joseph_gledhill Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Hi guys. I have a 300mm f/4 and 135mm f/2 lenses. I am looking to purchase a 'wideangle' lens to complete my 3 lens kit. This lens would be for landscapes, small group shots and 'scenes' where I can capture people working in their surroundings. Due to the need for this lens to be an 'all purpose' lens, I am favouring the 35mm as I think 24mm maybe is a bit too wide. I have an EOS 1V. Any thoughts on the two lenses mentioned? I am not considering the 'L' zooms as I prefer the smaller and lighter zooms for travelling. Likewise, I am not considering the non L primes as I visit South America and the Amazon a lot so I need the lens to stand up to these conditions and last a lifetime. Many thanks guys for your advice, much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_gledhill Posted November 23, 2004 Author Share Posted November 23, 2004 Sorry guys, should read "...as I prefer the smaller and lighter primes for travelling." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie_ju1 Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Joseph, For a three-lens system, there's an awful big gap between the 135 and whatever you choose. I would say go for the 35 if you have no plans on getting something in the mid range. 35/135/300 could work...The 35 isn't very wide; it may not be wide enough for sweeping landscapes, but for group and environmental portraits, it's a good f.l. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueworldstudios Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 The 35 is about as good as a lens can get. I think it would be a little more useful than the 24 for an all purpose lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_gledhill Posted November 23, 2004 Author Share Posted November 23, 2004 Can I add that I have a 1.4X to connect to the 135mm and create an almost 200mm to fill the gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 <I>"I am not considering the 'L' zooms as I prefer the smaller and lighter primes for travelling."</I><P><P> The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L is less than 3/4" longer, only 20 grams heavier and $200 more expensive (after current rebate) than the 35mm f/1.4L.<P><P> Of course, if you need the extra two stops, that's another story. But size and weight shouldn't be the deciding factors in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie_ju1 Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 "Can I add that I have a 1.4X to connect to the 135mm and create an almost 200mm to fill the gap." Not exactly the gap I had in mind...but anyway, I have the 135 2.0 and 200 2.8. In most cases, the difference is minor. Can't tell a thing from looking at photos, so I don't think you'll miss much between 135 and 300, unless you need to move closer but can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie_ju1 Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Oh, and you can add the teleconverter to the 135. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian_tinsley Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Joseph, just an opinion (and potentially about to be hot down in flames) but from the feel of the body vs the lens I would be amazed if my 24mm f2.8 gave up the ghost before the 20D body died of abuse. its so small & light basically. all the best Damian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 These lenses are two of my dream lenses but because of a permanent and severe problem regarding cash flow, I had to make do with their more humble siblings, the 35/2 and 24/2.8. As I have no experience with the f/1.4 L lenses, I won't comment on their optical quality but everything I read convinces me that they are superb. However, as one who extensively uses both focal lengths in primes, I can tell you that these focal lengths vary markedly in their FoV. I thus think that your first and foremost consideration should be to decide which focal length will suite YOUR needs better. My suggestion to you is to get a used 24-85 USM. Use it one week only at 24mm and in the second week only at 35mm. That will give you an idea of which focal length you like better. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west_cork Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I used just 35/2.0, 135/2/0 and 300/4 as my only 3 lenses for the last year with film bodies - didn't really miss the other lenses, especially when travelling. The 35/2.0 is much much better optically than you would expect, and not too scary when you point it at people. Not built terribly well however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilou Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Why not going with a 50mm f:1.4 + 24mm f:1.4 ? the 50mm is amazing for the price, and the 24mm for landscape is a must have ! Brgds - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now