Advice please

Sam

I am waiting for the predicted Canon $300 rebate on the 5D. I understand that in order to qualify for the reabate one will need to buy a lens in addition to the camera.

I have the 17-40L, and the 70-200 2.8L. What lens would you recomend? How is the new 24-105 4.0L?

Would there be any quality gain using a wide prime such as a 24mm over the 17-40L? How about the 135 2.0L over the 70.200 2.8L?

Also this will an expensive purchase for me. Should I get a Mack warranty?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Sam

Andy

Sam wrote:

I am waiting for the predicted Canon $300 rebate on the 5D. I understand that in order to qualify for the reabate one will need to buy a lens in addition to the camera.

I have the 17-40L, and the 70-200 2.8L. What lens would you recomend? How is the new 24-105 4.0L?

Would there be any quality gain using a wide prime such as a 24mm over the 17-40L? How about the 135 2.0L over the 70.200 2.8L?

Also this will an expensive purchase for me. Should I get a Mack warranty?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Sam

Mack warranties are a fine thing for piece of mind, Sam.

The 24mm f/1.4? It's a fine lens - but the 35L is even finer

You have some fine zooms. The 24-105L is a great addition, I've reviewed it here:
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1161613

Of all the lenses you mention, I can't speak highly enough about the 35L. Shooting with a sharp prime like this is a joy! Oh and the 135L is superb, too. One of Canon's finest also. But you've got that FL covered nicely with the 70-200. I'd suggest this:

35L

But in the end, you're going to hear a bunch of great suggestions - you'll have to decide. I will say, that the prime will move you in directions that the zoom can't.

Sam

I think the 24-105L is a contender. When you mentioned the 35L did you mean the 2.0 or the (way expensive) 1.4?

I will try some shots at 22mm with my Rebel to see what the FOV looks like. (35mm on a 5D should be close to 22mm on the 1.6 crop factor Rebel)

Thanks,

Sam

TristanP

The 35L is the WAY EXPENSIVE f/1.4 version.

Andy

Sam wrote:

I think the 24-105L is a contender. When you mentioned the 35L did you mean the 2.0 or the (way expensive) 1.4?

I will try some shots at 22mm with my Rebel to see what the FOV looks like. (35mm on a 5D should be close to 22mm on the 1.6 crop factor Rebel)

Thanks,

Sam

35 f/1.4L, the way expensive (~$1100).

wxwax

Well, if you're going to spend that kind of money, then it seems logical to fill the gaping hole in your focal arsenal, and get the 24-70 2.8L. A fine lens and you're now covered from 17 thru 200 (or more if you get the 1.4 extender.)

gus

wxwax wrote:

Well, if you're going to spend that kind of money, then it seems logical to fill the gaping hole in your focal arsenal, and get the 24-70 2.8L. A fine lens and you're now covered from 17 thru 200 (or more if you get the 1.4 extender.)

Filling in gaps is for logical photographers .....sam this is about art.

W.W. Webster

Dumb question?

Sam wrote:

Should I get a Mack warranty?

What's a 'Mack warranty'?

gus

W.W. Webster wrote:

What's a 'Mack warranty'?

mack warranty

W.W. Webster

Humungus wrote:

mack warranty

Ah-ha. Thanks

Thusie

Humungus wrote:

Filling in gaps is for logical photographers .....sam this is about art.

Gus, I love that! Answered some questions, took care of some issues in one sentence (for me anyway).

Red Baron

I purchased the 24-105IS after I sold my 28-70 and I have absolutely no regrets - the 24-105 is a great lens. Having said that, If I had your lens collection I'd probably look at adding a 10-22 ultra-wide and a 50 1.4.

Jeffro

Sam wrote:

Also this will an expensive purchase for me. Should I get a Mack warranty?
Sam

I'd fill the gap with the 24-105.

I went with insurance, instead of extended warranties. My gear is covered on my homeowners, for just about everything. Cheap too.

Sam

Red Baron wrote:

I purchased the 24-105IS after I sold my 28-70 and I have absolutely no regrets - the 24-105 is a great lens. Having said that, If I had your lens collection I'd probably look at adding a 10-22 ultra-wide and a 50 1.4.

Just to clarify a little more the new lens will be for use on a new 5D, so my existing 17-40mm will be efectively be 10.63-25.00mm. Almost the same FOV as the 10-22.

Sam

Mike Lane

Sam wrote:

Just to clarify a little more the new lens will be for use on a new 5D, so my existing 17-40mm will be efectively be 10.63-25.00mm. Almost the same FOV as the 10-22.

Sam

Uh

Wouldn't your 17-40 be effectively exactly 17-40mm? Your 10-22 is effectively a 16-35.2mm on your 20d.

I guess I'm just confused.

wxwax

Yes, it would. Sam, a 1.6 sensor crops a 17mm lens into a 27mm lens.

On a full frame sensor it's.... 17mm.

Sam

wxwax wrote:

Well, if you're going to spend that kind of money, then it seems logical to fill the gaping hole in your focal arsenal, and get the 24-70 2.8L. A fine lens and you're now covered from 17 thru 200 (or more if you get the 1.4 extender.)

I thought about this lens but when I convert that to the 1.6 crop so I can wrap my head around it. The FOV will only be equal to 15mm-43.75mm on my Rebel. That will be too wide for general purpose. That's why I am looking at the 24-105L for a general walk around. The 35L Andy sugested would be for landscapes. I just don't know if that will provide a sufficient increase in quality over my 17-40.

The exstenders concern me with regard to ultimate quality. After all I will be spending a fair amout on the 5D with quality being the first 3 reasons for the purchase.

WHOA!!! hold the fort. A lightning bolt just struck me! I buy the 24-105L. Rent the 35L, and test it out.

I'm a damn genius! (Ok I get one two good ideas a decade) I'll be out of ideas for awhile. :cry

Sam

Sam

Mike Lane wrote:

Uh

Wouldn't your 17-40 be effectively exactly 17-40mm? Your 10-22 is effectively a 16-35.2mm on your 20d.

I guess I'm just confused.

Yes your right. I was trying to put the numbers in terms that make sense to me visually. I know what the FOV is on my Rebel (1.6 crop factor), so I was converting to what the efective FOV would be on my Rebel so I might have a chance to wrap my feeble brain / vision cortex around it.

After I have the full frame for awhile I am sure my brain will recalibraite my vision to numbers, and I will think in full frame terms.

Sam

cmason

you could always buy now thru Dell,who has a 20% off coupon, worth more than the rebate, and no lens purchase required:

3/17: Dell Home limited time offer starting 3/17 8am CT. 20% off Canon EOS 5D Digital SLR Camera, $3299 - 20% off coupon PGXG0Z63RK72WL = $2639.20 shipped free. Code expires after first 60 uses.

Andy

Sam wrote:

I just don't know if that will provide a sufficient increase in quality over my 17-40.

At 35mm, you could tell the difference in images, viewed at night, in a cave, with a blindfold on.

At 20mm, funnily enough, the 17-40 smokes the 35L's butt!

Sam

Andy wrote:

At 35mm, you could tell the difference in images, viewed at night, in a cave, with a blindfold on.

At 20mm, funnily enough, the 17-40 smokes the 35L's butt!

Thanks Andy, just confuse me more.

I am going to check my landscape shots and see what focal length I used the most. 35 mm in Rebel speak is about 22mm.

Sam

Sam

cmason wrote:

you could always buy now thru Dell,who has a 20% off coupon, worth more than the rebate, and no lens purchase required:

3/17: Dell Home limited time offer starting 3/17 8am CT. 20% off Canon EOS 5D Digital SLR Camera, $3299 - 20% off coupon PGXG0Z63RK72WL = $2639.20 shipped free. Code expires after first 60 uses.

Thanks for the thought, but at B&H the price is now $2895. With the $300 rebate it will be less than Dell, and if by chance Dell still has a sale on then even better because it dosn't matter where I buy it or how much I pay Canon will still honor the rebate.

Oh and maybe I need an incentive to justify another outrageously priced piece of glass.

Sam