First L lens...which one?

JumboBeef

JumboBeef

Suspended / Banned
Messages
978
Edit My Images
Yes
We are looking to buy our first L Lens, but which one? :shrug:

We currently have a 12-24mm, 18-55mm, 75-300mm and a nifty fifty. We take mostly photographs of people.

Which L lens should we go for? ....I was thinking of the 24 - 105mm. Would this be a good lens to get?

Thanks.
 
What kind of people shots? Studio, pseudo-candid/lifestyle portraits or ???

I love my 135L for portraits. Most people will say it's too long and they're probably right but the working distance suits me and I find people tend to relax a bit more if I'm not in their face.

The 70-200 f/4 (IS or non-IS) is another cracking lens for portraits, again maybe a bit long if you're in the studio but outside it works well.

The 24-105L is great for groups or in a studio but then the 24-70 is worth a look too.
 
I too am looking at buying my first L lens. I am going for the 100-400 as it suits my needs, but will not fit the bill for you.

I am interested in your views in whether it will improve the sharpness of the pictures over normal glass?
 
You don't mention for which camera format (FF or cropped), but either way it's a great range for people shots

My Nikons are crop sensors, so my 18-70 is a FF equivalent of 27-105 and it's the one I use in the studio all the time and at Weddings too when not tight indoors

That particular lens does show lots of barrel distortion at the wider end, but DxO sorts it out nicely if you have that

DD

PS - don't you need to change your sig message now? Or is it not sold?
 
24 - 70 2.8 seems to be a weapon of choice for most canon users i know

however they're all heathens.
 
The L len's have a certain sharpness and quality that's obvious once you start using them.

Which L lens - well it depends on which one of your lenses you use most/wish to upgrade.

My first was the 70-200 f4 L, a cheap start to L ownership but I wanted a light lens for touchline photography, but the first shot I took with it was:
93140081.jpg


Mostly I was shooting sport - football and motorsport, so the next was the 100-400 from an ad on here to add aditional reach. Finally I got the 24-105 from Kelso as a walkabout lens and a replacement for the kit lens. This lens is fantastic and is on my camera all the time.

I also have the 10-22 as a wide angle lens.

So really, it depends on what you think you'd use and I suppose your budget
 
My first L was also the 70-200mm f/4 from Kerso :) - and it's pretty versatile for portraits, wildlife, even distant landscapes. Cracking lens for the money. Given what you've said you shoot, I would tend to agree with you that the 24-105 f/4 L IS would be most suited.
 
For people I'd say one of the 70-200s or the 24-70, the f2.8 is useful for throwing the bg OOF.

On the other hand looking at what you have now the options would be replace the 18-55mm, with the 17-40mm or the 75-300mm with a 70-200mm, back in april I was in the same situation (well I didn't have the 12-24, but all the other lenses were the same) and got the 17-40mm to replace the kit lens and as soon as some one buys the hardtop for my MX-5 I will be getting the 70-200mm to replace the 75-300mm I have now.
 
I've just bought a 24-105 from Kerso and it's brilliant! I took it on holiday to italy with me and the image quality is outstanding.

Whatever you get I'd recommend buying from Kerso, best prices around and excellent customer service. Blatant plug over! ;)
 
JumboBeef said:
We are looking to buy our first L Lens, but which one? :shrug:

We currently have a 12-24mm, 18-55mm, 75-300mm and a nifty fifty. We take mostly photographs of people.

Which L lens should we go for? ....I was thinking of the 24 - 105mm. Would this be a good lens to get?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Which is your most frequently used lens? Are any of your lenses restricting what you do? Do you feel one of the lenses is lacking image quality?
 
OneTen said:
Which is your most frequently used lens? Are any of your lenses restricting what you do? Do you feel one of the lenses is lacking image quality?
Click to expand...


Spot on :thumbs:

The OP seems to have most of the range from 12 to 300mm covered. If it was me I would to suggest a replacement it would be of the kit lens with either 24 - 70 L or 24-105 L. In fact I am currently looking at both of these to be more flexible than just my 50mm.
 
Thanks for the replies.

To answer:

What kind of people shots? Studio, pseudo-candid/lifestyle portraits or ???
Click to expand...

Mrs JB will be mainly shooting people, inside and out, but not in a studio: it is all location work. She is starting to pick up a lot of work doing this sort of shoot.

You don't mention for which camera format (FF or cropped), but either way it's a great range for people shots
Click to expand...

Currently for our two 40D's, but we will be upgrading to either 50D's or 5Ds MKII at some point (not sure which, but I think it will be the 50D).

PS - don't you need to change your sig message now? Or is it not sold?
Click to expand...

No, still for sale: must change my sig!

Which is your most frequently used lens? Are any of your lenses restricting what you do? Do you feel one of the lenses is lacking image quality?
Click to expand...

Happy with the range of lenses, just need better glass! Tend to shot at the middle/tight end of the 18-55mm.

So, it sounds like it should be the 24-70mm or the 24-105mm. But which one? What are the rough costs for these please?
 
JumboBeef said:
Happy with the range of lenses, just need better glass! Tend to shot at the middle/tight end of the 18-55mm.

So, it sounds like it should be the 24-70mm or the 24-70mm. But which one? What are the rough costs for these please?
Click to expand...

I'd say 17-40 without a doubt then...
 
JumboBeef said:
:razz: Put it right now: 24-70mm or 24-105mm :lol:
Click to expand...

Well - as all the ladies will attest - a bit more length is never a bad thing

:naughty::naughty::naughty:

By which I obviously mean... a longer focal length can give a more flattering perspective for Portraits

I'd take the 24-105 anyday over a 24-70, even losing the slightly faster wide end (snigger)

DD
 
24-70

The 24-105 is a bit slow for use indoors (unless you're using flash of course)
 
f4 is a bit 'slow' compared to f2.8 - not really much of a difference in real life is it

70mm on a FF is a bit 'short' compared to the 'Portrait' lengths of 85-100mm that's usually recommended - and I suggest there's a lot more difference in that last 35mm than there is in 1 f-stop

:shrug:

DD
 
One stop - it could be the difference between shooting at 1/100 or 1/50. ISO 800 or 1600. Getting the shot or not.

Each to their own but I always take speed, flexibility and shallow DOF over subject flattery :)
 
I'd get the 24-105, you've got nice extra reach and IS.

I have never really missed or wanted to go down to f2.8 when using the 24-105. But, if you think you might be in a situation where you need extra light, why not buy the 24-105mm and a 50 1.8. It would still be cheaper than getting a 24-70 and you have extra DOF to play with.

EDIT:: You already have the 50. My point is still valid :)
 
In my opinion:

First L lens should be the 24-105* and the second the 70 - 200 F4L with a 2x extender giving a very usable range of 24mm to 400 mm on a FF body.

Chose carefully because some lenses / bodies are not compatible with IS or AF when used with extender rings.
 
WeddingHack said:
One stop - it could be the difference between shooting at 1/100 or 1/50. ISO 800 or 1600. Getting the shot or not.

Each to their own but I always take speed, flexibility and shallow DOF over subject flattery :)
Click to expand...

The 24-105 has IS, which - apparently - gives you an additional 2 - 3 stop advantage. I bumped into a wedding tog in Jessops the other day, and he mentioned that he chose the 24-105 IS as the IS was 'invaluable' in low light (he said he tried the 24-70 also). His other argument was that people, 95% of the time, are standing (relatively) still in churches.

Out of interest, have you tried an IS lens at a wedding? I'm currently caught between 24-105 and 24-70, leaning towards the 24-70 due to shallower DoF.

Tyrone Shoelaces said:
They are used for taking photos round corners.
Click to expand...

lol :D

Peaches: they are Canon's professional range of lenses.
 
my first l was a 24-105. until then I used my tamron 28-75 which for the money is a great lens but I wanted something longer. on another forum a lot say that the 24-105 isnt wide enough on a crop but as im taking pictures of people mostly I dont want to be in there face with a wide lens anyway.
I would highly recommend the 24-105. and the great thing about L's is they really hold there value if looked after so if its not right you wont loose to much.

Also might be worth waiting till the have the canon cashback offers back on as they usually have £45 cashback on that lens and if you buy it from kerso it works out a hell of a lot cheaper.
 
rdh said:
The 24-105 has IS, which - apparently - gives you an additional 2 - 3 stop advantage. I bumped into a wedding tog in Jessops the other day, and he mentioned that he chose the 24-105 IS as the IS was 'invaluable' in low light (he said he tried the 24-70 also). His other argument was that people, 95% of the time, are standing (relatively) still in churches.

Out of interest, have you tried an IS lens at a wedding? I'm currently caught between 24-105 and 24-70, leaning towards the 24-70 due to shallower DoF.
Click to expand...

I have the 24-105, and the 70-200 IS which I use at weddings, mostly outside. The 24-105 sometimes indoors if I'm using flash. The 70-200 in churches sometimes if I'm stuck at the back - and in that situation the IS is very useful - 200mm @ 1600 @ 2.8 @ 1/60 is not uncommon. But it's a very static situation.

yes, the IS on the 24-105 will give you 2-3 stops handholdability, but drop the shutter speed below 1/60 and subject movement becomes the biggest issue.
 
WeddingHack said:
yes, the IS on the 24-105 will give you 2-3 stops handholdability, but drop the shutter speed below 1/60 and subject movement becomes the biggest issue.
Click to expand...

Yep. The IS advantage is soon lost even with fairly static people, a slight turn of the head, twitch, blink, etc. will still show up. On a longer lens it can really make a difference but I'd rather be shooting at 1/200s with shallow DoF than 1/50s with IS.
 
grumpybadger said:
I sold mine!

(and got a 24-105)
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Fab :thumbs:

And I still don't see 1 f-stop as being a 'Killer' choice WeddingHack. IS (VR in proper terms) would help out with camera shake - but the OP didn't say he regularly shot in dark churches, he said he shot 'people' where the 24-105 has a better range than a 24-70

Just tell us what you bought and end this rambling thread :D

DD
 
pxl8 said:
Yep. The IS advantage is soon lost even with fairly static people, a slight turn of the head, twitch, blink, etc. will still show up. On a longer lens it can really make a difference but I'd rather be shooting at 1/200s with shallow DoF than 1/50s with IS.
Click to expand...

f4 to f2.8 is one stop surely :thinking: giving 1/100th in your example?

Fast enough at a distance

DD
 
Er, no... f/2 to f/4... I mean FAST glass ;)
 
WeddingHack said:
24-70

The 24-105 is a bit slow for use indoors (unless you're using flash of course)
Click to expand...

Pitch black, large stage, 2 pin spots, smoke machine on the go - sweaty guitarist headbanging on the down stroke:

lo-res.jpg


100% Crop:

crop.jpg


Canon 5D + "bit slow for use indoors" 24-105 f4L IS

hand held f4 @ 1/50 ISO 400 - first 3 no flash ;)
 
WeddingHack said:
Err, hardly pitch black was it then ?
Click to expand...

95% of the time, yes. It was pitch black. Your assertion that the 24-105 is a bit slow for indoor use is poppycock, sir.

The first three no flash was a reference to gig photography ;)

edit: if fact, that gig was the the time I stopped using the 24-70 f2.8 for gig photography, I learned to use and trust the 24-105 instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top