in body IS became popular so I think they're just invested in their systems.
 
With shorter lens the in-camea lS is okay. But when you are using any type of decent telezoom, then in-camera IS is less effective. Plus I would hate for my sensor to constantly be moving. Does not matter the size of a sensor in a FF camera, there is not enough room for movement. Canon has not killed the ideal of a in camera-IS. Here is from one of their white papers

"At some point, in-body stabilization may improve to the point at which such technology
may be appropriate for certain segments of Canon’s DSLR range. It would be senseless
to rule out such a possibility. Even now, differences in unit cost are not enough to be
significant factors in such a decision. The bottom line is performance."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top