got L fever

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by HBOC, Mar 21, 2010.

  1. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #1
    So went up to Seattle for the weekend, and rented the 24-105L. What a great lens.

    I currently have a Sigma 10-20mm and a 55-250IS. I, for some reason, have only had an UWA for landscapes. After using the 24-105L, i found that even on a crop sensor, it is wide enough for almost all of my needs. Long end, that is a different story.

    So i think i am going to sell my lenses to help fund this great lens. I still may decide to get the 24-70L, however. A person could loose their hair deciding what lens (if only buying one lens) they want.
     
  2. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #2
    24-70 hands down unless you don't need f/2.8 and prefers the extra range and its IQ is within your limit good glass.
     
  3. pcypert macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Location:
    Bangkok
    #3
    Do you even really need the mid range zoom? For same money you could get a MK1 16-35 2.8 which would be a bit wider on your crop body and a nice extreme on FF. I prefer the look at the ends mroe than the middle. And if I shoot middle I really prefer the look of primes like the 24, 35, and 50.

    I once read a professional photographer that said nothing of interests happens between 35 and 70 and between a picture height of 3ft to 6ft. Otherwise it's just too normal. Now of course this is extreme and some nice things have been done by some of the greats with just a 50... but it's an interesting challenge. To not shoot at "normal" and to move around a lot. Leaving the middle range zoom out effectively helps you do this....

    Paul
     
  4. HBOC thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #4
    well, i have only had the 10-20mm and the 55-250 for the better part of a year. I just find that for my needs, the 10-20 is too wide and the 55-250 starts too long. If i could get two lenses right now, i would get either the 24-70/24-105L AND either the 70-200 2.8 OR the 100-400L.

    I still may end up getting the 24-70, but i think i may end up using the extra reach than i would the extra stops.
     
  5. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #5
    What about 17-55mm f/2.8? Have you tried that one? I'm in a similar situation in that I'm jumping back into DSLRs - having sold my film gear and lenses some time ago. I'll be most likely picking up a 7D and so I'm also looking at some good glass for a crop sensor.

    If you find that 24-105 (x 1.6) at f/4 is working for you, then you should get the lens. The lens seems to be very popular, especially within the FF community. The 24-70 f/2.8 is great and will give you a little more room in low light (and a bit more bokeh). I've seen the rumors some time ago (on canonrumors.com) that indicated that a new version of that lens may be coming out.

    Obviously, you're not interested in 16-35 f/2.8, since you believe that 24 is wide enough for you.
     
  6. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #6
    It's hard to imagine how you've been getting by without the 20-50mm range covered?! :eek: :confused:

    I also suggest you look at the 17-55mm... it's the perfect complement to the lenses you already own and is a nice fast lens at f2.8.
     
  7. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #7
    Interesting that you seem to want a 24-105 f/4, but 70-200 f/2.8. Why not go with 70-200 f/4 IS? I would love the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (especially the new one), but the size and cost are definitely something to consider.
     
  8. HBOC thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #8
    well, for some reason i have had that an UWA lens IS the lens to have for landscapes in my head, since i have been using them for so long. I have had the 10-22 and now the 10-20. Just sometimes, they are TOO wide; most of the time, actually.

    I would love the 17-55, BUT i am selling my lenses to get this one lens. In all honesty, I would probably replace the 10-20 for something faster. The 55-250 IS a great lens, but after using the 24-105, i can't go back :) . Also, my next camera is going to be either a 40D (sell my XSi and "upgrade", or keep the XSI and then buy a 5D this summer), so i am trying to future proof my purchases.

    Now i have to decide if I need faster than F4. Most of the time NO, but again i found myself at Pikes Place Market today and the extra stop would have been helpful. But again, it is a rare occasion.
     
  9. HBOC thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #9
    well I have seen that the prices of the 70-200 2.8 have gone down a bit in the used market, whereas the 24-70L have gone up (over the past 2 or so years). I think with a longer zoom, i would want as fast as i can afford. The 70-200 2.8 (non IS), the 24-105 and the 24-70L are all within $100ish dollars used of each other. If i am going to have just ONE lens, i think i would want one that has the most range.

    Now you guys have me thinking if i should get the 24-70. I just like having lenses that overlap a tad in focal length... If i could get a 24-70 in pristine condition (same condition as a 24-105) for the same price, i would get the 24/70.
     
  10. maddagascar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    #10
    yes,i'm floating in the same boat as you. i'm going to be taking pictures at a party and it's going to be at like a hall almost. i know there might be some low lighting. soo i was thinking getting the 17-55 IS.. i was going to consider some of the L series lens, as i hear once you shoot with an L lens, you can't go back to a regular..lol.

    but is the 17-55 lens IQ the same as the L series especially for the price?
     
  11. Nostromo macrumors 65816

    Nostromo

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Location:
    Deep Space
    #11
    On a crop sensor the 17-55/2.8 IS USM ($1000) and the 70-200/4L ($630 without IS, $1250 with IS) is a good combination.

    converted to 35mm reading, it would be about 24-80 and 105-300.

    You can always sell your Sigma and go towards great Canon lenses.

    PS: even though extremely well priced, the 70-200/4L is an excellent lens.
     
  12. HBOC thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #12
    ABSOLUTELY the 17-55 IS L quality. I think since it is crop only, that is why. The 10-22 could be L as well. I wouldn't mind the 17-55, but as i am only going to have one lens for a bit, it is just too short on the long end, if that makes sense. I have seen the 70-200 f/4 go for like $550 shipped used. Not bad, and it is probably THE BEST value.
     
  13. Abyssgh0st macrumors 68000

    Abyssgh0st

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location:
    Norman, OK
    #13
    Not thread jacking, just thought I'd comment.

    On POTN, I've seen perfect 70-200mm f/4L's go for $475+.. The price is really amazing considering that the 55-250mm is retailing for $300 from Best Buy. I plan to pick one up (to replace my 55-250mm) relatively soon, once I can find that 'perfect deal.'
     
  14. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #14
    Apparently the 17-55 has L optical quality. Since L is reserved for EF lenses however, it or any other EFS lens will never get that moniker.

    As for your saying about once you shoot with an L lens, you can't go back... I suggest that it's more the case that once you shoot with a fast lens, you can't go back.

    Don't underestimate the flexibility you gain from f2.8. It's huge for indoor and evening shots. (combined with reasonably good high ISO performance) I find myself doing all kinds of photography I never thought possible.
     
  15. maddagascar macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    #15

    yeaah, but i always wondered about that. cause i NEED the IS for low light parties and the quality has to be amazing. i was also going to get the 70-200 F/4 L but it will be IS VERSION. just because it's a zoom lens and it will definitely help whether its low light or just a further zoom overall.

    but i wish they had one of the L series with an IS around the length of 17-55. cause the lens itself would look awesome with the red ring. :p;):D

    and you mean once shooting fast lens, just cause of the low lighting? or just like really good action shots. i never really understood the term fully of "fast lens" besides it having a bigger aperture to have a faster shutter speed.

    but what you mean also with reasonably good high ISO performance? is that just cause you have to bump up the ISO with the lens. i've got a T1i that goes up to 3200. but i might be exchanging it for the new T2i which allows up to 6400!! :eek:
     
  16. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #16
    The advantages the 17-55mm f/2.8 would get from being an L-series lens would be a more robust construction and environmental sealing. But then it would probably cost an extra $500. Since you're mentioning (indoor?) parties, the benefit would most likely be lost on you. I suggest you get the 17-55, get a red marker to draw a red ring on it, and put a UV filter on it so as to limit how much air it draws in. ;)
     
  17. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #17
    You got bitten by the L bug because I think you don't know what else is out there ;)
    Sigma's 10-20 mm is not really known for its built quality, so it's understandable that you haven't touched high quality non-L lenses. There are plenty of them. Try Sigma's 30 mm or Sigma's 50 mm, for instance. Or anything made by Tokina.

    There are plenty of non-L lenses that give you comparable IQ and built quality.
    The big downside of L-lenses is that by definition they're made for full frame. The focal length ranges 24-70 mm and 24-105 mm are in my opinion not really appealing if you're using a crop camera.
    I second that. Although I don't think he really needs a UV filter.

    I agree, it's a marketing decision by Canon: `pro glass needs to be full frame!'
    I agree.
    When I got my first f/2.8 lens back in 1998, it opened up a new world of creative freedom. To me, it's definitely always better to go for a lens with larger initial aperture than one with VR/IS/OS. Image stabilization doesn't let you balance ambient light with flash light. It doesn't help you to separate your subject from the background. And wide-aperture lenses usually have better built quality :)
     
  18. funkboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Location:
    elsewhere
    #18
    I shoot a lot of travel & landscapes on a 40D. The 24-105L is my "main" lens, but I use my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 a lot. Previously I had the 12-24 f/4 Tokina, and though the extra length was nice as it gave something approaching "normal" focal length, the extra f-stop & resolving power at wider apertures have been well worth the trade-off.

    The 24-70 f/2.8L is great if you need a flexible portrait zoom, but for less money, less weight, longer tele, and IS I'll take the 24-105L any day of the week.

    The 17-55 f/2.8 IS might be an interesting alternative for you as you've got the 55-250 IS telephoto (which is really not bad given what it costs & weighs) as it's about the same money as the L, but since you've already got the sigma ultrawide & you sound like you're more interested in normal-to-telephoto lengths, the 24-105L makes a lot of sense on an APS-C body if you've already got a crop ultrawide for the times that a (film equiv.) 38.5mm doesn't cut it for you on the wide end.

    Depending on what your budget is, I'd say either trade the 10-20 sigma on the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, or if you've got the money keep the ultrawide & get the 24-105L.

    Just MHO... Good luck.
     
  19. HBOC thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #19
    Also remember that if THE camera BODY is NOT weather sealed, it won't matter if a lens is. The weak point being the lens mount. I didn't know that until about 1999 :) .

    As far as the build quality on the Sigma 10-20, don't get me wrong; it is built well. Far better than the 55-250. It is probably as heavy as the 10-22mm. I would say the build quality of the 10-22 is just a shade under an L series.

    And i know this might start up some conversation, but here it goes.
    No doubt there are quality lenses on par with Canons', optically and build wise. However, are there any that ARE BOTH, and will work on a FF? I can think of a few, and i know there are probably more than that out there.

    I guess the reason why I want an L is the same reason I bought an Apple. Are there cheaper alternatives that will get the job done? Absolutely. I just like the feel of the lens. Half of my lens purchases have been non Canon, so it isn't like i am not open to other alternatives.
     
  20. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #20
    Then try some other lenses, e. g. older lenses by Tokina. :)

    Tokina, for instance, is owned by Hoya, the largest manufacturer of optical glass in the world. They also own Pentax now and continue to make high-quality lenses for Pentax medium format cameras.
    Yes, sure.
    Tokina's 11-16 mm is optically and build quality-wise the best ultra-wide angle zoom lens for crop sensors out there. In terms of built quality, Tokina is probably the best among third-party lens manufacturers. Their `old' film lenses being much sturdier than the current-gen crop lenses. I had one crash to concrete at over 35 km/h (~ 20 mph). It survived while my body was toast.

    Another example are Sigma's 30 mm (which works only on crop sensors) and Sigma's 50 mm (which also works on full frame cameras). While the former has a reputation of being soft in the corners, it doesn't really show in most situations.

    The 50 mm Sigma is optically the best 50 mm lens for the Canon mount. Its built quality is probably beaten by Canon's f/1.2 -- but that lens costs and arm and a leg and weighs quite a bit. The built quality is easily better than that of the f/1.8 Canon and f/1.4 Canon.

    There are also situations where Canon (and sometimes also Nikon) offer no alternatives. Sigma's new 85 mm f/1.4 comes to mind: it's much, much cheaper and lighter than Canon's f/1.2 and I assume its image quality is at least on par with Canon's f/1.8.*

    Sigma also has some very interesting tele zooms in its line-up that have no Canon competitor, e. g. its 120-300 mm f/2.8.


    * Note that ultra-wide aperture lenses usually do not offer the best image quality, see e. g. here. What you're paying for first and foremost is that ultra-wide aperture.
    In this case, you don't have to `deal with Windows' if you choose a different manufacturer. Alternative manufacturer lenses usually offer more bang for the buck. Although my 30 mm Sigma won't work on full frame and its image quality may be beaten by Nikon's 28 mm f/1.4, the latter costs 5-6 times as much! (I paid 280 € for it (used) while the Nikkor -- if you can find one, these puppies are very rare -- sells for € 1.5k+.)

    To me, it's more realistic to think in terms of budgets or lenses at equivalent price points: if you can buy two very good third-party lenses instead of one L lens, then in all likelihood you'll do better buying two lenses. The `worst point' of L lenses is that they are made for full frame: a 24-105 mm won't be very useful for my type of photography, 43 mm (equivalent) won't cut it for me. Ditto for the 70-200 mm zooms (I'm saying that even though I own one).

    There are things to consider though: third-party lenses usually have more quality control problems. This is mainly a problem for `cheap' lenses, expect that $3k Sigma lenses will also be subject to strict control. And most third-party lenses tend to focus on crop sensors -- this is where the money is.
     
  21. Patriks7 macrumors 65816

    Patriks7

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #21
    But sometimes those cheaper alternatives might be the better choice.
    Example: the 24-105 f4 you want vs the 17-55 f2.8.
     
  22. HBOC thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #22
    Perhaps, but everyone knows they (the 17-55) is in the SAME CLASS optically as the L. I will test it out before making a final decision. Problem is that they don't rent EF-S lenses at the place here in Portland, other than the 10-22 (go figure). Maybe the local Best Buy will have one i can mess around with.

    And Oreo, i know what you are sayin. I have been very happy with my Sigma, and it is about 30% less than the Canon Version (although the constant f/3.5 version is about the same price). Also, I have heard stories of people going through as many as 3-4 copies of an L until they got a tack sharp one (or atleast one they deemed sharp enough for their needs). I am sure this happens to every manufacturer, reguardless of what industry even.
     
  23. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #23
    Even with 1600 ISO on the T1i (ISO exp. off)... when combined with an f2.8, image stabilized lens, it's stunning what you can accomplish in near darkness or indoors without flash. While the bulk of my low-light photos would probably not pass scrutiny here, my friends and family are completely blown-away with the pictures I take. Having come from P&S cameras for the last decade and before that, film, I'm continually amazed at how effective even my lowly T1i can be in near darkness with the right lens... (The 17-55 f2.8 IS in my case). I can't imagine what I would do with a 5DMII but there's no real equivalent lens to the 17-55 that is both f2.8 and equipped with IS... Which is bizarre to me.
     
  24. Nostromo macrumors 65816

    Nostromo

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Location:
    Deep Space
    #24
    optical quality is on par, build quality is not (dust sealing, for example, is not so great. Putting an UV filter on the front lens element prevents dust sucked in by tiny openings there. Use an excellent UV filter like B+W, not a cheap Tiffen or Hoya, or you will degrade image quality).
     
  25. HBOC thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #25
    one step closer to getting my L/40D combo. Sold the 10-20mm in like an hour and a half.
     

Share This Page