Yup. f2.8 is as fast as a zoom gets, so that's a large part of why I chose the lens. Of course, the 17-55/2.8 IS and 24-105/4 both were not available at the time. What I shoot, the IS is of minimal usefulness, so real lens speed weighs much heavier than the theoretical stops you gain with IS. Remember IS accounts for camera movement but not subject movement.
I use the 55-70 range all the time. I actually use the full range of the lens and would like a bit more on either end at times...but what zoom owner doesn't?
So I'd have to decide between 17-24 + IS /and 55-70 + L quality build. Btw Photozone advises 17-55 over 24-70 for APS-C. And I do a lot of evening architecture and landscapes. I guess that's what Ill have to go with.
The only problem is Tokina 12-24 will only give me additional 12-17.
It looks like for my next nature trip I'll be getting 17-55 IS, second body - XT, 70-300 IS, and possibly 12-24.
And then for the US Open Tennis I'll just have to rent a 70-200 2.8.
What do you think? And thanks a lot guys for all your suggestions!
So I'd have to decide between 17-24 + IS /and 55-70 + L quality build. Btw Photozone advises 17-55 over 24-70 for APS-C. And I do a lot of evening architecture and landscapes. I guess that's what Ill have to go with.
The only problem is Tokina 12-24 will only give me additional 12-17.
It looks like for my next nature trip I'll be getting 17-55 IS, second body - XT, 70-300 IS, and possibly 12-24.
And then for the US Open Tennis I'll just have to rent a 70-200 2.8.
What do you think? And thanks a lot guys for all your suggestions!
For UWA, other than the Tokina you have Canon's 10-22 which is the main competitor, and Sigma's 10-20 which comes a close third. Other options are Canon's 14/2.8L, Sigma's 15/2.8, or either Sigma's or Peleng's 8mm fish--but those are of limited use.
A warning on the 70-200, once you've used it you will lust after it until you own one.
I can say that I am very happy with my 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 lineup. I took a while researching my needs, and the lenses--and they are performing the functions I intended just as well as I hoped.
For UWA, other than the Tokina you have Canon's 10-22 which is the main competitor, and Sigma's 10-20 which comes a close third. Other options are Canon's 14/2.8L, Sigma's 15/2.8, or either Sigma's or Peleng's 8mm fish--but those are of limited use.
A warning on the 70-200, once you've used it you will lust after it until you own one.
I can say that I am very happy with my 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 lineup. I took a while researching my needs, and the lenses--and they are performing the functions I intended just as well as I hoped.
I'd be very happy with a linelipe like yours if I already had it. As it is, 24-70 + 70-200 is out of my reach for now. Same goes for 17-55IS + 70-200. Which one of the two is harder for you to be without?
scratch Hard to say. I put off buying the 70-200 until last, but I had one available to borrow most of the time; of course it was the lack of availability on an important shoot that forced me to go spend the money finally. I guess I'd have to say the mid-range zoom would be harder to live without--and that is the first one I purchased.
scratch Hard to say. I put off buying the 70-200 until last, but I had one available to borrow most of the time; of course it was the lack of availability on an important shoot that forced me to go spend the money finally. I guess I'd have to say the mid-range zoom would be harder to live without--and that is the first one I purchased.
Chris, thanks a lot, you've been extremely helpfull. It seems like the midrange is essential. Today for the first time I was in a situation where I seemly didn't have room to maneuver with just the 50mm prime, and not enough light to use my 18-200 at all (this lens is gonna go anyway). So it seems that I won't be able to get around a midrange.
Btw, am I correct to assume that 24-105 f4.0 IS will not be as good as 24-70 f2.8 on 30D? Mainly in terms of its AF capability, besides the obvious differences in speed?
I have a tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 that I love to death. Ran me around $450 for the lens and its sharp, fast, compact, has internal focusing and a zoom lock at 28mm for storage. Best part is it matches perfectly to the 5D. No vignetting. Since your talking about a crop canon (350) then this may not be so important to you. I use mine as a walkaround lens.
Chris, thanks a lot, you've been extremely helpfull. It seems like the midrange is essential. Today for the first time I was in a situation where I seemly didn't have room to maneuver with just the 50mm prime, and not enough light to use my 18-200 at all (this lens is gonna go anyway). So it seems that I won't be able to get around a midrange.
Btw, am I correct to assume that 24-105 f4.0 IS will not be as good as 24-70 f2.8 on 30D? Mainly in terms of its AF capability, besides the obvious differences in speed?
Not necessarily. Both lenses have the Ring USM focus motor, so no advantage there. the 24-70 will have an advantage in low light, but that is because of the f2.8 aperture and the bodies' high-sensitivity AF point kicking in at f2.8--and that advantage goes away with a 1-series since theirs works at f4.
I look at these lenses as two different tools for two different purposes. The 24-70 is a low-light lens while the 24-105 is more of a high-quality general walk-around zoom, meant for better lighting conditions with IS thrown in for the occasional lower-light shot.
Just a few sample shots taken with two of the lenses. I love the 10-22mm!! Ended up using it 80% of the time, primarily due to the bulk of my photos entailing landscapes but even on the streets I found it the perfect lens for me. I had no idea I would like it this much.
EF-S 10-22mm....
Another 10-22mm...
One more 10-22...
EF 70-200mm...
Dave Keith
"Look, I'm not an intellectual - I just take photographs." -- Helmut Newton
Comments
So I'd have to decide between 17-24 + IS /and 55-70 + L quality build. Btw Photozone advises 17-55 over 24-70 for APS-C. And I do a lot of evening architecture and landscapes. I guess that's what Ill have to go with.
The only problem is Tokina 12-24 will only give me additional 12-17.
It looks like for my next nature trip I'll be getting 17-55 IS, second body - XT, 70-300 IS, and possibly 12-24.
And then for the US Open Tennis I'll just have to rent a 70-200 2.8.
What do you think? And thanks a lot guys for all your suggestions!
For UWA, other than the Tokina you have Canon's 10-22 which is the main competitor, and Sigma's 10-20 which comes a close third. Other options are Canon's 14/2.8L, Sigma's 15/2.8, or either Sigma's or Peleng's 8mm fish--but those are of limited use.
A warning on the 70-200, once you've used it you will lust after it until you own one.
I can say that I am very happy with my 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 lineup. I took a while researching my needs, and the lenses--and they are performing the functions I intended just as well as I hoped.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
I'd be very happy with a linelipe like yours if I already had it. As it is, 24-70 + 70-200 is out of my reach for now. Same goes for 17-55IS + 70-200. Which one of the two is harder for you to be without?
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Chris, thanks a lot, you've been extremely helpfull. It seems like the midrange is essential. Today for the first time I was in a situation where I seemly didn't have room to maneuver with just the 50mm prime, and not enough light to use my 18-200 at all (this lens is gonna go anyway). So it seems that I won't be able to get around a midrange.
Btw, am I correct to assume that 24-105 f4.0 IS will not be as good as 24-70 f2.8 on 30D? Mainly in terms of its AF capability, besides the obvious differences in speed?
I have a tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 that I love to death. Ran me around $450 for the lens and its sharp, fast, compact, has internal focusing and a zoom lock at 28mm for storage. Best part is it matches perfectly to the 5D. No vignetting. Since your talking about a crop canon (350) then this may not be so important to you. I use mine as a walkaround lens.
My next purchase lens wise will be the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO for around $850. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05052003sigma_70-200mm.asp
And I am thinking of getting the peleng 8mm fisheye for fun
-G
Not necessarily. Both lenses have the Ring USM focus motor, so no advantage there. the 24-70 will have an advantage in low light, but that is because of the f2.8 aperture and the bodies' high-sensitivity AF point kicking in at f2.8--and that advantage goes away with a 1-series since theirs works at f4.
I look at these lenses as two different tools for two different purposes. The 24-70 is a low-light lens while the 24-105 is more of a high-quality general walk-around zoom, meant for better lighting conditions with IS thrown in for the occasional lower-light shot.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
EF-S 10-22mm....
Another 10-22mm...
One more 10-22...
EF 70-200mm...
"Look, I'm not an intellectual - I just take photographs." -- Helmut Newton
Smugmug site
Blog Portfolio
Facebook
It's a real problem isn't it?
"Look, I'm not an intellectual - I just take photographs." -- Helmut Newton
Yes, I have this Lens on my back sort of feeling!!!:ivar
Smugmug site
Blog Portfolio
Facebook