That's a good point, Sid. My only quible with that lens is at the 24 end... sometimes that just isn't wide enough on the 1.6x crop bodies. But if you can live with 38mm effective focal length instead of 27mm, then the 24-105 is more flexible on the tele end.
Shima could always add the EFS 10-22 and then have almost the entire near range covered! Only another ~$650-700.
That's a good point, Sid. My only quible with that lens is at the 24 end... sometimes that just isn't wide enough on the 1.6x crop bodies. But if you can live with 38mm effective focal length instead of 27mm, then the 24-105 is more flexible on the tele end.
Shima could always add the EFS 10-22 and then have almost the entire near range covered! Only another ~$650-700.
Heh by the time we're done with ideas from this thread I'll end up spending 2 grand lol... 2 grand I don't have, heh.
Oh and it's a Rebel XTi = 400D. I wish I had a 30D body!! ^_^
Oh another question. I know some of these lenses come in with and without IS options... opinion on cost effectiveness and whether I should spend the extra?
L Primes tened to be significantly cheaper, lighter, and frequently better lenses than L zooms.
I don't mean to be generally disagreeable, but not every L prime is a winner. I rented the 24mm f/1.4 L for an event I was shooting and was sorely disappointed. I got a few good shots with it, but it stayed in the bag most of the night, or at f/4 or lower.
Shima, the only lens I can think of where the IS is an 'option' is the 70-200 f/2.8. Some of the new generation long primes offered it when the older ones didn't, but that's the biggest one that comes to mind where you really get to pick where you want it or not (and pay extra).
It's alright. There's a good reason it's in my dream goodies lol.
Do you have any modifications to what you said early in regards to the fact that I have a 400D body?
I thought about it.
And I reckon I'd stick with the 24-105. The range of the lens is so useful. It's a comfy lens to carry. And although f4 is slower the 2.8, you're still not likely to need an extreme ISO to get adequate shutter speed. Only in the lowest of lights will it be an issue. The IS might come in handy, but isn't a big selling feature in my book (I know others find it to be a desirable feature.) My only reservation is the lack of width. But I didn't see a lot of wide angle shots on your site, so I figure 35mm is wide enough for your style of shooting.
I made the 24-105 recommendation regardless of body; I assumed 1.6 crop, didn't care which & it doesn't really matter. It's totally personal opinion whether 24mm is too long on a crop body--it's still moderate wide and I find it's wide enough for most walkaround use. If I were looking for a walk-around today & didn't have the low-light requirements, I'd probably lean to the 24-105 over the 24-70. If I need wider, I switch to my Tokina 12-24--IMHO a better deal than the 10-22. Those two lenses--24-70/24-105 plus 10-22/12-24--in a Slingshot 200 makes a nice, convenient walking rig. I even throw the 50/1.8 in there and a PSD with room to spare for small souvenirs.
Can't argue with pathfinder, on the whole good primes are going to be the best optical performance you can get. I've played with the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, and 300/2.8L IS, and have serious lust for all of them after seeing what they can do ...if only the bank account would magically show up one morning with enough balance to pay for them. :cry From all I read, Canon's wide primes aren't well-thought-of on the whole and third party options like Sigma, or if you're really serious Carl Zeiss, and other exotic glass is the way to go.
Just an update and a big "thanks for all the advice"
Although I had intented to wait a little longer, until sometime in the end of 2007... when I saw the great deal rebelxtnewbie had on the forums for his 24-105 f/4L is usm + 70-200 f/4L USM...
...yeah I snatched them up... (it's alright though, should be getting my left over college money in soon, which will make my pocket a little less see through x.x)
So yeah, we're in the process of me having just paid... and waiting for him to receive payment / ship me the lenses, but I will be sure to update with lots of happy thoughts once those come in the mail. Can't wait for my first L lenses! Thanks for all the super advice
L Primes tened to be significantly cheaper, lighter, and frequently better lenses than L zooms.
Don't flame me here - It is generally a dead true statement.
Name an L zoom that is better than a 135f2 L, or an 85f1.2 L or a 35f1.4 L - Hard to do isn't it?
I know the 70-200f2.8 IS L gets rave reviews, but is it really any sharper than a 200 f2.8 L? It costs twice as much......
Except one mayor thing - top quality zooms aren't designed to be better than primes !!!
They should be same optical quality at least.
And they are.
Only plus for primes are the light.
Big pluses for zooms such 16-35L II, 24-70L, 70-200/2.8L are abilities to cover few L primes each, so cost is somewhat higher.
Something for something - always photographer choice.
And of course congrats to Shima !!!
Welcome in L Club
D300, D70s, 10.5/2.8, 17-55/2.8, 24-85/2.8-4, 50/1.4, 70-200VR, 70-300VR, 60/2.8, SB800, SB80DX, SD8A, MB-D10 ...
XTi, G9, 16-35/2.8L, 100-300USM, 70-200/4L, 19-35, 580EX II, CP-E3, 500/8 ...
DSC-R1, HFL-F32X ... ; AG-DVX100B and stuff ... (I like this 10 years old signature :^)
kmphua: you and your Japan shots are my hero, because the whole reason I'm saving for some nice glass it to take back with me to Japan (and coincidentally that will probably be Kyoto I'm going to next March). However having two awesome lenses that both took great shots makes my decision making even harder!! (the pic of kiyomizutera is pretty awesome btw, I've been there before)
Hi Shima,
Glad to hear that they made a difference in your decision to get L glass, because it certainly made a world of difference for me after switching from a third-party walkaround zoom, especially in terms of contrast!
Since some recent posts in this thread have been talking about the power of primes, I'd like to share a gallery of a pro who illustrates this masterfully, especially in the low-light portraits (don't miss the Christmas gallery):
Just an update and a big "thanks for all the advice"
Although I had intented to wait a little longer, until sometime in the end of 2007... when I saw the great deal rebelxtnewbie had on the forums for his 24-105 f/4L is usm + 70-200 f/4L USM...
...yeah I snatched them up... (it's alright though, should be getting my left over college money in soon, which will make my pocket a little less see through x.x)
So yeah, we're in the process of me having just paid... and waiting for him to receive payment / ship me the lenses, but I will be sure to update with lots of happy thoughts once those come in the mail. Can't wait for my first L lenses! Thanks for all the super advice
Fantastic! That is some great glass! Now all you have to do is practice and produce.
kmphua: you and your Japan shots are my hero, because the whole reason I'm saving for some nice glass it to take back with me to Japan (and coincidentally that will probably be Kyoto I'm going to next March). However having two awesome lenses that both took great shots makes my decision making even harder!! (the pic of kiyomizutera is pretty awesome btw, I've been there before)
Hi Shima,
Glad to hear that they made a difference in your decision to get L glass, because it certainly made a world of difference for me after switching from a third-party walkaround zoom, especially in terms of contrast!
Since some recent posts in this thread have been talking about the power of primes, I'd like to share a gallery of a pro who illustrates this masterfully, especially in the low-light portraits (don't miss the Christmas gallery):
Just an update and a big "thanks for all the advice"
Although I had intented to wait a little longer, until sometime in the end of 2007... when I saw the great deal rebelxtnewbie had on the forums for his 24-105 f/4L is usm + 70-200 f/4L USM...
...yeah I snatched them up... (it's alright though, should be getting my left over college money in soon, which will make my pocket a little less see through x.x)
So yeah, we're in the process of me having just paid... and waiting for him to receive payment / ship me the lenses, but I will be sure to update with lots of happy thoughts once those come in the mail. Can't wait for my first L lenses! Thanks for all the super advice
Very cool. That's an excellent kit. The only downside? You will not be able to blame the gear for any crummy pictures.
Except one mayor thing - top quality zooms aren't designed to be better than primes !!!
They should be same optical quality at least.
And they are.
Only plus for primes are the light.
Big pluses for zooms such 16-35L II, 24-70L, 70-200/2.8L are abilities to cover few L primes each, so cost is somewhat higher.
Something for something - always photographer choice.
And of course congrats to Shima !!!
Welcome in L Club
I have to a gree with pathfinder here. In general primes will have an edge over zooms simply because there are fewer compromises to be made. I would not expect the 70-200/2.8L to be sharper than the 200/2.8L and have yet to see a zoom match the 135/2L. It's up to each photographer to decide which way to compromise: slightly better sharpness & faster aperture vs convenience of many available focal lengths. The gap is certainly narrowing there, and in many cases the cost gap is non-existant (see 85/1.2L 50/1.2L--same price range as the 70-200/2.8L IS).
An ancedotal comparison: I shoot with a 70-200/2.8L IS a lot, and have also been able to shoot with a 300/2.8L IS. There is no question the 300 prime has a noticeable edge in sharpness. There really is a magic quality about it. Not to say the 70-200 is a slouch, but hair-splitting in this rarefied area, the prime has the decided edge.
Comments
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Heh by the time we're done with ideas from this thread I'll end up spending 2 grand lol... 2 grand I don't have, heh.
Oh and it's a Rebel XTi = 400D. I wish I had a 30D body!! ^_^
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
L Primes tened to be significantly cheaper, lighter, and frequently better lenses than L zooms.
Don't flame me here - It is generally a dead true statement.
Name an L zoom that is better than a 135f2 L, or an 85f1.2 L or a 35f1.4 L - Hard to do isn't it?
I know the 70-200f2.8 IS L gets rave reviews, but is it really any sharper than a 200 f2.8 L? It costs twice as much......
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
It's alright. There's a good reason it's in my dream goodies lol.
Do you have any modifications to what you said early in regards to the fact that I have a 400D body?
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
Shima, the only lens I can think of where the IS is an 'option' is the 70-200 f/2.8. Some of the new generation long primes offered it when the older ones didn't, but that's the biggest one that comes to mind where you really get to pick where you want it or not (and pay extra).
Canon 40d | Canon 17-40 f/4L | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
And I reckon I'd stick with the 24-105. The range of the lens is so useful. It's a comfy lens to carry. And although f4 is slower the 2.8, you're still not likely to need an extreme ISO to get adequate shutter speed. Only in the lowest of lights will it be an issue. The IS might come in handy, but isn't a big selling feature in my book (I know others find it to be a desirable feature.) My only reservation is the lack of width. But I didn't see a lot of wide angle shots on your site, so I figure 35mm is wide enough for your style of shooting.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Can't argue with pathfinder, on the whole good primes are going to be the best optical performance you can get. I've played with the 85/1.2L, 135/2L, and 300/2.8L IS, and have serious lust for all of them after seeing what they can do
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Although I had intented to wait a little longer, until sometime in the end of 2007... when I saw the great deal rebelxtnewbie had on the forums for his 24-105 f/4L is usm + 70-200 f/4L USM...
...yeah I snatched them up... (it's alright though, should be getting my left over college money in soon, which will make my pocket a little less see through x.x)
So yeah, we're in the process of me having just paid... and waiting for him to receive payment / ship me the lenses, but I will be sure to update with lots of happy thoughts once those come in the mail. Can't wait for my first L lenses! Thanks for all the super advice
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
They should be same optical quality at least.
And they are.
Only plus for primes are the light.
Big pluses for zooms such 16-35L II, 24-70L, 70-200/2.8L are abilities to cover few L primes each, so cost is somewhat higher.
Something for something - always photographer choice.
And of course congrats to Shima !!!
Welcome in L Club
XTi, G9, 16-35/2.8L, 100-300USM, 70-200/4L, 19-35, 580EX II, CP-E3, 500/8 ...
DSC-R1, HFL-F32X ... ; AG-DVX100B and stuff ... (I like this 10 years old signature :^)
Hi Shima,
Glad to hear that they made a difference in your decision to get L glass, because it certainly made a world of difference for me after switching from a third-party walkaround zoom, especially in terms of contrast!
Since some recent posts in this thread have been talking about the power of primes, I'd like to share a gallery of a pro who illustrates this masterfully, especially in the low-light portraits (don't miss the Christmas gallery):
http://www.pbase.com/annayu/skansen
My SmugMug gallery
Fantastic! That is some great glass! Now all you have to do is practice and produce.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Hi Shima,
Glad to hear that they made a difference in your decision to get L glass, because it certainly made a world of difference for me after switching from a third-party walkaround zoom, especially in terms of contrast!
Since some recent posts in this thread have been talking about the power of primes, I'd like to share a gallery of a pro who illustrates this masterfully, especially in the low-light portraits (don't miss the Christmas gallery):
http://www.pbase.com/annayu/skansen
My SmugMug gallery
Very cool. That's an excellent kit. The only downside? You will not be able to blame the gear for any crummy pictures.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I have to a gree with pathfinder here. In general primes will have an edge over zooms simply because there are fewer compromises to be made. I would not expect the 70-200/2.8L to be sharper than the 200/2.8L and have yet to see a zoom match the 135/2L. It's up to each photographer to decide which way to compromise: slightly better sharpness & faster aperture vs convenience of many available focal lengths. The gap is certainly narrowing there, and in many cases the cost gap is non-existant (see 85/1.2L 50/1.2L--same price range as the 70-200/2.8L IS).
An ancedotal comparison: I shoot with a 70-200/2.8L IS a lot, and have also been able to shoot with a 300/2.8L IS. There is no question the 300 prime has a noticeable edge in sharpness. There really is a magic quality about it. Not to say the 70-200 is a slouch, but hair-splitting in this rarefied area, the prime has the decided edge.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/