Canon lens?

[dusty montgomery]

I found the lenses. It will be about $1350 for the 17-40, 100 macro, and a battery grip. The 70-200 though was around $1600 I think. I am going to try to get the macro first, still relying on the 18-55 kit for now. Then I will get the 17-40. And lastly, the 70-200 will join the ranks. By then though, we may be seeing a new full-frame.

Thanks again for all the input guys. This can be frustrating at times not knowing which lenses will go with which bodies or which lenses will produce desired results, and I don’t get much help from the local camera store (Wolf) either. Oddly enough, I feel at times like I know more than some of them do, which is not much.

[John Bennett]

Dusty, just wanted to add another thought/spin on it for you. Its a route you could opt for, but not should.

My personal take is spend where you have to and save where you can. When your starting out, theres a ton of stuff you’ll either want or need. “Need” largely being defined by each individuals priorities.

Do you “need” IS?

IS is a nice feature, but it’s certainly not neccessary and it comes at a hefty premium for what it does. And at the end of the day, theres nothing IS does that can’t be dealt with with a tripod/monopod/fense post/car roof/ben bag and a host of other things. Nor does it do anything when your subjects moving. Worded another way. If the lights dim enough that you can’t avoid shake at 70mm (1/70th to 1/200th) it’s unlikely you’ll avoid motion blur. Meaning 1/50th + IS may eliminate ‘shake’, it’s unlikely to “freeze” any motion though.

The 70-200 F4 L, is about half the price of the 70-200 F4 L IS.

That $700.00 buys you either the 100mm f2.8 macro or the 17-40 L. If you use the same money you can likely get both and qualify for a double rebate of $100 or so.

Consider these “kits”
Body
18-55mm
70-200 F4 L (non IS )
100mm f2.8 macro

vs
Body
17-40 L
100mm f2.8 macro

For pretty much the same expense.

The 17-40 L is a great lens, especially when you factor in its price.
However, the kit lens is no slouch. Certainly not as good as the 17-40 L (not implying it is) …But you have it now with alot still to acquire.

Have a look at this gallery. Don’t check the EXIF.
roughly half was shot with the standard kit lens
roughly half was shot with the 17-40 L

Can you tell which lens shot which pictures?
http://jben.zenfolio.com/p63439086

[dusty montgomery]

John,
No, I cannot tell. I think I understand your point, but could a pro tell the difference, meaning perhaps I do not yet have that discerning eye? I had no idea the IS feature doubled the price of the lens. But that lens is far down the road for me. Every seems to agree on the 100 Macro and 17-40 L. As I already have the 18-55 kit, I am thinking the 100 Macro should come first.

Thanks guys, all of this is very helpful to the neophyte not wanting to have buyers remorse after finding out one of these pertinent pieces of info.

Dusty

[John Bennett]

Some possibly, some probably not.
Plus alot would depend on how its used. A full spread then yes differences might be more discernable than smaller prints.

IS:
It depends on the lens but the 4 70-200s that Canon offeres are a great barometer for the IS premium.

Prices are retail, off the top of my head, apprx and in Cdn

70-200 F4 L $700.00
70-200 F4 L IS $1,400

70-200 f2.8 L $1,300 or 1,400
70-200 f2.8 L IS $2,200

Theres no right or wrong with what you prioritise. If WA stuff is important to *you* then it might make more sense to replace the “free” 18-55 sooner than completeing a nice focal range +macro.

Maybe I phrased it wrong. Asume you bought any one of those lenses tonight. Make it the 17-40 L

You’d have your body and the 17-40 L and need to save for the macro or 70-200

Conversely if you bought the 70-200 F4 L
youd have your body, and focal range coverage starting at 18mm and ending at 200mm and only the macro yet to pick up. To “expand” your capabilties.

You have a *serviceable* WA now, unless theres a compelling reason to replace it with so much yet to buy……..

Thats all.
No matter what lens you get they are good/great.

For me I had a hard time deciding between the 17-40 L, the 24-105 IS and the 24-70 f2.8. All great lenses, all filled out my focal range needs.

[al mcb]

hi john how did you find the 24-70 compared with the 24-105 IS? I have read and heard that many of the 24-70’s were very soft

[David Anderson]

Those are good points John.

IS is one of those things in photography that can save your shots at the extreme ends of what’s possible, but comes at a price.

It’s right to ask the question do you need it for the money.

I need it once & a while for work where I have to come back with a shot no matter the conditions so it’s worth the money to me.
On the 200 end of the 70 -200’s it will get me a good frame at 250th and sometimes 125th of a second in low light.
Without it I would want a 500th

www.dsaphoto.com

A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.

[John Bennett]

Absolutely agree 100% David.

I do like IS, had it in the 100-400 L. There are times when I miss it. sometimes bumping ISO just isnt doable. As you know I do a TON of lowlight shooting. So Im not implying its a waste…Its just expensive insurance that can be dealt with othrwise (pods/beanbags/etc). …and I guess the key point is that when theres sooo much to buy…from lenses…to extra batteries…to cable relases and cards.

Its a question of priority. Not suggesting ones more important than the other, but the 700.00 saved by buying the 70-200 F4 would pay for the 17-40 or the 100 f2.8…Its that kind of dilema that we all have probably gone through. You end up ith 2 L lenses instead of 1 for the same money.

On the WA end, I just want to be clear so Im not misunderstood. Id certainly replace the kit…its just a question of when or “priority.
I usually suggest to people buying their body to set an initial budget and 2 year budget/plan.

So I guess the buyer would need to answer..Whats more important to me.

Focal range coverage first and then replace the kit
or
Getting a better WA first and then filling in.

At the end of 1 year or 2 years you end up with the same lens lineup 17-40L the 70-200 F4L and macro…its just which to get and when

Theres no right or wrong. I can only answer what was right for me.

Al have to run for my bloody 5:45 train. Will prvide some feeleings both pre and post purchace on the two 24-XXs later today with an example or two.

J

[John Bennett]

Sweet no brush fires from Germany to put out. Gotta love getting to work and having an empty inbox 🙂
24-70 f2.8 vs 24-105 f4 IS.

This might turn out long. As its “related” to the above I’m going to include a brief preamble. Originally my plan was to use the “kit” lens as long as it took for me to fiill out my focal range coverage and get a specialty lens or two. WA stuff just wasnt that high on my priority list.
Mostly family shots, personal keepsakes etc.

That changed when things changed for me last X-Mas with regards to contributing to magazines. Worded another way my “priorities” changed.

Short listed all 3.
17-40 L, 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4 IS.

at 40mm the 17-40 was too short for *me*. I needed a lens to serve as an all purpose “walkaround” and would be my main mount when fishing /hunting etc.

It took about 4 months of over analysing. In truth Id probably be happy with either. In the end it came down to

F2.8 vs IS.

I wouldn’t mind the extra 30mm when on streams. In the field I can zoom with my feet..Sometimes in water thats not possible.

I wanted IS. I’m already carrying a burden, especially when fly fishing.
We all know how taxing our boots, waders,vest, water bottles can be. My pack can weight from 12pds to 45pds on top of that. Do I really want to lug a tripod?????

The 24-70 because its f2.8 is a brick that aint helping.

In the end though f2.8 won out. Theres nothing I can do to replicate fast glass. You either have it or you dont and for my kind of prefered shooting (action) I need to able to freeze motion when desired.

Heresay.
Some if you read enough forums will argue that the 24-70 is a bit sharper than the 24-105. Maybe it is, at the least its not as complex a lens (less zoom range, no IS ) but from what Ive seen differences are minute….pixel peeping.

Most forums, “experts” will tell you that the litmus test for any lens is wide open and viewed at 100%.

F2.8

100% crop

This shot viewed at 100% I can cearly and easily discern the wee mesh on the back of his vest
F2.8

this shot (again no 100% crop available) when viewed at 100% I can clearly read the words “Z Axis” like I was reading a book on my friends rod.

F2.8

Al I would say you could buy either lens with confidence. Ive never heard an owner of either lens (and I know quite a few) who have found their copy not to meet their expectations with regards to sharpness. There may be a tiny wee edge to the 24-70 f2.8 but unless your shooting for Movie posters and billboards I really dont think it matters much. Its splitting hairs or pixel peeping

What you should focus on is
having the faster glass or IS (imo) and should you favor the faster glass is the extra weight going to impact the decision. Make no mistake the 24-70 f2.8 is tungsten brick.

There are very good, solid arguements for both.
Have fun deciding, I know I agonised for about 4 months 🙂

Also, due to the money envolved its well worth a couple visits to your retailer and test them. Mount them on your body, feel the weight, take a bunch of instore shots for comparison purposes. Go home view them at 50% and 100%..relax, let your thought percolate, go back if need be and retest…then decide.

If we lived close Id let you borrow mine for some pratical in field hand on (maybe rent one for a weekend???)

But in the end I think both will make you happy, its just down to the little things.

[David Anderson]

The 24-105 F4 has fairly bad distortion at the extreme ends of the zoom, though on MOST fishing stuff you wouldn’t really notice it.
The 24-70 on the other hand is pretty good at 24 and great at 70, though as John said it sometimes isn’t long enough and is very heavy.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s a new model just around the corner..

www.dsaphoto.com

A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.

[john michael white]

Here’s a series of intersting articles on lens sharpness:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/unsharp.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm

[Author]

Posts