I 'needed' a 24-105L, Now not sure .... HELP!!!

swag72

swag72

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,969
Name
Sara
Edit My Images
Yes
I decided that I wanted a wider angle lens as I am very limited at the moment, ranging from my nifty fifty, 100mm macro and then my 100-400.

I was thinking that the 24-105 would be great as it would slot in my range from 100mm downwards. I love wildlife photography, so the 100-400 is spot on for that. I want to try to enjoy and produce some landscape and architecture pics too. I am now thinking that the 24-105 will not be wide enough for what I want.

So, would I be better with a wider angle, then the nifty, miss out the range between 50-100. Nothing that a good old walk can not sort I reckon!

Then of course, I want decent glass :thinking::thinking:

Please, give me the benefits of your wide angle thoughts!!!
 
If you are ever thinking of getting a FF body then it may be worth getting the EF 17-40L f4 which is a great lens at a reasonable price, but if you are not bothered about moving to FF then you may well be better off with the EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS which has a faster max aperture and is renowned as an excellant wide to mid zoom for a crop body!
 
Thanks for that Ed. I am not planning on going FF, as it will trigger a divorce and I'm quite fond of my old man!!

I have become rather partial to L glass, but you add an interesting new lens that I had not given any thought to. :thinking:
 
If you want L glass and a wide angle with a fast max aperture there is always the EF 16-35L f2.8. Not cheap but very good!
 
I quite fancied IS to be honest. I will look around at reviews on the 17-55. Hopefully there are also some peeps on here who could give me their opinions on this lens.
 
A cheap way of testing this focal range is to pick up a second hand 18-55 kit lens. They can be picked up quite cheaply (£35 to £50) and would give you a very good idea of the field of view available. There are at least 3 variants of the 18-55 kit lens. There is the original 18-55 non USM which is optically average to poor and slow focusing, the 18-55 USM (originally sold exclusively by Jessops as part of the 300D kit and otherwise only available in Japan) which is optically very good, very quick to focus but susceptible to flare halos (which you may like) when the light source is within the frame and the 18-55 IS (correction: not USM) which is the latest version.

If you can find a copy of the 18-55 USM you will have a light weight optically good lens that will allow you to experiment with this field of view relatively cheaply before upgrading to the much more expensive 17-55 f2.8 IS. The 18-55 can then be kept as a light weight walk around or sold for probably very similar money to the purchase price.

Just an option :)
 
jpwone, are you sure the 18-55 IS has a USM? In that case, I think I've been conned.
 
jpwone said:
A cheap way of testing this focal range is to pick up a second hand 18-55 kit lens. They can be picked up quite cheaply (£35 to £50)
Click to expand...

That's a good idea - there is also a 28..90mm that can be had for pennies (and is rediculously fast focusing) and a slightly better 28..105mm IIRC.
 
My mistake. I was thinking about the 17-55 and typing about the 18-55 :)

The 3 versions should be.

1. EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 standard kit lens

2. EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 USM (Japanese market 300D kit lens)

3. EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS Lens

I have the EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 USM and it really is a very sharp fast focusing lens. If you can get one you should not be disappointed.

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

John
 
jpwone, your advice about getting a kit lens is good. I have already had one of these and NEVER used it as I was far more interested in wildlife photography than landscapes at that time. Now that I have a great lens for wildlife, I would like to try landscapes and architecture. I think that the 17-55 really will be a good range for this purpose.
 
I love my 24-105 and wouldn't be without it. For the rare occasion it's not wide enough, how about the sigma 10-22mm? There are also 12-24mm lenses, but I've never had one so can't comment.

If you really decide against the 24-105, the one I started with was the EF-S 17-85mm IS Ultrasonic. It is nice and wide, but has awful chromatic abarations, so I honestly wouldn't recommend it.
 
The 24-105 and 17-40 have excellent resale potential - for less than the cost of hiring either, you could probably buy one or the other and make most of your money back if you don't enjoy it. Just another facet to the discussion..

edit - of course, you could talk to stewart on here and hire one for a while!
 
I am definately moving away from the 24-105, purely as I want a wider angle. That effectively leaves me with the following in the Canon range.

EF-S 17-55
EF 16-35L
EF 17-40L

Don't mind an EF-S - Won't be going FF.

Is there anything I've missed? Should I prefer the L's than the 17-55? Ahh, only 17-55 has IS

:help:
 
I own the 18-55, 17-40, 17-85, 24-70 and 24-105. I have this strange mix because I have a mix of 1.6 crop, 1.3 crop and FF cameras. They each have there purposes and uses on the correct camera :)

Anyhow, if I was using a 1.6 crop (EF-S) and had no intention of getting a 1.3 crop or FF camera (EF) then I would seriously consider the EF-S 17-55 IS USM. The only factor which I would have some concerns about is the price but other than that the reviews seem very good. For the price I would have hoped for weather sealing and an included lens hood.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

The combination of f2.8 and IS would be a significant factor for myself. The reviews also indicate that it is very sharp and the images have an 'L' lens quality. So, if you are intending to stay with EF-S and don't need weather sealing then this would seem to be the lens to get.

John
 
swag72 said:
I am definately moving away from the 24-105, purely as I want a wider angle. That effectively leaves me with the following in the Canon range.

EF-S 17-55
EF 16-35L
EF 17-40L

Don't mind an EF-S - Won't be going FF.

Is there anything I've missed? Should I prefer the L's than the 17-55? Ahh, only 17-55 has IS

:help:
Click to expand...
Obviously if you're definitely going for an L lens then this won't apply.... but have you considered a Sigma or Tamron kit lens? By that, I mean specifically the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

I have the latter and it is excellent in terms of IQ. It is also faster than the 17-40L (so better in low light) and a heck of a lot cheaper than the other two Canon lenses you're looking at. For me, the only downside is that it's EF-S (therefore I'll have to get rid of it if I want to go FF).

I've never owned an L lens, but I've used one a few times and have seen results from them. For my money, the Tamron is every bit as sharp!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top