First L Glass - HELP ME CHOOSE!

[christian_odell1]

I'm now getting into my first L series glass and I'm stumped as to what to buy.

Prime, Zoom, which lens?

 

My shooting is limited to two situations.

1. My wife and baby at my homemade studio in my office or outside in the park.

2. Overseas doing street photography in a reporting capacity for a small

non-profit. Most of that work is street and/or night shooting (nothing arty,

just the facts, maam.) Mostly, upclose and personal, a few wide shots. Really,

it might be best to see my gallery for examples. http://www.photo.net/photos/lymond

 

I've been told the 17-40 f4 would be good, but I'm not sure since most of my

shooting is done with a 50/1.8 and it's used pretty wide open most of the time.

However, I realize my technique could improve and perhaps a 4 would force me to

rethink things more as I shoot. I'm tempted to go with a 2.8 in some format but

I just don't know.

 

I'm just looking for good advice from all you gents and ladies who are so far

above in knowledge and experience. Thanks!

 

Christian

[jeremy_center]

24-105 f4/L IS would be a good choice.

[bueh]

I have never been a fan of zoom lenses myself, so my "L" glass of choice would be the awesome EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM. Then get a 85mm potrait lens you you will be set for almost all shooting situations.

 

But try before you buy, I found that I wouldn't use the expensive zooms as much as the mundane 50mm f/1.8, simply because it's not my shooting style (besides the weight, bulk and speed issues). I just let the big zoom at home too often, so I sold it despite its great glass, IS, USM and whatever great wonderful things they packed into it.

[steve_crist]

It's much easier to give you a recommendation if we knew the crop factor camera you're using (full, 1.3 or 1.6).

[rogernoel]

What camera are you using, and do you have plans to buy a new one in the near future?

[christian_odell1]

I have a 30D. The only lenses I have are a 28/2.8, a 50/1.8II and an old 35-105. I just feel limited by the lenses. I can't quite put it into words. I have every possible length covered but the glass (except for the 50) doesn't excite me when i look at the pics. Not to mention that focusing on them takes forever compared to USM L glass.

[rogernoel]

I recently purchased the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM lens. I think if you review the comments on various other posts here, you will find, albeit it is not an L lens, that the EF-S 17-55mm will outperform the 17-40L lens. Just my prejudice maybe because I chose the former. I wanted at least 2.8, I have IS on several other lenses, and I am not going to FF for some time if ever. Lastly, I think the additional amount for the 17-55 is worth it with the faster lens and IS. Good Luck.

[sattler123]

If you don't need wider than 24mm, then the 24-105L is an awesome lens, although it is not very fast, BUT is has IS which counter balances the lack of speed. You can easily handhold that lens down to 1/30 or even 1/15 and get tack sharp pictures. The lens is very sharp throughout all focal lengths and all apertures - you see defraction at smaller apertures, but it is very well controlled. The wide end on my FF body does have lightfall-off in the corners but on a crop body that should not be an issue. The other choice of course is the 24-70 f/2.8, but it is heavier and doesn't have IS.

[brucecyr]

Looking at your portfolio, reading your remarks and considering your camera, I think what would best suit you is a 17-85 f2.8 IS "L" -- unfortunately, ain't no such thing.

 

The 17-40 and 24-105 are great, but since you shoot some street scenes at night, I would think the f2.8 speed of the 24-70 might be better suited than IS -- at least its something to think about. On that logic, the 17-55 would seem to be the next best selection if you can bypass the desire to have "L" glass -- or, indeed, the best selection if you're going to stay with the smaller sensor size for a while.

 

BTW, you have a good eye.

[brucecyr]

PS: Rationalizing that going with a slower speed when you're used to blasting at f1.8 could lead to either

 

 

1. a major paradigm shift in your photography, and/or

 

 

2. an expensive, chronic source of migraine attacks

[pjmeade]

Hello Christian,

 

On the 30D, the 24-105 would make a good replacement lens for the one of similar length. I would keep the 50/1.8 as I think it's a good portrait lens wide open and gives some nice results when stopped down a bit. I don't know the 28/2.8, but unless you can't live with it, it may be another keeper.

 

If you need a faster wide angle lens, then you could look at the 16-35/2.8 L, twice the price of the 17-40, but a stop faster.

 

Just my 2p

 

Pete

[aaron_lam]

I would and did skip the 24mm f/1.4 for the 35mm f/1.4. The 35mm f/1.4 is one Canon's sharpest and best lenses. You'd be starting at the top in my book.

 

At 35mm on a 1.6, you could get a scene shot or move in for mid body portrait... similar to a lot of the portrait pics in your portfolio.

 

It seems just wrong to spend that much on ONE focal length but I think this is the focal length to go... not too wide for distortion of people and not too long not to be able to capture a scene (you won't be taking any interior architecture pictures anytime soon though). I shot a lot with the 50mm before getting a 35mm and found the 35 to be more usable.

 

If you must a zoom, I would go 24-105 L. I have never used the 17-55 IS so I can't rule that out... everyone seems to love it.

 

Good look!

 

 

aaron

[alfaromeo]

for 30D I would buy 17-40 and 70-200 F/4. These two lenses will cost you about the same as 24-105 IS alone.

[dan_roche]

I agree with Jerry. The 17-40 f/4L and the 70-200 f/4L are a great way to enter "L land" without breaking the bank. Both are excellent optics.

[aaron_lam]

Hmm... I take back my original zoom suggestion. A 17-40L and a 70-200L would be much better than the 24-105IS. If you must IS, better not on the 17-55IS or 24-105IS and on the 70-200 f4 L. I have owned the 17-40L, 16-35L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 70-200 f4 and 24-105 IS at one point or another and think that the 17-40L/70-200f4L is the best priced L combo out for sure (will get you the most focal lengths if a wide range is what you are looking for).

 

Good luck!

 

 

aaron

[christopher hartt dallas]

17-40 and 70-200 do seem more cost effective, but if you're really looking for that "pop off the page" look of an "L" lens, the 24-70 2.8L is a lens you can't afford to overlook. I have both 24-70 and 24-105 that I use for wedding photography. For natural light bridals, nonflash ceremony and night shots, the 24-70 is the clear winner (for me). The 24-105 is on my flash bracket 1DMkII N and the extra reach is great for general wedding photography (with flash), but it doesn't give me the depth and clarity of the 24-70. Why don't you rent the lenses you are considering for a week and draw your own conclusions? Somewhere in this thread a comment was made about the lens fitting your style of shooting. For most of us - even professionals - the equipment we have will have a huge impact on the type of pictures we shoot and ultimately the style that we develop, so choose your lens and your "style" will likely follow.

[awindsor]

I for one would second Roger Edgington suggestion of the 17-55/2.8 IS.

 

What I use currently for zooms is the 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L combination everyone is suggesting and I am continually bemoaning the lack of a fast normal zoom. I won't buy a 24-70/2.8 while I have a crop factor camera and won't buy a 17-55/2.8IS since I will upgrade to a 5D sometime (better performance in very low light is very important for me).

 

For the sort of shots you have in your gallery they will be too slow. For the low light and narrow DOF shots I use a combination of 35/2, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8. The non-L primes are certainly good enough for me and are considerably lighter than the L primes.

 

You should buy equipment that suits your style and not change your style to shoot the equipment that you buy.

 

There is nothing magic about a red ring and an L.

[awindsor]

Insert a sentence and don't reread your post and look at the sort of drivel you end up with.

 

For the sort of shots you have in your gallery the 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L will be too slow.

 

For the low light and narrow DOF shots I use a combination of 35/2, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8. The non-L primes are certainly good enough for me and are considerably lighter than the L primes.

[andrew robertson]

Just wait a bit. If you don't know what to buy but want people to tell you instead, you

clearly are just looking to burn some cash. I try not to buy gear unless I am really sure

that I will use it and that I need it.

 

Additionally, there are many consumer grade Canon lenses that are every bit as good or

even better than L lenses. Getting an L lens seems like a way to automatically get 'the

best' lens that Canon has, but for example consumer primes beat L zooms. You can get a

wider max aperture lens or three for less money than one L zoom.

 

If you enjoy using the 50 f/1.8 and use it wide open all the time, maybe that's a clue right

there as to the kind of lens you need. I would be looking at the 28 f/1.8, 35 f/2, 85 f/1.8,

and 100 f/2. I also really like the Sigma 20 f/1.8.

[glenn nk]

I used the 24 - 105L as my only lens for four months - the only limiting factor was the 24mm end was not wide enough.

 

So I added the EFS 17/55 f/2.8 IS USM lens.

 

Quite frankly, I don't which lens is my favourite (yes they do overlap in focal length, but they also serve different purposes).

 

Much of the current beliefs about the quality of zoom lenses is out of date. There are some that are poor, or not as good, but a search on a few site will point them out.

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-55.html

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

Your biggest problem is determining the focal length range that will be most useful to you.

[delwyn_ching]

I have the 20D and either the 17-40L, 24-105L or 17-55 will do the job. Go and give them a try and don't forget, a 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4 will compliment your choice.

[iansky]

Christian

I use the 24-105L as my standard lens on my 5D, it is a superb lens that would work very well for street photography, even on a cropped sensor.

 

The 17-40L is an amazing lens as well and equates more on a cropped sensor to the 50mm you are used to using however, it does not offer the range of the 24-105L or the IS facility that does help a lot.

 

You can learn to overcome the f4 minimum and the IS helps with this aperture limitation.

[adrian_hewson]

I think many people here are trying to recommend what the have and not what they aspire to, if you are used to a 50 f1.8 and do a lot of low light shooting, the 50 F1.2L is a superb lens and the 28-70mm F2.8L is an awesome lens go to a shop and borrow one or both and buy (I did both) dont listen to these people, glass is everything if you can afford it, buy it (if you dont like it you can sel it on ebay for almost the same price)

 

regards Aadrian

[William Michael]

> Most of my shooting is done with a 50/1.8 and it's used pretty wide open most of the time.

 

> I have a 30D. The only lenses I have are a 28/2.8, a 50/1.8II and an old 35-105. > >

 

> focusing on them takes forever.

 

> I Shoot My wife, baby, studio or outside.

 

> street photography in a reporting capacity, street and/or night shooting.

 

 

The above is the essential criteria: If you must have `L` glass the IMO it is a no brainer, you have a choice of the two primes 24mm and 35mm or the 16 to 35mmF2.8L zoom only.

 

As you also stated you do not go too wide, often, then the 35mm makes a very fast 56mm equivalent on your 30D, and you do not seem afraid of primes.

 

Thinking laterally, you could sell the 28mm and buy a the 24mm F1.4L [or 20mmF2.8 USM], they both should focus more quickly.

 

The next step could be to get the 85mmF1.8. Which would give you an awesome cache of primes and all fast, centred around the 35mm (56mm equiv) F1.4L.

 

Seriously compare the USM glass in the primes to the F2.8 `L` series in zooms; everything is a compromise, but if you are happy with prime lenses as a base then do not discard the 20mmF2.8, or the 85mmF1.8.

 

I reiterate the only zoom I would consider for the criteria outlined is the 16 to 35F2.8, because it is F2.8.

 

Having said that if we go outside the `L` criterion, the EF-S 17-55/2.8IS comes into contention, but I would not buy that, as I want an efficient system which has both FF and x1.6crop sensor bodies, but this may not be a consideration of yours.

 

WW

[William Michael]

Mr Hewson:

 

> I think many people here are trying to recommend what the have and not what they aspire to, <

 

Insightful comment.

 

On the other hand, one usually feels more comfortable commenting on gear one has, or at least has used.

 

Although `recommendations` of gear by someone who has just bought that gear, or is unsure after buying it could be merely self justification?

 

I have found it [reasonably] easy to sort out [most] biases (and we all have them) after reading through enough comments. And that leaves some very useful information.

 

I would not, as you seem to suggest, throw out all the comments: kinda like the baby with the bathwater, isn`t it?

 

Regards

 

WW