Lenses upgrade - your opinion?

[spyros_podaras1]

Good morning everybody, hobbyists and pros,

I am looking for upgrading my lens collection and I would appreciate

your feedback (instant as always).

I currently own a Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5, a Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 II

and a Canon 100-300/4.5-5.6. I am thinking of giving them away and

purchasing the Canon 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L. Yet I'll end up

with a gap between 40 and 70. Due to budget constraints I thik of

two options: either getting the cheapie 50/1.8, or instead of 17-

40/4L I could get the Tokina 20-35/2.8. I am fond of both the wide

angle range and the telephoto one.

What do you think would be the best move, letting the middle gap be,

or upgrading to the Tokina lens and covering the middle range (with

what?)?

[joshchapman]

Film or digital?

 

I'd keep your 28-105 for a lightweight travel zoom (which would also cover that middle range). And you should definitely get the 50 1.8 for low light ability, and to help fill that gap with a small, lightweight lens.

[ulrich_brandl]

Why so nervous about the gap between 40 and 70mm ?

 

In most situations it is easier to move a bit (for 10mm difference in focal length) than changing the lens. In many years of film photography I had noting between the 50 and 100mm prime and can't remember that this gap really was an issue. Later I had a telephoto starting at 75mm - but it hardly came into use between 75 and 100mm.

 

The true reason to buy a 50mm is its fast aperture. You said, your fond of the wide angle range. For budget contraints I therefore would never by the 20-35 instead of the 17-40 (assuming you use a 1.6x crop digital body). The loss on the wide end is much more an issue than the gap (that can be filled later with the 50mm 1:1.8 cheapie).

 

And think twice - you have a good coverage in the telephoto range. Do you really have problems with the telephoto picture quality. Do you really need the L lens (you loose 100mm on the long end without buying a TC - up to 200mm the 100-300mm is said to be very good) ?

 

 

Ulrich

[spyros_podaras1]

I own an Elan 7NE and a IIe, both film and I scan the negatives.Would you consider the 17-40/4L a must, or the 70-200/4L?

[terry_smith2]

The Tokina 19-35 is made by Cosina and is one of the best low priced lenses out there. Going to the 17-40 L will get you better image quality and a little more on the short end, but it's an expensive upgrade. KEEP the 28-105 to cover the middle as you've got the better model 2. There's nothing wrong with the 100-300 for the price. The 70-200/4 L gives one stop more and better image quality at the price of a much shorter focal length. To keep the 300mm, look at Sigma and Tamron. Both have 100-300/4 or similar. I'd add a 35/2 in place of the 50/1.8. A little more expensive, but you effectively have a 56mm in place of an 80mm unless the 80 is exactly what you're looking for. And if you're giving away any of the above, please e-mail me!

[PuppyDigs]

I must say I'm extremely pleased with the EF 17-40 4L USM on my Elan 7E and EOS 3. I

hated it on my EOS 10D (boring range & image too tiny in the viewfinder). It took me about

a year to get used to the extreme wide angle on my film cameras. I wasn't nearly so

pleased with my EF 70-200 4L USM--serious QC problems.

 

I couldn't image living without my EF 50 1.4 USM. Not a perfect lens--AF is a bit ify in low

light--but still a great optic. 50mm and 35mm primes are my fav walkarounds for film.

[yakim_peled1]

17-40/4 + 50/1.8 + 70-200/4 is a great set. Go for it.

 

Best regards,

Yakim.

[johnb]

Spyros I would take the 17-40L & the 70-200L, assuming the $$$$ can be spared.

 

The middle gap? Hey what about the long telephoto gap (you can never have enough).

 

I also have the 28-105 and the 17-40L and there is no comparison I would always take the 17-40L over it (but would rather have both).

Good luck with your investment :+)

[eoghan]

Does the fact that the 70-200 is white bother many people? I love it for nature and hiking but it just draws so much attention anywhere else.

 

Puppy you sold it for the 200mm prime right? The reason i ask is because i was thinking i may do that someday, not anytime soon($$). It's black, a little shorter, and a stop faster. Then add a 1.4x and I'd have close to 300mm F4.

[bens]

sigma 70-200 2.8 -- beautiful lens. look in my folders at the bird pictures, or the picture of the bball coach i posted today -- i don't pretend to be a great photographer, but the lens performs very, very admirably. i think the shallow dof is valuable in many instances. same price as the canon 70-200/f.4. only downsize is weight. tamron 28-75 will fill the gap for you -- get that and the 50/1.8. the tokina 20-35 -- i have an older tamron 20-40 that is very good and have heard great things about the new tamron 17-35.

[WM]

Yep, the 17-40/4L, 70-200/4L, 50/1.8 is a super combo ! Can't go wrong with that ! I wouldn't worry about the 40-70 gap. I shoot the 16-35 and 70-200 on two cams most of the time for weddings, family photo shoots etc and it's a great range.

[christopher_engeler]

I was in the same situation but had the 50mm/f1.8 when I decided to also get the 28-75mm/f2.8 Tamron for less than $350. That was a nice addition and a perfect lens to keep on a second (film) body. It's fairly compact, too and an exellent performer (see separate threads and reports).

[pto189]

Digital SLR: Canon 20D<br>SLR: Canon EOS-3<BR>

Lenses: Canon 17-40 F4/L, 50 1.8 II, 70-200 F4/L, TC 1.4X II, 100 F2.8 Macro. Tamron 28-75 F2.8 SR Di<br>Flash: Canon Speedlite 580EX

<br>Tripods: Slik 300DX,Gitzo G1228G MKII geared Column with Acratech Ultimate Ballhead.

[min_wong1]

I also faced the same situation. The gap between 40 to 70 can be covered by a 50mm f1.4 or f1.8

If you have extra money to spend, you can get a 24-70mm F2.8 L to cover or go with sigma or tarmon.

If you don't have much money, buy a pair of good running shoes and it helps you to cover the gap dramatically.

[spyros_podaras1]

Good point Min, I like your taste of humour.

Thank you all for your input!

[tjavery]

I recently got a 50mm f/1.4. Before using this lens, I had only used slow zooms. I have to say that I can't imagine shooting without the 50mm now.

 

It helps to have a fast lens handy when you can't use a flash, or you need a shallow DOF.

 

Of course my 50mm is also a zoom lens- I zoom with my feet ;-) Try it out! You'll not only get more exercise, but you might also see things from a better perspective as you move around.

 

-TJ