which canon L series lens to get?????

wheresdavid

I will be taking a one year trip (well actually the 2nd year of a two year trip) and i am trying to decide which L series lens to get. I can only afford one L series and i am thinking about the 24-70 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8. i have an xti, & i dont care about size - weight of the lens. i enjoy taking photos more of people than landscapes. I was leaning for the 24-70 but now i am wondering if the 70-200 is a better option. i can use the 70 end for portraits or zoom in to get non portrait type shotsin markets ... I have heard that both sigma and tamron make good glass in the 24(28) -70 (75) range.

any thoughts??

pathfinder

The 70-200 is too long for the only lens for an xTI - my opinion of course, but it is a little long to use indoors on a crop body camera.

I think the 24-105f4 IS L is a better L lens if you only buy one L lens.

The 24-70f2.8 L is a great lens, but on an xTI, a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di will function very nicely and leave you money left over to get a Canon 70-200 f4 L as well. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is another very nice lens for a crop body camera like the xTi.

Just a thought.

ziggy53

wheresdavid wrote:

I will be taking a one year trip (well actually the 2nd year of a two year trip) and i am trying to decide which L series lens to get. I can only afford one L series and i am thinking about the 24-70 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8. i have an xti, & i dont care about size - weight of the lens. i enjoy taking photos more of people than landscapes. I was leaning for the 24-70 but now i am wondering if the 70-200 is a better option. i can use the 70 end for portraits or zoom in to get non portrait type shotsin markets ... I have heard that both sigma and tamarron make good glass in the 24(28) -70 (75) range.

any thoughts??

Take a look at your own shot history and try to determine what focal length you used most. Factor in any recollection about shots that were missed because you didn't have something longer, or shorter.

You have to learn from "your" experience. We can only relate "our" experience, which probably won't do you much good.

My own recommendations for a good travel package:

I think the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8IS is a great all-a-round lens for the 1.6x crop cameras. A good alternative is the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC Macro or Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di II LD, if you can do without the IS of the Canon lens. I think that would cover around 50% - 60% of all opportunities.

Another set of opportunities could be solved with the Canon 70-200mm, f4L (with or without the IS). And finally, ultra wide vista landscapes really cry for a Canon EF-S 10-22mm, or the Sigma 10-20mm.

So three lenses is what I would really recommend, but the 17-55-ish range is the first one to satisfy.

I would also add either the Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 or f1.8 for low-light work.

kini62

Well since people shots are more important I would go for one of the 70-200s.

I can use mine in my house for head shots, half shots and my house is not vrey big.

If the need or desire for a landsape shot arises, just whip out the kit lens (if you have one) stop her down to f8 or so and you'll get very nice results:D

Gene

Seefutlung

For the XTi and the type of shooting you will be doing ... the 24-70 is a bit of a compromise lens. You will probably get more "keepers" with the 24-70 ... but the fewer "keepers" you get with the 70-200 will be better.

It seems you travel quite a bit, not a one time deal. So I go for the gusto ... get the 70-200 and tight faces that you'll get with this lens. Next time you travel pick up the 10-22 EF-S or the 17-55 EF-S for the wide(r) stuff.

I have the 24-70, the 70-200 and the 10-22, I rarely use the 24-70 because, typically, I shoot at the ends of the zoom, so for 70mm I rather use the 70-200 because I have more range to get tighter and on the 24mm end ... the 10-22 covwera this with room to go wider. So for long term, if you bracket the 24-70, you won't need this range/length at all.

I just reviewed a gallery of a guy who shot his entire visit to Japan with a Lensbaby. Interesting, but outside the box for must photo albums. But, since he will be returning to Japan ... I guess he felt can experiiment a bit.

Good Luck and Good Shooting,
Gary

Arnica

I love my Canon 24-70mm 2,8 but sometimes I need a wider angle of view.

sirsloop

70-200/2.8L on the body and stuff a 35/2 in your pocket. Problem solved

Manfr3d

Seefutlung wrote:

You will probably get more "keepers" with the 24-70 ... but the fewer "keepers" you get with the 70-200 will be better.

Now thats really nonsense. The number of keepers depends
on how you photograph and not on the focal lengths of the
lenses you use.

Seefutlung

Manfr3d wrote:

Now thats really nonsense. The number of keepers depends
on how you photograph and not on the focal lengths of the
lenses you use.

No it is not. In this case, we are talking in generalities, and of photographing people while traveling.

The longer the lens the less shots will be available, but the ones you get (in general) will have more impact due to inherit attributes of the longer focal length. Conversely, with the 24-70, there will be more photo opportunities within that zoom range ... but the photos will not have as great of an impact (in general), once again, due to the inherit qualities of the 24-70.

Gary

rosselliot

it may also help to know what you already own. because I would DEFINITELY recommend the 24-105 IS. it's a beauty. but if your'e going on vacation and you'll be seing a lot of scenery, you'll want some wide angles. I just returned from Paris - what are the two lenses I recommend?

the sigma 10-20 and the canon 24-105. it's a perfect pair. Inside, Outside, Wide angle, zoom, you got it ALLLLLLL covered.

- RE

wheresdavid

currently i am down to a 50mm 1.8 which is causing me to miss a lot of shots. my concern with the 24-105 is it is a slower lens and i was looking for 2.8, maybe i am wrong in my thinking about having faster glasss.

rosselliot wrote:

it may also help to know what you already own. because I would DEFINITELY recommend the 24-105 IS. it's a beauty. but if your'e going on vacation and you'll be seing a lot of scenery, you'll want some wide angles. I just returned from Paris - what are the two lenses I recommend?

the sigma 10-20 and the canon 24-105. it's a perfect pair. Inside, Outside, Wide angle, zoom, you got it ALLLLLLL covered.

- RE

Manfr3d

Seefutlung wrote:

No it is not. In this case, we are talking in generalities, and of photographing people while traveling.

The longer the lens the less shots will be available, but the ones you get (in general) will have more impact due to inherit attributes of the longer focal length. Conversely, with the 24-70, there will be more photo opportunities within that zoom range ... but the photos will not have as great of an impact (in general), once again, due to the inherit qualities of the 24-70.

Gary

Every photographer is different and some will prefer images with the
isonating and flatening effect that a telephoto lens will produce. These
people will have more keepers with a long lens than with a short one
because they prefer those images. Other photographers might love
the wide angle effect of 24mm and will pick their keepers accordingly.

"Less oportunities" with a tele ... 24-70 produce images with "less impact"
... even you will have to agree with me that these things are highly
subjective and cannot be generalized - especialy not from one's own
photographic experience.

Seefutlung

Manfr3d wrote:

Every photographer is different and some will prefer images with the
isonating and flatening effect that a telephoto lens will produce. These
people will have more keepers with a long lens than with a short one
because they prefer those images. Other photographers might love
the wide angle effect of 24mm and will pick their keepers accordingly.

"Less oportunities" with a tele ... 24-70 produce images with "less impact"
... even you will have to agree with me that these things are highly
subjective and cannot be generalized - especialy not from one's own
photographic experience.

I am not talking about "every photographer", I am only talking about one photographer, Wheresdavid ... and I am responding to Wheresdavid's original thread of "i enjoy taking photos more of people than landscapes. I was leaning for the 24-70 but now i am wondering if the 70-200 is a better option. i can use the 70 end for portraits or zoom in to get non portrait type shotsin markets."

Gary

Seefutlung

wheresdavid wrote:

currently i am down to a 50mm 1.8 which is causing me to miss a lot of shots. my concern with the 24-105 is it is a slower lens and i was looking for 2.8, maybe i am wrong in my thinking about having faster glasss.

Fast glass is great. If makes for a brighter viewfinder for easier composition and lenses of 2.8 or faster opens up a better level of autofocus which is more accurate and faster.

The 24-105 has Image Stabilization (IS) which is very handy in low light, IS allows you to handhold you camera two to three stops under "Rule-of-Thumb". As an example, if you're shooting at 105mm your rule of thumb shutter speed should be around 1/125 of a sec. With IS you can handhold at 1/30 or some steady people can go to 1/15 of a second with good sharp results. The problem is that IS only compensates for handshake (camera movement), so if the subject moves during a long exposure, the image will be blurry.

Otherwise you will have to increase the ISO or use a tripod. In essense IS delivers better image quality to stationary subjects when you don't have a tripod.

Gary

Gary

pathfinder

The 24-105f4 IS L is a great example of how we need to rethink our criteria regarding lens usage and shutter speeds.

I shoot images in museums at 1/13th and 1/15 frequently. Couple this with ISOs of 1250 or 1600, and I can capture images in very dim light indeed. For example, this was shot at f4.5 ISO 1000 at 1/5th second hand held, yes, one fifth of a second..



The image is overexposed because it looks rather bright, but it actually was amost as dark as a movie theatre.

IS does not help if you need to shoot high speed action like sports or racing, but for many images it can be quite useful. It is kind of like a poor tripod in a sense. It will not allow shutter speeds of many seconds, but 1/8th sec or less are frequently quite useful. The ability to capture motion blur with a longer shutter speed and no tripod is not always a liability, but even an assett. Think moving water or moving lights in traffic. You can capture them without a tripod sometimes.

IS is why the 24-105 f4 IS L is my most frequently used lens, especially for walkabout.

Manfr3d

Seefutlung wrote:

I am not talking about "every photographer", I am only talking about one photographer, Wheresdavid ... and I am responding to Wheresdavid's original thread of "i enjoy taking photos more of people than landscapes. I was leaning for the 24-70 but now i am wondering if the 70-200 is a better option. i can use the 70 end for portraits or zoom in to get non portrait type shotsin markets."

Gary

Yea but it is nonsense to say one lens will give you more keepers than another, simply because you dont know how the other person photgraphs and what kind of photos the other person prefers.

rosselliot

I went to france, inside cathedrals, inside museums, in the evenings, and it worked wonders. don't hesitate to get it because of the 4.0, paired with the IS it's a great combination! you won't get the bokeh you would with the 2.8, but you will get clear shots in less-than-perfect lighting.

- RE

wheresdavid

Thanks for the info. Right now i am leaning towards the 24-105 since it is a little more of a walk around lens and with the IS i can hand hold it in low light situations.

thanks to everyone for all their input.

Dave

rosselliot wrote:

I went to france, inside cathedrals, inside museums, in the evenings, and it worked wonders. don't hesitate to get it because of the 4.0, paired with the IS it's a great combination! you won't get the bokeh you would with the 2.8, but you will get clear shots in less-than-perfect lighting.

- RE

z_28

My rock solid suggestion is 24-70L !
For low light situations you will need light lens much more than dark IS.

P.S. for any case - light, water, emergency...
keep cheap EF 50/1.8 Mk.II in your back pocket.
It can be Life Saver

claudermilk

I have to disagree--and I'm a very satisfied 24-70 owner. For his use I think the 24-105 is the correct tool. The 24-70 is really a low-light action lens and unless you really need that f2.8 to stop action in a low-light setting it's overkill. As a general travel walk-around the 24-105 is the one to use--IMHO that is what the lens is designed for. Pathfinder's example is a good one.

However, I do agree that the 50/1.8 is a good one to have along for those black-cat-in-a-coalmine situations. I always have mine in a corner of the bag just in case. It's small, light, and cheap so no reason not to.

wheresdavid

assuming the 24-105 takes as sharp as a photo as the 24-70 i am thinking that the 24-105 is the lens and only lens (except for my 50mm 1.8) that i will be taking. my logic is that i am a "backpacker" and not a tourist and our number one rule is , travel light (travel fast). ever since i switched ovver to a DSLR my backpack has packed on about 15 to 20 extra pounds!!

i think that i will have to leave my new (old) 80-200 at home. this baby is a tank, and i will have to just put a little more wear on my shoes to zoom in, or miss a few shots (we cant get em all can we?).

i keep saying, "who the he?¿ put all the rocks in my bag? i travel light, 3 shirts, 2 pairs of pants but it is the tripod, 3 lenses, filters, DVDS that are adding up.

claudermilk wrote:

I have to disagree--and I'm a very satisfied 24-70 owner. For his use I think the 24-105 is the correct tool. The 24-70 is really a low-light action lens and unless you really need that f2.8 to stop action in a low-light setting it's overkill. As a general travel walk-around the 24-105 is the one to use--IMHO that is what the lens is designed for. Pathfinder's example is a good one.

However, I do agree that the 50/1.8 is a good one to have along for those black-cat-in-a-coalmine situations. I always have mine in a corner of the bag just in case. It's small, light, and cheap so no reason not to.

pathfinder

When I have to limit myself to only one lens, generally the 24-105 is the one I pack along.

Fast enough with modern high ISO cameras, light enough to carry all day and, I believe, it is every bit the equal of the 24-70 f2.8 in sharpness.

When I went through Antelope Canyon in a sand storm, the 24-105 went with me. In the light beam in the upper left and the lower right corners of this image, you can easily see the individual grains of sand as they fall in mid air.

claudermilk

wheresdavid wrote:

assuming the 24-105 takes as sharp as a photo as the 24-70...

It *IS* an "L" lens. All the examples I've seen tell me the 24-105 is every bit as good as the 24-70 in equivalent settings. I'd say go for it & lighten your load. The 24-105 is smaller & lighter than the 24-70 as well (don't have to have all that glass to make the f2.8 possible). It seems to me the 24-105 is as perfect a match for your needs as you'll find; it is certainly a better match than the 24-70.