Options
Next lens
:bash
Going nuts with finding a more versatilve mid-range zoom to use with my 7d. I tried for several months to track down a Sigma 50-150, but they are hard to find used in a Canon mount and it seems that the Canon ones have significant focusing issues at 2.8 (for some reason, this lens is much more popular for Nikon). The lens has now been discontinued and, while the new version - with OS - has been announced, it may be a while before it hits the market, and I suspect it's going to be fairly pricey, too. It also is going to be heavier and larger.
Next up was trying to hold out for a 24-70 II, ideally with IS. While there are constantly rumours, nothing concrete is yet on the horizon afaik; I also reckon that even if such a lens is going to be released, it will be out of my price range (if the Mk I is $1400, then won't a Mk II - esp if it has IS - be likely to be $1700 or more?), and will take months for stock to be available.
Which leads me now to considering either:
1. 24-70. If I got this, I'd keep my Tam 17-50 for the (rare) occasions I need wider, and sell my 85 1.8 (a great lens, but I don't really use it that often). I'm extremely tempted by this.
2. 17-55is While it doesn't increase reach, the IS could make it a very valuable lens for theatre shooting (the Tam isn't really up to it - I usually use the 50 1.4). If I got this, I'd keep the 85 1.8 and sell the Tamron (which would be like selling a very loyal friend, but if needs must....)
The wide end isn't a big deal for what I do - I really need reach more than width as a rule. I need fast, accurate AF. I want that "sparkle" in the IQ that I get with the 135L. Lightweight and small is better, although I'll carry extra weight for great optics.
I'm leaning towards looking for a well-priced 24-70, but then I keep reading that crop sensors don't really bring out the best in it, and it's also heavy.
I shoot with a 7d (with an xsi as backup). FF is in my future for sure, but not likely until next year at the earliest.
Aargh - somebody help me make a decision, here! I've considered renting, but since I buy my lenses used, it's probably more cost-effective to buy and then resell if I'm not happy with the decision, so I'm sniffing around....
Going nuts with finding a more versatilve mid-range zoom to use with my 7d. I tried for several months to track down a Sigma 50-150, but they are hard to find used in a Canon mount and it seems that the Canon ones have significant focusing issues at 2.8 (for some reason, this lens is much more popular for Nikon). The lens has now been discontinued and, while the new version - with OS - has been announced, it may be a while before it hits the market, and I suspect it's going to be fairly pricey, too. It also is going to be heavier and larger.
Next up was trying to hold out for a 24-70 II, ideally with IS. While there are constantly rumours, nothing concrete is yet on the horizon afaik; I also reckon that even if such a lens is going to be released, it will be out of my price range (if the Mk I is $1400, then won't a Mk II - esp if it has IS - be likely to be $1700 or more?), and will take months for stock to be available.
Which leads me now to considering either:
1. 24-70. If I got this, I'd keep my Tam 17-50 for the (rare) occasions I need wider, and sell my 85 1.8 (a great lens, but I don't really use it that often). I'm extremely tempted by this.
2. 17-55is While it doesn't increase reach, the IS could make it a very valuable lens for theatre shooting (the Tam isn't really up to it - I usually use the 50 1.4). If I got this, I'd keep the 85 1.8 and sell the Tamron (which would be like selling a very loyal friend, but if needs must....)
The wide end isn't a big deal for what I do - I really need reach more than width as a rule. I need fast, accurate AF. I want that "sparkle" in the IQ that I get with the 135L. Lightweight and small is better, although I'll carry extra weight for great optics.
I'm leaning towards looking for a well-priced 24-70, but then I keep reading that crop sensors don't really bring out the best in it, and it's also heavy.
I shoot with a 7d (with an xsi as backup). FF is in my future for sure, but not likely until next year at the earliest.
Aargh - somebody help me make a decision, here! I've considered renting, but since I buy my lenses used, it's probably more cost-effective to buy and then resell if I'm not happy with the decision, so I'm sniffing around....
facebook | photo site |
0
Comments
Why bother with zooms? :andy
Why not a tammy 28-75 f/28?
It's a stellar bargain and I love mine. The optics are terrific, but I wouldn't recommend it if you need quick focus in very low light. Nothing like an L lens for that. It sounds to me like the 24-70 f.2.8L is what you really need, if you can get used to the weight. You could rent or borrow one to check it out.
http://bgarland.smugmug.com/
Anyway, love the 135mm, f2L for what it is, a little slice of magic. You would not be satisfied with any zoom by comparison, although the newer Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L II IS USM comes close to your requirements except for the weight and cost components. Such is life (for now anyway.)
(The preceding is said with some "tongue in cheek" and should not be taken toooo seriously, although the basic facts are truthful.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Yes, it is big and heavy. I get comments about the size all the time.
Mine feels well balanced on both my D700 and pro-body (D2Xs).
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
@insanefred I regularly shoot primes (50/85/135), I'm just finding myself needing a fast zoom more often, and particularly in the 50-100 range. This is the hesitation on the 17-55is, which would probably suit me well in all ways other than FL.
@insane, @Richard, and @ScottQuier re: Tam 28-75
Exactly. I love my Tam 17-50 and have no doubt the 28-75 is also great, but I would use a zoom most in the theatre, and I need it to focus fast and reliably in really stupid lighting situations. The 17-50 doesn't always deliver on that score in that lighting (although for general use I've found it absolutely fine - I love my Tamron lens!). This is also why I'd really love IS - the FL doesn't need it as such, but it would enable me to handhold with lower shutter speeds when the lighting gets silly.
@Mitchell
This is a very compelling argument to press ahead with a 24-70, since you and I like the same things in portraits
Thanks guys!!
ETA: Another question: for those who have the 24-70, at what aperture does it start to hit the sweet spot? I know with my 50 1.4, 2.2 is where it starts to get very, very sharp and by 4.0 it's insane; on my 50 1.8, it was crazy sharp (sharper than anywhere else) at f8. Where does that phenomenon hit on the 24-70?
EATA: I also wonder if I should try to get past my f2.8 obsession and at least give the 24-105 a try. It would be so perfect in every other way............. (Thoughts?)
I would at least try the f/4 lens, renting, borrowing, etc. or even waltzing to the Store and mounting it on yer cam and giving it a go in the store. I've done that more than once!
But overall, IMO what is the point of a fast lens if it isn't sharp as YOU need it at the WIDE end? Hence I rarely go for or get excited about lenses that are f/WIDE and don't sparkle till f/Narrow~ point being my money went toward: What?
one small word to think on is: IF you really think yer going FX next year...I think your lens use/choice may change drastically with that change. Mine did, and now I am happy with a 70-200 most all the time.
I have the EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM and peak sharpness is at f5.6. (This lens preceded the EF 28-70L, which in turn preceded the current EF 24-70L.)
For low light the f4 aperture, on the 24-105L, is not likely to give as crisp AF as an f2.8 aperture, just because the f2.8 triggers a special capability in the center AF. That specific sensor is designed for greater sensitivity as well as greater accuracy with lenses capable of f2.8 or faster.
F2.8 is not just more light, it's also a broader beam of light making the electronic rangefinder's job easier.
I bet you would be pleased with an EF 85mm, f1.2L II USM for your applications. It's another of those "stupid" sharp lenses with opportunistic paper-thin DOF to give you excellent discrimination between subject and foreground/background. It definitely has that "wow" factor capability and it takes perfect attention to technique to coax the best from this lens.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I just rented this lens (and sent back) a week ago. Sharp, but I had no idea what ANYONE was talking about when they said, slow to focus. I now know what THEY mean. Of course you are dead on on the attention required to eek out perfection, and good news is perfection is only an educated eeek away!
The version II is better. Version I was horrid.
With the version II if you just keep updating the AF so that it's close to where you need it when you need it, it's pretty good IMO.
Still not sports speeds but about as fast as the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM with its micro-motor USM. (The 85mm, f1.2L II does have ring-USM but there's just a lot of glass to throw around.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks for the added thoughts on the f4 vs 2.8 - I'd forgotten about the change in AF technology at wider aps, and that change really does rule the slower lens out. Realistically, I tend to shoot at f4 and wider 80% of the time, so it probably would feel terribly limiting to have f4 as maximum ap, IS notwithstanding.
@angevin - re FF, yeah I hear you, but I also know how heavy that canon 70-200IS is (not to mention spendy!). I LOVE the results I see people getting with that lens - Heather and Jeff spring to mind! - but I also know how much I'd hate lugging it around. I'll probably eat my words eventually and just learn to deal with it (there's a reason so many pros rate and own that lens!) but not yet. For now I'm good at the long end - it's 50-100 where I always feel lacking. And at least with an EF lens it will still be viable if/when I do go FF, even if it would have different applications on the larger sensor.
Ziggy brings up a good point (as usual) that many folks overlook. F2.8 just makes every aspect of your camera body funtion better. The AF works much better with the wider aperture zooms. Your viewfinder will also appear much brigher.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
I don't know if you FB, but I got my rental due to Borrow lenses 40% off coupon available on FB for that 85 f/1.2 version 2...40% is a bunch!
Seems they're doing discounts right often~
Every time I've seen someone complaining about that, it's because they are hung up on crop sensors generally. "It doesn't frame up like a 24-70 should on a real camera!"
It works great on crop sensors (1.6x and 1.3x). Just figure out if the focal length is one that works for you vs. the "expected" FoV for a 24-70 lens.
I will insert the usual warning about copy-to-copy variance with this particular lens...
Jay
It's like a razor by f4.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
I think the Canon version isn't quite as sharp as that wide open, although I have indeed heard about copy variance, which is definitely a consideration.
Rolette, that's helpful info. The focal length IS one I need since I'm always wanting something a little longer than the 50, and a little less tight than the 85. QED.
Thanks for all the input - I'll let you know how I like it once it arrives next week! The timing on this was in part because I have a concert opera shoot coming up in two weeks, and that's one of the situations where I always find I want a zoom at some point during the evening - I'll be very interested to see if it's possible to use it successfully without IS in those hideous lighting conditions....
But for portraiture, 24-70 on crop is actually REALLY good! I like it MUCH more than 17-50 for portraits on crop, and almost as much as 50-150 for action on crop...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Woo Hoo!!! DM is slaking her lens lust.
Enjoy the new glass. Put it trough it's paces when it arrives and make sure it meets your expectations.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
@Matt :cry :cry :cry If it's still available, send me deets... the KEH purchase hasn't even shipped yet so could possibly be cancelled
If you ever hear of another one please DO let me know - that thing is a beast to find in a Canon mount (the only one I came across turned out to have focus issues at 2.8 - the owner hadn't realised it until I asked for test shots, and immediately pulled the listing and kept the item instead).
My feeling is the length on the 24-70 will be good, as long as I can live with the weight and the images it produces. We'll find out, I guess!
Congrats on the purchase! I may bug Matt if I find I have the change since I don't own a Canon lens in that range!
If you look down Borrowlenses FB page they had at least 2 coupons yesterday one Nikon the other a Sony...and of course mine was two weeks ago for the 85 1.2v2...saw a 50 1.2 ( found it, !yesterday!) the other day too~
Also, follow or check them on twitter. They do weekly coupons, so they vary.
twitter.com/borrowlenses
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/03/24-70-ii-in-april-cr2/
Nothing solid, but it's from a good source.