Complementing the 24-70mm

[timarmes]

Hi all,

 

I've spent a couple of months deciding on the best lens upgrade path

to suit my needs. I currently have a 300D which I bought with the

kits lens to tide me over, and a 70-300 that I already owned. I went

for the 300D over the 10D because, financially, I thought it better

to put my money into the lenses rather than the body.

 

The more I researched the currently available lenses, the more I

realised that I'd rather play the waiting game and save for quality

glass than be disappointed with the lower end zooms. I know that

I'll get a lot more pleasure from the f2.8 and the sharp images, even

if it takes (much) longer to build up my collection. My original plan

to start with a 23-135 is well out the window.

 

Another aspect that I'm bearing in mind is the fact that I can't see

myself staying with a 1.6 crop forever. I'd rather wait for the 1.3

or full frame cameras to drop in price, I personally believe that

this will happen, so I'd rather buy lenses with this in mind.

 

Besides, it means that I can use them on my film body should the need

ever arise (which it hasn't so far).

 

I considered going for a combination of the 16-35, 50mm/1.8 and the

70-200/2.8, but I feel that for the type of photography I do I'll be

switching lenses all the time. I'll be better off with the 24-70 as

a base lens. Besides, the 16-35 has had very variable reviews and

most reviewers seem to agree that the 24-70 is much better.

 

So, with the above in mind I'm pretty much decided on the 24-70/2.8L

as a starting point and the 70-200/2.8 for the telephoto end. I

think. The hitch in my plan is finding the right wide angle lense to

complement this choice. I like wide angle shots, and I'll certainly

miss the wide angle end of the 24-70 with the 1.6 crop factor. Of

the possible choices:

 

The 16-35 it's obviously not well positioned due to the large overlap

of focal lengths.

 

The 10-22 is EF-S only (a real shame).

 

The Canon 14mm prime is hideously expensive, and suffers from CA.

 

The Sigma 12-24, while promising, is a slow lens. I'd really like to

keep to at least 2.8.

 

Are there any other possibilities that I'm missing?

 

I suppose that my need for wider angles than 24mm will decrease when

I change bodies, but I can't see that happening for a good while yet.

Besides, if I get a wide angle that works well on the 300D, when

changing the body for a lower crop factor becomes feasible I'll have

a very wide angle lens, which'll be nice :)

 

Are there any experienced wide angle lovers out there that can offer

me some advice. I starting to question the validity of the 24-70mm

choice due to the lack of wide angle choices.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>I starting to question the validity of the 24-70mm choice due to the lack of wide angle choices.</cite>

 

<p>I'd approach it a different way. Viewed on its own, is the 24-70 the best lens around which to build your collection? You say you considered a different lineup but settled on the 24-70 because it wouldn't require you to change lenses all the time. To me, that's worth something. And the 24-70 is a top-notch lens; if its range is a useful one for you, then it's definitely worthy of being a cornerstone of your lens collection. So, to me, from what you wrote, it looks like the 24-70 is a good choice, pretty much regardless of what other lenses you may add. Better to have that, and then have a puzzle about what other lenses to get, than compromise on this lens to make other choices easier.</p>

 

<p>The 16-35 is a good lens. Superwide zooms like this are awfully tough to make and it shouldn't be surprising if the 24-70 is better. I doubt you'll find another superwide zoom that's significantly better than the 16-35. Overlap is a bit annoying but sometimes it's a good thing - it, too, can help reduce the need to swap lenses. If you have (say) a 12-24 and a 24-70, you'll be swapping lenses if you need to go between superwide and wide. If you have (say) a 16-35 and a 24-70, one lens covers virtually all of your wide-to-superwide shooting.</p>

 

<p>How important is f/2.8? So important that you would rule out the 17-40/4? Another f/2.8 option which would save some money is the discontinued 17-35/2.8L USM - but it's widely considered to be inferior to the 16-35. The even older 20-35/2.8L is supposed to be better than the 17-35 but of course it doesn't go all that wide, particularly on a 1.6 body.</p>

[timarmes]

Hi Steve,

 

Thanks for your response. I suppose what annoys me is that idea of spending a large amount of money on the 16-35 know that I already have the 24-35 part. However, your point is a valid one and I may well appreciate the overlap. On the other hand 16mm isn't all that wide on my current camera.

 

You're observation regarding the 24-70 is a good one. I too believe that It's better sticking to this choice based on my typical photography. However I do like to attack wide angles from time-to-time, hence the dialema.

 

It's probably also true that there's less need for f2.8 on a wide angle lens. What I'd really like is a faster Canon equivalent of the Sigma 12-24.

 

Tim

[digitmstr]

>>I do like to attack wide angles from time-to-time<<

 

That's the key: time to time. Which means occasionally. Canon makes

 

the 15mm Fisheye which, with 1.6 crop, is a great WIDE lens. If you can't justify the price for occasional use do what I (and many others) have done: get a Zenitar 16mm Fisheye. It will take care of your wide angle thirst for sure. It will also give you time to see for yourself exactly what is it that you need based on your actual shooting habits without spending a fortune.

 

I have the 24-70, 70-200 and Zenitar with a 10D so, I am speaking from experience.

 

I will also add that the 24-70 is a GREAT lens for the job and works great indoors as well as outdoors.

[dogbert]

Ask yourself how much you really need f2.8 at the wide end. Wide angles can be handheld at much lower shutter speeds than normal zooms, and with the 300D you easily can dial up the ISO. Also as they have large depth of field anyway, you won't get much addtional bokeh from an f2.8 lens. The ability to handhold at lower shutter speeds means my Sigma 12-24 can shoot in the same, if not lower light than my 50mm f2.5 macro. Of course if it was an f2.8 lens then it would be better in low light than my 50 mm f2.5 macro, but it would cost a whole lot more too.

 

Of course if it is a long term investment, then as a non-canon lens there may be compatibility issues to worry about. But I think this has not been a problem for Sigma for several years now.

[charlie_vigue]

The Zenitar 16 is a good lens, and you can get one for $130-$150 with an EOS mount. At that focal length focus is easy since DoF is very deep. I love it. I lust after the 24-70 2.8L, but I think my budget will have me getting the new Sigma 18-50 f2.8 instead.

[Rob_L1664876404]

Tim,

 

I have used the 24-70 on a Digital Rebel, and now a 20D, for over a year. It was my 95% lens (the one I used 95% of the time) until I purchased the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS about five months ago. I shoot a lot of low-light, performance oriented stuff, so I'm using the 70-200 more and more. However, if I weren't in a situation to own the 70-200, the 24-70 would be my one and only lens by choice. (I also have the 18-55 that came with the 300D and a 50mm f/1.8). A good fast (clean and sharp) lens, high ISO capability, and a copy of NeatImage are a hard combination to beat!

[edward_h]

I can see two options:

 

1) Accept that you'll most probably be hanging around with a 1.6x for a while and get yourself a Sigma 18-50/2.8. I've used it and I would _easily_ replace my 24-70 with is, were it not for the fact that I'd be losing money on the switch.

 

The 18-50 is sharp, wide and fun to use. It's not perfect, but by god it's more than good enough for 90% of people.

 

2) Get yourself a wide sigma, like the 20/1.8 or 14/3.5 (or was it 2.8?) and ... well. Wait. The 20 is nice and sharp, even though some people won't agree with you. The 1.8 makes it really good for low-light photography. Then, when you put the 20 on a 1.3x it'll become so wide you're scare yourself.

 

:)

 

Those are my suggestions. I *really* suggest the 18-50.

[michael focus97.com lee]

I'm going to go against the grain a bit:

 

For the price of the 24-70L f/2.8, you could purchase the 17-40L, and a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX. I have both now, with the latter being very new. I read a huge number of reviews on the lens (nearly all of which were outside of p.net), indicating great things about its value, sharpness, contrast, speed, etc.

 

Something to consider...

[charlie_vigue]

Tim, can you keep us posted on the Sigma 24-70? It is of interest to me, I could see myself haveing both it and the 18-50, for different venues.

[dogbert]

Michael

 

I would be very interested to hear how the sigma 24-70 f2.8 performs after you have had it for a while.

 

Geoff

[michael focus97.com lee]

Sometime in the next couple of weeks, I'll do a little comparison of the Sigma 24-70 EX. I have the 17-40 L, and the 50 1.8 II, and I want to see how the 24-70 rates in the overlapping ranges (24-40mm, 50mm).

 

The test will be done with a 10D, so I think I'll post it in the EOS forum.

[charlie_vigue]

Err, yeah, I mean Michael..... you know. :-)

[pbizarro]

You should also check the Tokina 17mm ATX-Pro.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> I agree with other posters who claim that faster aperture are less important on wide angle lenses. One of the reasons for me to prefer the 24/2.8 and 35/2 over the 17-40/4 (on film) is that they have faster aperture. In practice I found that I rarely use them wide open, something I do regularly on my tele lenses.</p>

<p> As you have the 300D, the 10-22 could be a very nice wide angle. A set of 10-22/3.5-4.5, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS is an excellent one, with no overlaps and with no future incompatibility problems. Too pricey? I'd get the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008T9j">Tamron 28-75/2.8</a> or one of the <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm">50mm primes</a>. In any case, I would not give up on the IS feature of the 70-200/2.8 as "<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml">The decision between the non-IS and the IS version of this lens is a no-brainer. The extra $750 gets you a lens with far greater versatility. It will get you shots that you otherwise will miss. If that's not worth the extra money, I don't know what is</a>." </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[timarmes]

Hi all,

 

Thanks for your answers, you've helped me to clear my thoughts a little.

 

For the moment I'm now heading along the lines of the Sigma 12-24, Canon 24-70 and Canon 70-200/2.8 IS.

 

The Sigma seems to be the only good wide angle choice open to me. It's not as fast as I'd have liked, but then as pointed out that isn't so important for a wide angle lens. The reviews are generally very good, and the shear fact that they've managed to make a 12-24 full frame zoom is a stunning acheivement. The fact that it's full frame means that it'll move with me (possibly after reprogramming!), unlike the Canon 10-22 which is EF-S and not massively fast either (although admittely faster than the Sigma). By the time I'll be able to afford the Sigma the 10-22 will be well tested, so I can change my mind at that point.

 

For the moment though, I know that the 24-70 is a very good base choice around which it's possible to invest in very good complementary lenses at both ends of the scale.

 

Tim

[astcell]

I wonder if Canon will make a 12-24 too, since that is the new wide angle range. Sigma has a 15-30 I was looking at when the 12-24 came out.

[michael focus97.com lee]

I doubt Canon will pursue a 12-24 in the near future. Those lenses are for providing wide angles to cameras with aps-c size sensors. Canon has effectively said, "hey, for you guys with 1.6 crop factors, the wide-angle answer for you is the EF-s 10-22!" ...only problem is that only the 300D and 20D have the mount. They've addressed the ultra-wide needs for us aps-c people, and also driven those seeking ultra-wides to move to the EF-s mount cameras.

[dogbert]

The sigma 12-24 has full frame coverage. Thus it is wider than any of canon's (or anyone elses) full frame offerings, though not as wide as canon's 10-22 on an APS sized sensor.

[jim_larson1]

A $800 lens that works on exactly two bodies? Bah! Forget the 10-22/EF-S.

 

The 24-70/2.8L is a GREAT range. I choose not to spend the money on 2.8L lens, and really wish there was a 24-70/4L.

 

Instead, my walkabout kit is 17-40/4L, 50-1.8, 70-200/4L and 1.4TC. Only on occassion (shooting a stage in a 200' party tent) did I find that I was switching too heavily between the lenses. Usually indoors and landscapes the 17-40/4L is fine alone. Airshows, wildlife outdoor work the 70-200/4L+TC is fine.

 

If you can afford the 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L then you are not poor. I would not worry about the overlap of the 16-35 with the 24-70. Just think of the 16-35 as a 16-23 and you are set :)

 

But I agree with Yakim: Fast is not critical for wide angles. Especially on an adjustable ISO body. The 17-40/4L is a fine lens at $650.

[digitmstr]

I don't see the aperture as a function of the angle coverage, rather as a function of speed, regardless of the FOV of the lens. For that reason, I prefer a minimum of f/2.8 (though I do own the 70-200 f/4L because of size & quality).

 

I like being able to get as much light as possible in my viewfinder and to have a chance in dimly lit situations, when possible.