FF equivilent for 17-55 f2.8 IS?

Shima

So, all this thoughts about the 5d Mark II have me thinking...

If I were able to go that route, I would need a lens that I can use on full frame for my wider angle zoom shots.

The main two options I see are:
24-105 f4/L IS
24-70 f2.8/L

I already owned the 24-105 previously, I could probably save some money on getting one if I bought it in the 5d kit... but it's only f2.8. The whole reason I sold it was to get 2.8 on the 17-55...

Or I could try the 24-70... but I hear it's a tad on the heavy side, and it's missing IS which I have love... but I also hear it's a mighty fantastic lens (and I debated heavily between it and my 17-55 when I originally made the last decision)

Although mostly what I profit off of it weddings, I do highly enjoy sports photography... and while yes I'd primarily use the 70-200 f2.8L/IS USM for it... it would be nice to have the option of using a less zoomed in lens sometimes too. (sometimes 70mm is too close during basketball)

Thoughts?

Art Scott

Shima,
With your crop bodies the 17-55 is essentially a 26-83 (figuring your bodies to be 1.5 crop)....so getting something close would be 24-70 f2.8 ..... and putting that on a ff body it would seem to be a tad wider than what your currently using on your crop bodies............

david_h

Hey Shima,

I'm a Nikon guy, but a lot of Canon wedding photographers I know swear by the 16-35 f2.8L (I think I've gotten it right) lens as their wide zoom, especially on the full frame bodies.

A killer combination would be this lens on a 5D or 5DMkII (personally for weddings I'd probably get the original 5D - I'll bet there will be some great deals on good used ones when people start upgrading to the MkII version) plus a 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 on your 40D.

The 24-70 L lens seems to get a lot of bad press for poor focusing.

Shima wrote:

So, all this thoughts about the 5d Mark II have me thinking...

If I were able to go that route, I would need a lens that I can use on full frame for my wider angle zoom shots.

Shima

david_h wrote:

Hey Shima,

I'm a Nikon guy, but a lot of Canon wedding photographers I know swear by the 16-35 f2.8L (I think I've gotten it right) lens as their wide zoom, especially on the full frame bodies.

A killer combination would be this lens on a 5D or 5DMkII (personally for weddings I'd probably get the original 5D - I'll bet there will be some great deals on good used ones when people start upgrading to the MkII version) plus a 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 on your 40D.

The 24-70 L lens seems to get a lot of bad press for poor focusing.

I'm really contemplating the 5dMkII which is why I started this whole line of thought.

Is the 16-35 f2.8/L as heavy as the 24-70?

Does canon not have any wide angle f2.8 + IS lenses for full frame?

ziggy53

Shima wrote:

I'm really contemplating the 5dMkII which is why I started this whole line of thought.

Is the 16-35 f2.8/L as heavy as the 24-70?

Does canon not have any wide angle f2.8 + IS lenses for full frame?

Correct, Canon does not currently produce a full-frame wide angle with IS and an f2.8 aperture.

Canon would like you to purchase the EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM. A friend of mine who does events uses the 5D with the 24-105mm and she does amazingly well with it.

If it were my choice I would use the:

EF 16-35mm, f2.8L II USM
EF 24-70mm, f2.8 USM
EF 70-200mm, f2.8 USM (with or without IS)

... to use with any Canon full-frame body.

I currently own the:

EF 17-40mm, f4L USM
EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM
EF 70-200mm, f2.8 USM (without USM)

... and I use them with the 1D MKII body for weddings and events.

I've been using the 40D with the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM more and more for event use and, as I trust it more and more, I love that combination. I use the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM for the long work except in low-light when I use the EF 70-200mm, f2.8 USM (without USM) and the 40D is great with both.

I'm still looking at the 5D MKII and I'm very interested to see if the AF has been improved over the 5D (which wasn't bad but I wanted more.)

Pindy

I can vouch for the 16-35 f/2.8L II. It's my next lens purchase for sure. My colleague has it and I've borrowed it a few times. It's very similar in size to the 24-105 but seems slightly narrower and lighter in weight. I would actually say it's more similar to the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 but a little heavier and longer. Sort of the same thing inversely.


I wouldn't worry about IS on something that wide, when you can get some pretty non-blurry shots at slower speeds.

Shima

Pindy wrote:

I can vouch for the 16-35 f/2.8L II. It's my next lens purchase for sure. My colleague has it and I've borrowed it a few times. It's very similar in size to the 24-105 but seems slightly narrower and lighter in weight. I would actually say it's more similar to the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 but a little heavier and longer. Sort of the same thing inversely.


I wouldn't worry about IS on something that wide, when you can get some pretty non-blurry shots at slower speeds.

Part of my thought too is that I may not need IS on a f2.8 if I can raise the ISO as high as the 5D Mk II can go compared to the 40D I think the ISO speed would compensate and looks pretty decent noise wise from the samples I've seen so far.

I need to find someone with a 16-35 f2.8 to try and see how that lens feels.

What about pairing the 16-35 f2.8 with the Canon 50 1.4 or 50 1.2? Not the I have the funding for such an endeavor at this moment, but I do weddings and other paid photo gigs purely for the ability to buy camera gear... I've made it a hobby not to use it for bill money... so it certainly is a possibility if I book a few more weddings in the upcoming months that such things could become affordable.

I want to keep my bag gear from getting over complicated if I end up going down this road...

Nikolai

And that's one of the reasons why I don't want to part wtih EF-S compatible xxD series... EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM is enough justification for me.

Shima

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/photo.aspx?gallery=canoneos5dmkii_preview&photo=8

There's a sample shot with at 16-35 at 16mm on the pre-production 5d Mk II.... If the 17-55 is equivalent to 20 something, makes me think a 24-70 might be more suited to matching it focal wise... especially since I really dislike that type of distortion in the super wide angles.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/photo.aspx?gallery=canoneos5dmkii_preview&photo=22

There's another shot with it much further away from people, where it looks ok, but I'd be using it for closer up shots... so me thinks, not for me....

ziggy53

Shima,

Super-wide zooms have a place in wedding photography, but I believe it is as a special purpose lens. I use a super-wide occasionally to "establish" a scene or to show the overview of a sanctuary or something like that. A church exterior is another opportunity.

For a standard zoom on a full-frame body the 24-70mm is a pretty good choice.

ChatKat

I have the 5d and both the 24-70 and 24-105. They are pretty interchangeable for me. The 24- 105 is good and the lens I reach for first but when I am super low light - the 24-70 has it's place. I also have the 50 1.2 and an 85 1.8. My next lens will probably be the 16-35 but I don't feel the urgency because the lenses I have really do well for me. If I got the 16-35, I'd think about parting with the 24-70 but that would be a tough decision. Of course, I am hoping that Canon will come out with at 24-105 2.8is....

tjstrider

Re:
Cat you can borrow my 28-70 2.8L to see what it feels like. I love how similar it is to the 70-200 2.8IS

it is the same barrel just shorter! that is why the 24-70 would totally work i think for you... but the whole thing with the AF is fine b/c it hits infinity focus so quickly you can MF (which works better anyway a lot of the time)

leaforte

I have every EF-S lens, but once I put the 24-70 on my 20D body...I use it constantly. I like the 10-22 on my 40D occasionally, but am grooving on the 70-200 non-IS on the 40. 2.8 seems to be the deal breaker.

Photoskipper

Shima wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/photo.aspx?gallery=canoneos5dmkii_preview&photo=8

There's a sample shot with at 16-35 at 16mm on the pre-production 5d Mk II.... If the 17-55 is equivalent to 20 something, makes me think a 24-70 might be more suited to matching it focal wise... especially since I really dislike that type of distortion in the super wide angles.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/photo.aspx?gallery=canoneos5dmkii_preview&photo=22

There's another shot with it much further away from people, where it looks ok, but I'd be using it for closer up shots... so me thinks, not for me....

Have been using the 5D for almost 2 years, enjoy the view end on the full frame body. The 24-105 F4 L IS is a great lens for the 5D. Good for most of wedding shots and portraits, lanscape. The 16-35 F2.8 is really great but just too expensive. I got the 17-40 and working fine.

The ultrawide angle for wedding photo is useful particularly shooting the behind the scene preparation of the wedding party or group photo.

Shima

tjstrider wrote:

Cat you can borrow my 28-70 2.8L to see what it feels like. I love how similar it is to the 70-200 2.8IS

it is the same barrel just shorter! that is why the 24-70 would totally work i think for you... but the whole thing with the AF is fine b/c it hits infinity focus so quickly you can MF (which works better anyway a lot of the time)

I would very much like that, thanks Tim. I was thinking last night how sad it is that I'm not close to B&H (like I am when I visit my folks) otherwise I would just hop on the train, spend a day in NYC, and play around with the lens options on my cameras to get a feel for them. I love my 17-55... and I am poor so if I do make the upgrade to FF it would be only one body that would go FF... I would likely then sell the 30D, keep the 40D and the 40D could still easily stay best friends with the 17-55 But alas I'll still need something similar to that range on the FF!

Most recent thoughts:
24-70 f2.8/L to be used on FF
and maybe 50 1.4... or 1.2 if I could swing it (since I have nothing faster than 2.8 in my gear bag and would really like something that can create amazing portraits) or perhaps even the 85 1.2 instead... but that's crazy expensive

ziggy53

Shima wrote:

...

Most recent thoughts:
24-70 f2.8/L to be used on FF
and maybe 50 1.4... or 1.2 if I could swing it (since I have nothing faster than 2.8 in my gear bag and would really like something that can create amazing portraits) or perhaps even the 85 1.2 instead... but that's crazy expensive

I think that the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is a great wedding lens when you don't need or can't use flash. On a crop 1.6x body it works great, but on full-frame I think it would put you too close to the subjects during the ceremony. (Even on the 1.3x crop 1D MKII it seems a little close to the action.)

I think for full-frame the EF 85mm, f1.8 USM would work better and is still pretty fast.

(With the cropping ability of 21MPix the 50mm might be fine as well. This camera might change the way to think about lens choice.)

jdryan3

I love my 24-70 on the 5D. I don't need IS in this case since I usually can snag the shot on ISO 800 or 1600 with 1/FL + 1 stop @ f/2.8.

If your profile is correct, anyway you can get to Chicago? Go to Calumet on Goose Island and try the lenses there.

And on the wide side, I love the 35L on my 5D for ultralow light.

Shima

jdryan3 wrote:

I love my 24-70 on the 5D. I don't need IS in this case since I usually can snag the shot on ISO 800 or 1600 with 1/FL + 1 stop @ f/2.8.

If your profile is correct, anyway you can get to Chicago? Go to Calumet on Goose Island and try the lenses there.

And on the wide side, I love the 35L on my 5D for ultralow light.

Yeah I'm only about an hour away from Chicago... I've never been to any of the camera stores in Chicago area. Next weekend I've got a wedding (Saturday) and an engagement session (Sunday) and the following weekend I'll be in Indy, so it would be at least 2 weeks til I'd be able to get into Chicago area.... but I'll keep it in mind!

LiquidAir

Another option is the Tamron 28-75/2.8. Its cheaper, ligher weight and just as sharp as the Canon 24-70 and I prefer the slightly longer range. Mostly when I need a faster lens that the 24-105 I shoot with primes but, after shooting with the Tammy for a day, I am considering picking one up for those times when I want a faster zoom.

jdryan3

Shima wrote:

... and the following weekend I'll be in Indy...

Roberts Imaging has 2 stores in Indy. Hours are in footer of the homepage. I got some of my Think Tank gear and my 17-40 L from them. All via online or phone ordering. Don't even know where the stores are, but they are just one day ground shipping via UPS for me.

urbanaries

jdryan3 wrote:

Roberts Imaging has 2 stores in Indy. Hours are in footer of the homepage. I got some of my Think Tank gear and my 17-40 L from them. All via online or phone ordering. Don't even know where the stores are, but they are just one day ground shipping via UPS for me.

+1 on Roberts! When you're down here next week, we could go when they're open late on Thursday. I bet they have just about everything (sans the 5dMKII) you are looking for. Fantastic store, right next to my favorite sushi place downtown.

Shima

urbanaries wrote:

+1 on Roberts! When you're down here next week, we could go when they're open late on Thursday. I bet they have just about everything (sans the 5dMKII) you are looking for. Fantastic store, right next to my favorite sushi place downtown.

That's alright, I just pre-ordered the 5dMkII from Tallyn's

I'm hoping to go to Carmel Martial Arts Thursday night, (they're like a sister school to Tiger Martial Arts that I am a part of up here in Northwest Indiana...and with my training I'll be missing my whole weeks worth of classes up here so the instructor down there that I know invited me to come to his school)... but I could skip the 6:30 class and just go to their 7:30 class

And I'm all for us going to the sushi place afterwards! Sounds like we have a plan in the making!