Yet another 5D lens question!

Hi all,

 

After many months of bargaining and negotiation my wife has finally given in

and is allowing me to buy a 5D. My current kit is a 20D and a Tamron 28-75 di.

 

My dilemma is: do I keep the 28-75 di (which I have been very happy with on the

20D) and add a Canon 17-40L as a landscape lens? Or sell the 28-75 di for what

little I can and just get the 5D kit with 24-105L? I think 24mm will probably

be wide enough in most situations for me so I?m leaning towards the 24-105L

solution ? especially as I have no idea how good the Tamron would be on a FF

camera. But then I can?t help thinking that maybe the 17-40L would be sharper

with less distortion at 24mm than the 24-105L? Any advice welcome!

 

Ricky.

The Tamron should be okay and the 17-40L is a reasonably-priced well-regarded lens, especially for landscapes. If that's not the range you want there are other good lenses in the Canon line-up.

 

Different 24mm lenses compared here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml

 

Tamron comments here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=187&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

Canon 24-70mm review here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml

I'd say buy the 5D first, use the Tamron on it, if you like it keep it, if you don't then consider the upgrade. It may surprise you good or bad. I have the Canon 24-70 glued to my 5D, I think its the perfect range and i prefer f/2.8 over f/4+IS.

 

Mark

I dont' knock lens I've never tried (your tamrom), but doesn't the "di" mean made for cropped sensors (digital)? If so, then no, it is not suited for the 5d. Regardless, I wouldn't plop down a few k on the 5d body and deprive myself of the best glass I could manage in front of it-- esp. with FF, as corner to corner performance become critical.

I found my Tamron 28-75 to be an excellent lens on my 5D, I tested it against Canon 24-70 and it was equally sharp at most focal lengths. Just a tad less sharp at 75mm than the Canon at 70mm. Considering the price difference and that the Tamron is much lighter I decided I could live without the 24mm at the wide end and without USM for my normal zoom.

 

I'd definitely keep the Tamron. It's a very useful lens on a 5D.

Dont buy the kit, you only save about $20, get the 5D and see what you like, the 24-105 is a great lens and will probably be fine for most landscapes, the IS is great I love it on mine, sometimes a tripod is just not there

<cite>But then I can?t help thinking that maybe the 17-40L would be sharper with less distortion at 24mm than the 24-105L?</cite>

 

<p>The 17-40 will definitely have less distortion at 24mm than the 24-105 will. Like virtually all zooms, both of these have the greatest distortion at the ends of their range, so while the 17-40 has pretty significant distortion at 17, by 24 the distortion is low enough that you won't need to correct it for most uses. The 24-105, since it's at the extreme wide end of its range, will have more distortion. On the other hand, distortion can easily be corrected in software, so while it's always best to have the highest-quality image coming straight from the lens, distortion isn't the end of the world for digital shooters.</p>

 

<p>I don't know how the two will compare as far as sharpness. The 17-40 is very sharp at 24; it's my most-used lens on my 20D so I have a pretty good idea of how it performs. I don't have the 24-105 (yet) and while I believe it's at least pretty good at 24, I don't know how it would compare to the 17-40.</p>

"... months of bargaining and negotiation [with your] wife ..." What did your wife get out of the deal?

 

On topic, I agree with those who advise to use the new 5D with your current lens for a while first, and see how it looks.

 

Congratulations on your new body. I'm looking forward to joining the 5D club myself very soon. (I already have all the glass I need.)

<p>I'm probably going to make your life difficult, but the <i>combination</i> of the

17-40L and the 24-105L is great. I'd have to go shoot tests with the two to decide which

is sharper at 24mm, but they can both produce good results at the focal length if you stop

down.

 

<p>The 17-40 and 5D makes a great landscape combo, especially since you can shoot at

f/11 or f/16 on the full frame camera and get good DOF (if that is what you are looking

for) and reduce the corner softness and (to a lesser extent) vignetting that <i>may</i> be

an issue for you wide open with this lens. This lens is very sharp in the center at most

apertures and the corners become quite good stopped down.

 

<p>The 24-105 is a wonderful general purpose lens on the 5D. It can also be very sharp

and my copy is good across the focal length range. Like the 17-40, any vignetting issues

become inconsequential of you stop down a bit - though you probably don't have to stop

down quite as much as with the 17-40. I've shot mine handheld in quite low light with IS

enabled and had good success.

 

<p>The distortion that most people think about on the 24-105 is barrel/pincushion

distortion. It is there, but generally not really noticable in most landscape work or other

phtography in which lines don't make it apparent. If it bothers me I correct in PS.

 

<p>I've done some testing of my lenses on the 5D and I have a quickie sharpness

example done with the 24-105 and the 5D posted here: <a href="http://

www.gdanmitchell.com/

newsItems/departments/equipment/2007/04/12#a1455">http://www.gdanmitchell.com/

newsItems/departments/equipment/2007/04/12#a1455</a>

 

<p>Another shows some of the sharpness you can get from the 17-40 (done with a crop

sensor body): <a href="http://

www.gdanmitchell.com/newsItems/departments/equipment/2006/01/28#a292">http://

www.gdanmitchell.com/newsItems/departments/equipment/2006/01/28#a292</a>

 

<p>Dan

Keep the Tamron and buy a 17-40L. If you need more than 75mm at the long end, then also pick up a 100/2. After that, the choices get more expensive, I mean more difficult...

"After many months of bargaining and negotiation my wife has finally given in and is allowing me to buy a 5D."<p>Thank God that 2006 bonus was a live check and not a direct deposit or I'd prob still not have a 5D :-)

I use a Tamron 28-75 on my 5D along with a Canon 17-40 and I would be hard pressed to tell the difference in image quality of the two at 40mm. They are both excellent lenses on a 5D. My advice is keep your Tammy and purchase a Canon 17-40.

I'm with everyone else. Keep the Tamron and get the 17-40L. I am surprised by how often I need to go wider than 24mm, even for landscapes.

Here is 2 cents or may be less. If I were you, I will keep the 28-75 and buy wife a surpise gift instead on a lens that may need. You will need more then 1 or 2 more lens down the line. You need more yes and less negotiation :-)

-- "but doesn't the "di" mean made for cropped sensors (digital)"

 

No, that's what "DiII" means, Di means it covers fullframe, but has been treated to reduce reflections at the rear element.

I bought the 5D recently, and all I have to say is this: this camera is very cruel on soft lenses! Be warned. I was VERY happy with the 17-40 on my 20D, but now the corner of the image look noticeably bad in a FF sensor...

I think 24mm is OK for most uses. Keep the 28-75 and wait. If you still want to go to 24mm, perhaps the 24m 1.4 L is a far better choice than the 17-40.

 

But there is also big sample to sample variation... I do not know. Depends on how demanding you are... In my case, I spotted the problem straight away.

 

In fact, I have just written a letter to Zeiss, asking them to start producing again the 21mm Distagon. You can find a used one for more than $2000...

Many thanks to everyone for the advice.

 

Re. The bargaining and negotiation, let?s just say my wife will not be short of clothes, shoes, handbags or accessories this summer :o)

 

The overwhelming consensus is keep the Tamron and buy the 17-40L. Thinking about it some more (if that?s possible) I have no reason to think the Tamron will not perform as well on FF as it does on my 20D. In fact, it has performed so well in the 3 years I?ve owned it, as I was considering the 24-105L I was feeling almost like I was being unfaithful!

 

To Dan: I would love to get both the 17-40L and the 24-105L, but I don?t think even Kofi Annan could broker that deal :o) If you get bored today, however, feel free to shoot some sharpness comparison shots between them! In your opinion, which is sharper across the whole frame? At what point do the corners on the 17-40L become "quite good"?

 

I agree that distortion is easily fixable in PS, so any more opinions on which is sharper across the frame between the 17-40L and 24-105L (between 24mm and 40mm obviously!) would be most welcome. I wouldn?t be shooting wide open at these focal lengths, this would be for landscape use stopped down so I guess any differences are greatly diminished?

 

Thanks,

 

Ricky.

Buy both, your wife will almost certainly give you hell for weeks and periodically bring it up in arguments but they'll soon cool down.

 

That's what I did.

 

I'll get my coat.

 

Kev

PS I have both lenses 17-40L and 24-105L but was amazed how wide the latter is on my 5D. Both lenses are great, the 24-105L is a great all around / compromise lens (indoor and outdoor i.e. for weddings) but deidicated landscapes go for the 17-40L.