Pindy,
If you have $1200 and already own a 50 f1.4, take a very long look at the 24-105 f4 IS L. Less than $1050 at B&H
Search here on dgrin and you'll find numerous threads complete with images from the 24-105 f4 IS L. I use that lens as my walk around most of the time, when I don't need a faster aperture.
Pindy,
If you have $1200 and already own a 50 f1.4, take a very long look at the 24-105 f4 IS L. Less than $1050 at B&H
Search here on dgrin and you'll find numerous threads complete with images from the 24-105 f4 IS L. I use that lens as my walk around most of the time, when I don't need a faster aperture.
Yes, I've considered this one. And when you DO need a faster aperture?
well its always nice to have the option to shoot with a huge aperture... but in a lot of cases its really not all that great. The DOF is pretty shallow at f/1.4... a lot of times you will get people out of focus. Shooting like a table of people at f/1.4 is no good... you need to be at like f/5.6 or f/8 with flash (if low light) to get them all in focus. Shooting wide open is a great way to seperate one subject from the background...
I went round to my local shop and they had the 17-55, 24-105 and 24-70 in stock which I faffed about with a bit. The rental department had not much today, but I'm going to go back when they get the following on the shelves:
24-105
17-40
35 f/1.4L
35 f/2
I agree about the DOF issue. You almost are better off with flash in many cases, but I am not a fan of flash—the size of it, using it for much other than for fill. IS could get me a little more DOF with motionless subjects. Not really people, though (Aargh).
The 24-105 was nicely made and the IS was totally silent, not like the rather harder-working IS on my 70-200. I didn't think the widest focal length was too long in general, as many have felt. Truly, the only way to do this is to rent them all and use them.
Yes, I've considered this one. And when you DO need a faster aperture?
24-70 f2.8 L or an 85 f1.8 or a 35 f1.4 Y0u said you have a 50 f1.4 already
As much as I like shooting available light ( and I do a lot - think windlow light ), frequently available light is not very good light at all - for that I prefer to use nice, bounced flash that does not look like flash, but lets me use an aperture I prefer, with a much higher shutter speed that prevents capture of motion blur.
This was captured in a room so dark that I could not read in it, and the light did not have the nice directionality your shot did have. I like Rembrandt window light too.
Is that acceptable use of flash?
Available light that is contrasty is great, but really flat, dark available light is not always that charming JMO YMV
I'll say. Shooting with a flash is something I need to learn to do properly.
I'm beginning to lean towards the 24-105L plus one more prime around 1.4 - 2. Plus a 580ex.
my wedding photographer shoots with the 24-105L... he loves it. I'm pretty sure that one has the dust seal built in it, unlike the 17-55IS... and like all L lenses it comes with a bag and a nice pedal style hood. I do a lot of sports shooting so I generally have a 70-200/2.8L bolted on.
As far as making a photo look like flash wasnt used... thats the tricky part. The easiest way is to use a gary fong lightsphere, set the flash to ETTL, and adjust camera on manual to achieve the amount of background brightness you want. Other methods can be done with great success like bounce flash, the white cards, or other difuser types. You'll rarely point a flash directly at someone and get a flattering photo
Keep in mind, the 24-105 is a grand, the 580ex is like 375 bucks, and the 35/2 is $225. If you get the 24-105 and the 580ex, you'll get double rebates on both. Should be $100 off the L lens, and like $30 off the 580. Of course when you get into the 580, then you'll start looking at getting a quantum battery cord, a jacobs black box, and possibly a offshoe cord and flash bracket. Gotta love the hobby!
The trick is to never point the flash at the subject if you can possibly avoid it.
An Off shoe cord, or the IR controller do great things for an EOS flash -
In the studio, just shoot in manual with PWs or light synchs to trigger the studio strobes.
For a 580ex, you will need an Off shoe cord or the ST-E2 IR trigger which I like a lot. The 580ex will not accept a PC cord, and a hot shoe adapter gives up ETTL which is too high a price for me.
The 24-105 is sealed pretty good - after my last trip in Antelope Canyon it was literally covered in fine sand. I cleaned it off with a fine camel paint brush and it has been good to go ever since. It was brown when I started cleaning it that day. No canned air - just afine camel brush diligently applied.
An Off shoe cord, or the IR controller do great things for an EOS flash -
In the studio, just shoot in manual with PWs or light synchs to trigger the studio strobes.
For a 580ex, you will need an Off shoe cord or the ST-E2 IR trigger which I like a lot. The 580ex will not accept a PC cord, and a hot shoe adapter gives up ETTL which is too high a price for me.
Woah, Nelly. I'm just not that kind of photographer!
yeh... ive used that hotshoe pc cord adapter before on studio flashes. You just have to take a few minutes to set the flashes up and off you go. I would never use one outside a studio tho...
For a minute there I thought you meant, "Pocket Change is frightening", as in, "I just bought that great new Canon lens, and now all I have left to my name is pocket change" kind of frightening.
(Having read this back later today, you may want to screw on a spazz filter to deal with this)
There seems to be this "Cult of f/2.8" that comes out of the woodwork when you talk about getting an f/4. But in reality, 2.8 isn't going to avail me much more in the kind of flash-forbidden environments I shoot in during the day (dimly lit studios with cranky talent!) so what good is worrying about getting a, say, 24-70 f/2.8 when the 24-105L would be just as good for outdoors and have a wide prime for indoors? Right?
But...
The question is where to sink the majority of my cash. Although the 35mm f/1.4L would undoubtedly be amazing for indoor use, that's all my budget pretty much. Would I get as much use from it outdoors as I would the 24-105? I don't think so. So, there's the 35mm f/2 which I could just barely afford to get on top of the 24-105. Probably not a bad option eh?
The thing for me is this: Is more money better spent on a zoom with great performance, to make up for the inherent lackings (when compared to primes) or do you spend it on the single-focal-length lens you'll mostly use indoors? This is such hell. You could say, "Just buy them all" but this leads to leaving lenses at home, where they do no good. I don't want a stable of lenses, but rather a tightly knit team that do most of my important bidding without fuss.
so...
24-105L + 35 f/2
17-55 + ?? This was the cursed original lens that would have been perfect had it not been for the value-for-money issue. AGAIN: there's no 2.8 + IS in this focal range.
35 f/1.4L and ??
Or screw the outdoor zoom idea and get the 100mm macro (which I want) plus the 35mm f/2 plus the 580EX. This leaves me with a 50 and 10-22 for outdoor walkaround, neither of which seem very optimised.
Zooms seem great for outdoor work and perhaps that's where they shine. Primes seem well suited indoors, though should be equally suited to outdoor work as well.
I can see myself talking in circles, trying to justify every possible notion. I'm creating drama where there is none.
I have an excellent shop 5 mins from my home, but I'm a little intimidated in there, being a mere neophyte hobbyist proletarian imbecile. I think I would likely end up paying almost $200 more to buy it locally. If they could match prices, then fine, I might suck up the $90 in tax.
Let me guess...Samy's??
Some local shops do tend to be intimidating. It depends on the salespeople they have. The first time someone gives me a "holier-than-thou" attitude I'm out the door.
Samys, for example, is much much overpriced. On the other hand you can try Canoga Camera. They are local with prices comparable to the Internet's. That's where I picked up my 70-200 f/2.8 IS.
Now, I wish I could help you with your problem by giving you the final answer but obviously I can't. That said, consider the types of shots you'll be taking indoors and figure out if you'll be getting the depth-of-field you will need at the focal lengths you intend to shoot if you use f/2.8. My guess is that you'll be wanting to stop-down anyway. If so, then the 24-105 f/4L IS starts looking better doesn't it? It's certainly versitile and with the excellent high ISO performance you get from Canon you can afford to bump up the ISO for available lighting shots. Add DxO post-processing and you'll get an extra couple of stops advantage with their noise reduction module.
Samys, for example, is much much overpriced. On the other hand you can try Canoga Camera.
Thanks for the tip—I'll check them out.
My guess is that you'll be wanting to stop-down anyway. If so, then the 24-105 f/4L IS starts looking better doesn't it? It's certainly versitile and with the excellent high ISO performance you get from Canon you can afford to bump up the ISO for available lighting shots. Add DxO post-processing and you'll get an extra couple of stops advantage with their noise reduction module.
Erich
I follow you. I think this was sort of my point about the 1 stop advantage of 2.8 being a half-measure. Always, wider aperture is a good thing to have, but one needs DOF at times. hmmm. 24-105L is sounding better and better. I can always go with that 35 wide if I really need to. There's one for sale here for about 160.00.
Sorry Sirsloop, but I'm starting to go back to the 17-55. If the only reason not to buy this lens is on principle... well, my principles are just tapped out. It's a cake-and-eat-it-too lens for my current situation. Yes the stupid hood is $50. It's maybe not a desert island lens, granted. When I upgrade to FF I think a lot of these other focal lengths will make more sense. Might just pick up that 35/2 while I'm at it.
Thanks again for all your large and longness.
********update*********
Ordered the 17-55 from Canoga Camera, which will assure me cheap and fast shipping, being that I'm right over the mountains from them. Thanks to Erich6. The good price from them took away a bit of the sting. I stood there in Samy's this morning with the 24-105 in my hand and remarked what a great lens it seemed on a 5D. But they belonged together. Hopefully, in a year's time, they may both belong to me.
Comments
If you have $1200 and already own a 50 f1.4, take a very long look at the 24-105 f4 IS L. Less than $1050 at B&H
Search here on dgrin and you'll find numerous threads complete with images from the 24-105 f4 IS L. I use that lens as my walk around most of the time, when I don't need a faster aperture.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Yes, I've considered this one. And when you DO need a faster aperture?
this is the 35/2 at f/2
I went round to my local shop and they had the 17-55, 24-105 and 24-70 in stock which I faffed about with a bit. The rental department had not much today, but I'm going to go back when they get the following on the shelves:
24-105
17-40
35 f/1.4L
35 f/2
I agree about the DOF issue. You almost are better off with flash in many cases, but I am not a fan of flash—the size of it, using it for much other than for fill. IS could get me a little more DOF with motionless subjects. Not really people, though (Aargh).
The 24-105 was nicely made and the IS was totally silent, not like the rather harder-working IS on my 70-200. I didn't think the widest focal length was too long in general, as many have felt. Truly, the only way to do this is to rent them all and use them.
As much as I like shooting available light ( and I do a lot - think windlow light ), frequently available light is not very good light at all - for that I prefer to use nice, bounced flash that does not look like flash, but lets me use an aperture I prefer, with a much higher shutter speed that prevents capture of motion blur.
This was captured in a room so dark that I could not read in it, and the light did not have the nice directionality your shot did have. I like Rembrandt window light too.
Is that acceptable use of flash?
Available light that is contrasty is great, but really flat, dark available light is not always that charming
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I'll say. Shooting with a flash is something I need to learn to do properly.
I'm beginning to lean towards the 24-105L plus one more prime around 1.4 - 2. Plus a 580ex.
As far as making a photo look like flash wasnt used... thats the tricky part. The easiest way is to use a gary fong lightsphere, set the flash to ETTL, and adjust camera on manual to achieve the amount of background brightness you want. Other methods can be done with great success like bounce flash, the white cards, or other difuser types. You'll rarely point a flash directly at someone and get a flattering photo
Keep in mind, the 24-105 is a grand, the 580ex is like 375 bucks, and the 35/2 is $225. If you get the 24-105 and the 580ex, you'll get double rebates on both. Should be $100 off the L lens, and like $30 off the 580. Of course when you get into the 580, then you'll start looking at getting a quantum battery cord, a jacobs black box, and possibly a offshoe cord and flash bracket. Gotta love the hobby!
An Off shoe cord, or the IR controller do great things for an EOS flash -
In the studio, just shoot in manual with PWs or light synchs to trigger the studio strobes.
For a 580ex, you will need an Off shoe cord or the ST-E2 IR trigger which I like a lot. The 580ex will not accept a PC cord, and a hot shoe adapter gives up ETTL which is too high a price for me.
The 24-105 is sealed pretty good - after my last trip in Antelope Canyon it was literally covered in fine sand. I cleaned it off with a fine camel paint brush and it has been good to go ever since. It was brown when I started cleaning it that day. No canned air - just afine camel brush diligently applied.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Woah, Nelly. I'm just not that kind of photographer!
where do you live? If you are near NYC you should be able to just go down to B&H and try out all the lenses without renting.
I Live in LA, which is also not a problem. It's the woefully inadequate subjects I'm limited to in a camera shop that makes it less appealing.
????? Sure you are. Or with a 580ex you certainly can be:D Or a 430 ex and an ST-E2 controller which my shot was done with.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Change is frightening.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I never said I didn't love it
For a minute there I thought you meant, "Pocket Change is frightening", as in, "I just bought that great new Canon lens, and now all I have left to my name is pocket change" kind of frightening.
Now that I can relate to.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
There seems to be this "Cult of f/2.8" that comes out of the woodwork when you talk about getting an f/4. But in reality, 2.8 isn't going to avail me much more in the kind of flash-forbidden environments I shoot in during the day (dimly lit studios with cranky talent!) so what good is worrying about getting a, say, 24-70 f/2.8 when the 24-105L would be just as good for outdoors and have a wide prime for indoors? Right?
But...
The question is where to sink the majority of my cash. Although the 35mm f/1.4L would undoubtedly be amazing for indoor use, that's all my budget pretty much. Would I get as much use from it outdoors as I would the 24-105? I don't think so. So, there's the 35mm f/2 which I could just barely afford to get on top of the 24-105. Probably not a bad option eh?
The thing for me is this: Is more money better spent on a zoom with great performance, to make up for the inherent lackings (when compared to primes) or do you spend it on the single-focal-length lens you'll mostly use indoors? This is such hell. You could say, "Just buy them all" but this leads to leaving lenses at home, where they do no good. I don't want a stable of lenses, but rather a tightly knit team that do most of my important bidding without fuss.
so...
24-105L + 35 f/2
17-55 + ?? This was the cursed original lens that would have been perfect had it not been for the value-for-money issue. AGAIN: there's no 2.8 + IS in this focal range.
35 f/1.4L and ??
Or screw the outdoor zoom idea and get the 100mm macro (which I want) plus the 35mm f/2 plus the 580EX. This leaves me with a 50 and 10-22 for outdoor walkaround, neither of which seem very optimised.
Zooms seem great for outdoor work and perhaps that's where they shine. Primes seem well suited indoors, though should be equally suited to outdoor work as well.
I can see myself talking in circles, trying to justify every possible notion. I'm creating drama where there is none.
I loved Andy's photos with the 85 f/1.8.
A vote for the 35 f/2.
obviously the 50 f/1.4
Else?
The 135 f2.0 L is also just dynamite. It is an L, but a cheaper one. Even the 200f2.8 L is great and not that astronomical in price.
The 100 f2.8 macro of course should not be forgotten either.
And I would not give up my 580ex either.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Yeah, I do also have a major macro jones. but i have to sort out my basic walkaround range first.
Let me guess...Samy's??
Some local shops do tend to be intimidating. It depends on the salespeople they have. The first time someone gives me a "holier-than-thou" attitude I'm out the door.
Samys, for example, is much much overpriced. On the other hand you can try Canoga Camera. They are local with prices comparable to the Internet's. That's where I picked up my 70-200 f/2.8 IS.
Now, I wish I could help you with your problem by giving you the final answer but obviously I can't. That said, consider the types of shots you'll be taking indoors and figure out if you'll be getting the depth-of-field you will need at the focal lengths you intend to shoot if you use f/2.8. My guess is that you'll be wanting to stop-down anyway. If so, then the 24-105 f/4L IS starts looking better doesn't it? It's certainly versitile and with the excellent high ISO performance you get from Canon you can afford to bump up the ISO for available lighting shots. Add DxO post-processing and you'll get an extra couple of stops advantage with their noise reduction module.
Erich
Well spotted!!
Thanks for the tip—I'll check them out.
I follow you. I think this was sort of my point about the 1 stop advantage of 2.8 being a half-measure. Always, wider aperture is a good thing to have, but one needs DOF at times. hmmm. 24-105L is sounding better and better. I can always go with that 35 wide if I really need to. There's one for sale here for about 160.00.
Must investigate DxO—no idea about it.
Thanks again for all your large and longness.
********update*********
Ordered the 17-55 from Canoga Camera, which will assure me cheap and fast shipping, being that I'm right over the mountains from them. Thanks to Erich6. The good price from them took away a bit of the sting. I stood there in Samy's this morning with the 24-105 in my hand and remarked what a great lens it seemed on a 5D. But they belonged together. Hopefully, in a year's time, they may both belong to me.