Which lens?????

PixelCharm

I'm so torn right now.
I am a photography "enthusiast"

I love to shoot pictures of sunrise, sunset, landscapes, flowers, the moon.
Love to capture the city skyline......

I have a nice little array of lenses.
I started with my Rebel t4i - which used the EF-S lens.
However, then I upgraded to the Canon 6D - which I love, but cannot use the majority of my lenses.

So I'm filling in for now - and using both camera's.

I have the Tokina 11-17
Sigma DC 28-250 macro - which is pretty versatile
EF 50mm f/1.8

For my 6D
EF 70-300 f/4.5 which I'm not a fan of
EF 17-40mm f/4.5

But I really want a awesome lens.
I'm not a professional - I leave that to you real professionals who have made this your career.
I don't feel people just buy a nice camera - take pictures and think they are professionals.

With that said, I take pictures for me....

So here is my dilemma....
I am also going to the Smokey Mtns in TN late May

Do I get an EF 70-200 f/2.8 II IS- which is about $2,500 +/-
Or is that just overkill?
For my needs, I would be fine with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 II IS

Also , with that size camera, I do not think it would be possible, even with IS to take a stable picture without either a tripod or monopod, therefore, would I be just fine without the IS since I don't anticipate using it without a form of stabilization?

Any suggestions, advice would be appreciated.
If honestly it isn't going to make that much of a difference in the quality of the pictures, then I prefer to keep the extra $1,000 in my pocket, but if the difference is insane...... do I suck it up and get the good one?:dunno

Here is a link to my smugmug - if you want to see what I shoot....
http://www.pixelcharm.smugmug.com

divamum

For outdoor shooting? 70-200 F4 either with or without IS. No competition best bang for buck. If I didn't NEED the 2.8is, I would never have sold the F4 I had (non-is). LOVE that lens - light, sharp, and all around fab.

puzzledpaul

PixelCharm wrote: »

... For my needs, I would be fine with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 II IS ...

Does this mean Canon have finally decided to update that 'ol lens

Of the 2 choices offered, same as Diva ... and I still have my 70-200 f4 non IS.

pp

RacinRandy

why not

PixelCharm wrote: »

Any suggestions, advice would be appreciated.
If honestly it isn't going to make that much of a difference in the quality of the pictures, then I prefer to keep the extra $1,000 in my pocket, but if the difference is insane...... do I suck it up and get the good one?

Why not look in to a lens like http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/50-500mm-f45-63-apo-dg-os-hsm ? Wide range of coverage, longer reach and you could rent it from the fine folks at lensrentals.com or borrowlenses.com to see if you like it before you buy. The $1,700 price tag makes it a stabilized competitor in my opinion.

PixelCharm

Thanks all! I appreciate the feedback. Went with your advice...... EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM

PixelCharm

RacinRandy wrote: »

Why not look in to a lens like http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/50-500mm-f45-63-apo-dg-os-hsm ? Wide range of coverage, longer reach and you could rent it from the fine folks at lensrentals.com or borrowlenses.com to see if you like it before you buy. The $1,700 price tag makes it a stabilized competitor in my opinion.

Love Sigma lens - however, where I was buying, only had Canon

Sam

For a Canon full frame camera my must have lens is the 24-105L 4.0. This is pretty much the best walk around lens available.

After looking at your website it does seem most of your images lean toward wide angle vs telephoto.

As for a "spectacular" lens.................that really is dependent on your specific need. After all the best 24mm prime won't seem very "spectacular" if your trying to shoot a fox 100 yards away.

Sam

pathfinder

I am with Sam and Diva

The EOS 70-200 f4 ISL L is a great walk around lens, as is the 24-105 f4 IS L. Makes a nice, fairly light package to carry for the day.

I will say that the newest Sigma 24-105 DG OS HSM is a very nice lens as well, and if I was in the market for a 24-105 for Canon would look at it very carefully. Indeed, the Sigma lens is the one I bought for my spouse. It does require 82mm filter size though.

Fiddlestix

I have to agree with Sam, the 24-105 is a wonderful lens and near perfect (for me) as a walk around lens. Since I tend to shoot most often with a tripod, my longer lens favorite is the 70-200 f4 IS L. Rounding out my trio of lenses I don't leave home without, my 16-35 f2.8 L II. I would say that my usage is 50% 24-105
35% 16-35
15% 70-200

divamum

Hey, Pathfinder - tell me more about the Sigma. Is it one of their art lenses (i have the 35 1.4 and LOVE it)? Just curious. I still haven't found my "perfect" walkaround lens for a full frame camera yet - I keep hoping eventually I'll land on the one that makes me go WOW instead of simply "it'll do"....................

Brett1000

divamum wrote: »

Hey, Pathfinder - tell me more about the Sigma. Is it one of their art lenses (i have the 35 1.4 and LOVE it)? Just curious. I still haven't found my "perfect" walkaround lens for a full frame camera yet - I keep hoping eventually I'll land on the one that makes me go WOW instead of simply "it'll do"....................

For me a "walk around" lens depends on whether you're indoors or out. The 24-105 works fine for both but I choose a wider, larger aperture prime indoors and a longer reach like the 70-200 for outdoor scenes

jmphotocraft

divamum wrote: »

For outdoor shooting? 70-200 F4 either with or without IS. No competition best bang for buck. If I didn't NEED the 2.8is, I would never have sold the F4 I had (non-is). LOVE that lens - light, sharp, and all around fab.

+1. I didn't vote in the poll.

Only reason to get a big heavy lens like the 70-200/2.8 or 100-400L is if you really really need what they offer (speed, and reach, respectively). I shoot evening sports and dance recitals, so I need the f/2.8. If I didn't I would save the weight and get the f/4. And actually nowadays with clean ISO 1600 and good 3200, I probably wouldn't bother with the f/2.8 unless I was making money with my photos (which I do).

AdamNP

When you consider that you can get a brand new 24-105L (in white box) for around $700, that seems to me to be an absolute no-brainer for a 6D. I have that lens, the 17-40L, and a Sigma 150-500 for when a very long reach is needed (I hardly ever use really long focal lengths, so paying for an L seemed silly to me. I would love a 70-200/70-300 L, and then I'm pretty much set.

Personally, I would grab a new 24-105, and then watch the Canon refurb store for the "whites". They recently sold out of nearly everything, but they are starting to come back into stock slowly.

Matthew Saville

Glad you went with the 70-200 f/4! It is by far the best choice for an outdoor photographer, especially one who likes to travel and/or shoot hand-held without tiring out their shoulders.

In fact the 70-200 f/4 L is, some argue, still sharper than the mk1 AND the mk2 of the 2.8's, which is why I just laugh whenever I see some landscape photographer trudging through the middle of nowhere with a 2.8. Unless they're shooting portraits or wildlife at dawn / dusk, there really is zero need for f/2.8.

By the way, PixelCharm, I thought I'd mention that in the ultra-wide department, neither should you be fooled by Canon's f/2.8 excitement. In fact the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 that you own is roughly equally sharp at 16mm and f/16 on your 6D, compared to any full-frame lens that can get you to 16mm like the Canon 16-35 L... In other words, Canon wasn't really the best at designing ultra-wide lenses, and their newest lens is their best attempt, the 17-40 f/4 L. Get that one, or get the Tokina 17-35 f/4 if you're on an even tighter budget.

Or just do what I do, and use the crop-sensor Tokina 11-16 at 16mm and call it a day, .

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

Matthew Saville wrote: »

In fact the 70-200 f/4 L is, some argue, still sharper than the mk1 AND the mk2 of the 2.8's

Well, the f/4IS is not quite as sharp as the f/2.8 Mk 2, but the f/4IS is still wicked sharp. Whether or not the difference is worth ~$1150 is another matter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3

paddler4

Went with your advice...... EF 70-200 mm f/4L IS USM

Good choice. I have had one for years and love it. I chose it over the 2.8 to avoid the weight as well as the cost, since I like to haul my stuff around in the mountains. For outdoor use, I have never once missed the extra stop of the 2.8.

Re the 24-105: I have that too, and in fact, it's on my 5D3 more than any other lens. It's an incredibly handy lens because of its range, which makes it a perfect walk-around for a FF camera. However, IMHO, the 70-200 f/4 IS is a substantially better lens. To pick just one reason, the 24-105 has severe vignetting at the short end, and while it is easy to correct this in post, doing so means upping exposure in those regions by several stops, which is not good for image quality if you have shadows there. So I use the 24-105 when I have no reason to use something else, but I am always happy to put on the 70-200 if it is appropriate.

Matthew Saville

jmphotocraft wrote: »

Well, the f/4IS is not quite as sharp as the f/2.8 Mk 2, but the f/4IS is still wicked sharp. Whether or not the difference is worth ~$1150 is another matter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3

It depends on which review you read. SLRGear's 3-D graph thingie shows the f/4's to be some of the flattest, sharpest of any zoom ever!

PixelCharm

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Glad you went with the 70-200 f/4! It is by far the best choice for an outdoor photographer, especially one who likes to travel and/or shoot hand-held without tiring out their shoulders.

In fact the 70-200 f/4 L is, some argue, still sharper than the mk1 AND the mk2 of the 2.8's, which is why I just laugh whenever I see some landscape photographer trudging through the middle of nowhere with a 2.8. Unless they're shooting portraits or wildlife at dawn / dusk, there really is zero need for f/2.8.

By the way, PixelCharm, I thought I'd mention that in the ultra-wide department, neither should you be fooled by Canon's f/2.8 excitement. In fact the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 that you own is roughly equally sharp at 16mm and f/16 on your 6D, compared to any full-frame lens that can get you to 16mm like the Canon 16-35 L... In other words, Canon wasn't really the best at designing ultra-wide lenses, and their newest lens is their best attempt, the 17-40 f/4 L. Get that one, or get the Tokina 17-35 f/4 if you're on an even tighter budget.

Or just do what I do, and use the crop-sensor Tokina 11-16 at 16mm and call it a day, .

=Matt=

Thanks - I actually have a Tokina 11-17 lens.... got it for Christmas and absolutely love it..... unfortunately I got the one for my Rebel which is not a full frame camera. When I upgraded to the 6D, I couldn't use it.

I plan on replacing it eventually. For now, I'm still using the Tokina with my Rebel, and when I want to use the 6D, I picked up a 17-40mm - but I do absolutely love the Tokina.

PixelCharm

paddler4 wrote: »

Good choice. I have had one for years and love it. I chose it over the 2.8 to avoid the weight as well as the cost, since I like to haul my stuff around in the mountains. For outdoor use, I have never once missed the extra stop of the 2.8.

Re the 24-105: I have that too, and in fact, it's on my 5D3 more than any other lens. It's an incredibly handy lens because of its range, which makes it a perfect walk-around for a FF camera. However, IMHO, the 70-200 f/4 IS is a substantially better lens. To pick just one reason, the 24-105 has severe vignetting at the short end, and while it is easy to correct this in post, doing so means upping exposure in those regions by several stops, which is not good for image quality if you have shadows there. So I use the 24-105 when I have no reason to use something else, but I am always happy to put on the 70-200 if it is appropriate.

Thanks, I am seeing the same recommendations about the 24-105 lens.... for quite a while actually, and think it would absolutely be a great investment.

That is next on my "wishlist"

PixelCharm

You have all been extremely helpful, and provided good solid advice....thank you all. That is exactly why I appreciate this site. I am renting the 70-200mm f/2.8 for an event the end of April - and again in May, we are going to the Smokey Mountains.

But for now, I'm pretty pleased with the EF 70-200mm f/4 I got it yesterday and have been playing with it.

I definitely need to get the 24-105. I have been told that for a while now..... and will post pictures when I get it.

Thank you all!!!

moose135

PixelCharm wrote: »

I definitely need to get the 24-105. I have been told that for a while now..... and will post pictures when I get it.

I went FF with a 5D3 - I've had it less than 2 weeks - and got the 24-105 with it. I'm very happy with it.