I think I've been infected with the "lens-disease". Help!

[jmoody]

I've recently convinced myself that my Sigma 18-125 is no longer "good enough"

(good lord, what am I getting into?!). Anyway, am taking a pretty serious look

at the Canon 70-200 f4 L as I'd get more reach, "L" quality, and good price

(would love to get IS version, but I'm not independently wealthy...yet)

 

So, the question is... what would I get to compliment that Canon lens on the

short end?

 

17-40L looks ok on price, but leaves me short on the focal length & gets some

complaints on sharpness (though likely way sharper than what I'm used to).

 

The 24-70 2.8L looks ideal, but at $1k I could be risking my marriage! :-)

 

Any other high quality zooms that might work well from the 17 or so to 70 or so

range (and less than a thousand $)?

 

Another option I've thought of is the 24-105 f4 L IS, and forget about the 70-

200 for now.

 

As can be seen in my folders, my shooting tastes are all over the place from

landscapes (typically not wider than 24mm) to abstracts (usually fully extended

to 125mm).

 

Any advice apreciated (oh, in case it matters... I currently use the original

DRebel, but "probably" will get the 400D at some point. Highly doubt I'll go

full-frame at the current prices) Thanks

[ben conover]

Hi,

 

If you can afford a better lens then buy one! Unless you are suffering from a fungal infection of the inner elements I doubt you need serious help.

 

I'd keep the marriage and go for the 24-105 f4 L IS if you can, not sure about other brand names.

 

Cheers.

[michael_ziegler2]

What camera (crop size) are you using. This makes an important difference as to lens choice

[jmoody]

Canon DRebel 300D (and likely to go for the 400D at some point). Would like to keep the whole expense "around" a thousand (ie: 500 and change for a 70-200 & around the same (or less) for a wider zoom)

 

and Ben, it's ME that's infected :-) I think my Sigma is in perfect condition, just looking to keep up with the Joneses & see what higher quality is like really

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Jeff,

 

If you're willing to spend $1250 for the Canon 24-105mm f4L IS USM, why not go for the Canon 70-200 f4L IS USM for the same price.

 

That way you can still use your Sigma 18-125mm for now and then continue to save up for something with better optical quality to replace the Sigma later.

 

I've got to believe that a Canon 70-200 f4L with IS would be a double fantastic lens.

 

And I got to play with the new Canon XTi and if I didn't already have the Canon 20D, I'd buy the XTi in a flash.

 

I hope this helps.

 

//Chuck

[jmoody]

Chuck,

It helps... sort of.

 

The 70-200 with IS sure sounds like fun, but it could be a looooong time before I can sneak out another large quantity of cash to replace the short-end of the zoom. So... my main hope was to cover roughly 24-200 with fairly high quality and not go much over 1,000 bucks.

 

Also even thought about the 70-300 IS (non "DO") as it's a longer reach, got the IS, and isn't albino white. Any thoughts in that respect?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 17-40 is definitely an L-quality lens. Do keep in mind that even though it's a wide-to-normal zoom on a cropped body, it's actually an ultrawide zoom, which is a very challenging type of lens to design and make. I think you'll find that all of Canon's ultrawide zooms, whether current or discontinued, are not quite as good as a normal zoom or telephoto zoom occupying a similar spot in the lineup (e.g. comparing an f/2.8L to an f/2.8L, or an f/4L to an f/4L, or a decent consumer-grade lens to a decent consumer-grade lens). The 17-40 is my most used lens on my 20D, and you'll find a number of other folks here who happily use the 17-40 as their standard zoom on a 1.6-crop body.</p>

 

<p>Be very careful indeed about getting your first L lens. If you think you have the disease now, trust me, it just gets worse when you start trying to cure it with L lenses, because after your first L lens, you need your second L lens, then your third ...</p>

 

<p>You are all over the place not only in your shooting tastes, but also as far as what to get - a wide zoom, a standard zoom, or a long zoom. You'll need to nail this one down, because all of the lenses being considered are fine lenses, but they answer different needs. Here are a couple of possible approaches.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Improve what you use the most. Pick the focal length range that you use the most. This may take some work to sort out, since you shoot so many different things, but you're the only person who can really answer this one. Buy a better lens that covers that focal length range. You end up using a better lens for more of your shooting this way.

<li>Improve what's worst about your 18-125. Any lens has its strengths and weaknesses, and you probably have a good idea of what is worst about this lens. Is it less sharp at one end or the other? Is it that you keep shooting at 125 because you really need 160 or 200 but the lens doesn't go that far? Does it have really nasty curvilinear distortion at one end or the other that ruins your pictures? Is it too slow at the long end? Figure out its strengths and weaknesses; continue to use it in areas in which it's strong, and buy a better lens to replace it in areas in which it's weak.

</ul>

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Jeff,

 

I own the Canon 70-300mm IS USM (Non DO) and I love it. The optical quality is very close to an L lens and the IS feature even at 300mm is excellent. I can easily take photos at low ISO and reasonable light at shutter speeds at 1/15 sec. But the build , as many complain about, is not that of an L lens. I don't have a problem with build, though. The way I look at it is that I don't throw my L lenses around and I surely won't be abusing my 70-300mm IS.

 

I hope this helps.

 

//Chuck

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Jeff,

 

I agree with Steve about getting the L Lens infection.

 

Believe me, I have it.

 

But, I also have the IS infection, too!

 

//Chuck

[jmoody]

Excellent advice Steve (i've actually gone all geeky and am trying to come up with an excel chart that shows my preferred focal lengths..hang on, I've got to put more tape on my glasses! :-) I'm just afraid it'll show 1/3 28mm 1/3 70mm and 1/3 125mm! )

 

Chuck, very happy to hear something good on the 70-300. I take VERY good care of my gear & also couldn't care less (for the most part) about build. I'm mainly in it for optics and versatility.

 

I very much like the idea of IS (as I'm not the steadiest of shooters), an extra 100mm just in case (though 200 would probably be fine) and a black body (I try my hardest to blend in, and the white L spooks me a little as dumb as it sounds) Have you had any issues with the portrait-orientation-problem?

[larry h.]

Here's another possibility: Stick with your idea for a 70-200/4L and complement that with a Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 zoom. I have the Tamron and I like it. It got good reviews on Photozone and I think I have a pretty good copy. It gives you an extra stop vs. the 17-40mm/4L plus a little more length (good for portraits). It is also less expensive, and best of all, it shares the 67mm filter size with the 70-200/4L. I would think they would make an ideal combo.

[jmoody]

Doh! Larry, as if I wasn't mixed up enough as it was! :-)

Never owned a Tamron... Good stuff? (I know I know. We're comparing apples with really expensive apples here as far as the "L's" go)

 

I've also seen a newish Sigma 17-70 lurking around but haven't seen much in the way of reviews yet

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Jeff,

 

I bought my 70-300 IS in November of 2005 and never noticed a problem in the portrait position. But when the report came out that there was a problem, I decided to do a comprehensive test and I still didn't see a problem.

 

I couldn't decide whether to send it in to be "fixed" or not. I'm one that mostly believes don't fix something if it's not broke. I decided to place my concern on this forum and a guy in Austrailia wrote that his 70-300 IS was fine for many months and then all of a sudden the problem clearly showed up. So, I sent my lens in to be fixed this summer and after receiving it back I did more tests and again, everything looked fine.

 

Canon stopped shipping the lens to retailers for a period of time during this last summer, and I don't know if they have resumed making shipments with new non-problematic lenses.

 

If you buy one, make sure it's the new version. There's plenty of information on this forum about the "portrait problem of the Canon 70-300 IS lens".

 

I hope this helps.

 

//Chuck

[marknagel]

Jeff, get the 70-200 and 24-70L. If your marriage can't handle it SNEAK, HIDE and LIE!

 

Mark

[jmoody]

Sounds like an ancient Chinese proverb (a-la "crouching photographer, hidden lenses")

 

Anybody know someone willing to sell their 24-70L for less than a grand? (doesn't hurt to ask)

[brian_keyashian]

Jeff,

 

I have the sigma 17-70 and really like it. It covers a really useful focal range (for me at least). I haven't noticed any major quality issues (very slight barrel distortion at the wide end when wide open is about it). It is a bit slow at the long end, so you'd need to use flash in dimly lit indoor settings. And for around $350 it will leave you plenty of money left over to buy the 70-200 L or the 70-300 IS, both of which are excellent lenses in my opinion.

 

Brian

[jmoody]

Brian, that lens is definitely in the runnings price and range-wise...

 

I just have to wonder (and this one will be tough to answer I'd guess) if it is the same rough optical equivalent to the Sigma I already have (ie; would feel awfully schmucky to replace the 18-70 already useable in my 18-125 with 17-70 of the exact same quality. (ie: will I see the difference for another $300+ out of pocket?))

 

I know it opens up to a 2.8 which is nice, but other than that, does anybody have any news on its quality? I just read a fairly thourough review that puts it above the canon 18-55 kit lens (& I've seen other reviews that put my Sigma 18-125 somewhere on par with that kit so...)?

[jcolwell]

The 17-40/4 L is a fine L-series lens (I have one), and it will be a great companion to the 70-200/4 L (I have the 70-200/2.8 L IS). You can add a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 to give good coverage of focal length, plus some decent low light performance. The 24-70/2.8L is also excellent, but heavy. If I'm going with one lens, I take the 24-70/2.8L. If I'm going with two bodies & two or three lenses (which is most common for me), I take the 17-40/4 L, 70-200/2.8 L IS and 50/1.4.

 

The lens disease is not fatal, but it is progressive. You will probably experience more severe symptoms for a few years (e.g. 100 macro, 300/4L IS, extenders, ultra wide, etc.) until you reach the normal end point (i.e. you can't possibly afford the 600/4 L IS), so you adjust - you get better (or you find a way to sell enough photos to get the 600/4).

[mike_r9]

I have the newest version of the 70-300mm IS, and I haven't had any problems in portrait orientation. It came off the market for a while while Canon fixed the problem, but I haven't heard of any instances since.

[kahkityoong]

I shoot most of my landscapes with the 17-40 4L and most of my travel, street with 24-105 4L. If I could only have one lens it would be the 24-105. I prefer it over the 24-70 2.8L because the IS & longer reach are advantages over the faster lens for me.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Ignoring cost (cough, cough, cough) for the moment and assuming that you will really

stick with crop sensor bodies, a really wonderful combination might be:

 

<ul>

<li>EF-S 10-22

<li>EF 24-105

<li>Some longer zoom telephoto from among the following: EF 70-200 f/4 (least

expensive), 70-200 f/4 IS (probably worth the extra cost, in my view), or some 100-300

zoom.</ul>

 

<p>The 24-105 is a great lens - mine is very sharp - but 24mm is unlikely to be wide

enough for landscape shooting.

 

<p>I'm generally quite happy with my 17-40mm rather than the

10-22. I only <i>very</i> rarely wish I had more wide - and I do like the overlap between

this lens and the 24-105. Judging from your post, I suspect that you would be OK with

17mm maximum wide as well.

 

<p>Another setup if you want to go for maximum quality at minimum expense is the

following:

 

<ul>

<li>EF 17-40mm

<li>One of the 50mm lenses: f/1.8, f/1.4, or f/2.5 macro

<li>EF 70-200mm f/4

</ul>

 

<p>This covers a lot of ground on a crop sensor camera and all of these lenses can

produce great results.

 

<p>Regarding: "Another option I've thought of is the 24-105 f4 L IS, and forget about the

70- 200 for now." My backpacking rig now includes just two lenses: 17-40mm and

24-105mm. I <i>very rarely</i> miss having my 70-200, but I really don't <i>need</i>

it for landscapes - at least not enough to carry the extra weight and bulk. I think you

<i>might</i> get along OK for awhile with that lens instead of the 70-200 - but

eventually I think you would want to add a longer telezoom to the kit.

 

<p>Dan

[jmoody]

Thanks for stopping by Dan. As you can see, I've really got myself all worked up here as if I had a readily available Swiss bank account or something. Oh well. I can always dream!

 

Price is definitely a factor & I have to be sure that the lens/lenses are a "HUGE" improvement from what I have or why bother right? (like the 17-70 Sigma. Is it the same quality as that range on my current Sigma?)

 

On the short end, you're right on the money. 17mm is plenty wide for me (I've only got 18mm now & don't use it that often really) (not really a bona fide landscape guy). However, the long end has to be at least 125mm like now... and I've got the sneaking suspicion that I'd easily use more if I had it (not sure if all the way to 300mm but who knows).

 

I think I'd be fine on either the 70-200 4L or the 70-300 IS (non DO), and it's really gonna come down to which one comes up at a cheaper price. Neither are overly fast, but not sure I can afford fast (nor justify it either as I often shoot tripod-ed).

 

On the short end, just read a ton of seemingly drug-induced excellent reviews on the 17-55 2.8 IS, but now we're back in the thousand dollar range (and it's digital only) for a single lens (can't a guy get a break?) Looks like the 17-40 4L might be in my future but I'll keep my hopes up & probably wait for either a bargain or a new option that has a longer reach or faster or IS or ....

[steve santikarn]

word of advice: "get an L cure, or get a morgage"

[jmoody]

Sitthivet, excellent portfolio! Lots of sharp colorful images and very varied use. Noticed you use the 70-300IS (like it?) and also the 17-85 IS. I haven't read much on the shorter lens, what are your thoughts if any? It's not a particularly cheap lens, so I'd be interested if it's optics are good. Anything you've noticed on it?

p.s., you wouldn't believe my current mortgage if I told you! :-)

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Jeff, I had the EF-S 17-85mm lens when I got my first crop sensor DSLR a year and a

half ago. As you know, I've seen your work (here and in person at your show) and I suspect

that you would be disappointed with the 17-85. Here's my take on the lens after owning it

for the better part of a year and then selling it.

 

<p>First, the Good:

 

<ul>

<li>It is relatively small and lightweight for covering this range of focal lengths.

<li>The IS feature is quite useful when you shoot w/o the tripod and in many situations it

can compensate for the relatively small maximum aperture.

<li>It can be pretty sharp, especially in the center of the frame.

<li>I found that the 17-85mm range covered the majority of shots that I would take, so in

many cases it was a decent one lens solution. (I used mine backpacking in 2005.)

</ul>

 

The Not-So-Good:

 

<ul>

<li>Build is OK but nothing like the L series lenses.

<li>While it is possible to get fairly sharp photos if you are very careful about working

around focal length and aperture extremes, the lens is not as sharp as equivalent L lenses.

<li>Corner softness is a real issue.

<li>Vignetting is more noticable than on other lenses.

<li>Pincushion and barrel distortion are above average.

</ul>

 

<p>Bottom line: In a few cases I could get decent 12 x 18 prints from the lens, but in

many other cases the sharpness was just not there, especially in the corners.

 

<p>I think the 17-85mm lens can be a great solution for someone who will mostly print

small (say up to letter size or maybe 11 x 14) or post electronic versions, and who really

wants a one-lens solution. However, for the kind of prints I've seen you do, I really don't

think this lens should be on your shopping list.

 

<p>Dan