Change lenses or stick? Some advice please...

[becky_johnston]

Hey there, I'm looking for some advice on Canon lenses as I'm not quite sure

what to do.

 

I have recently upgraded to the EOS 5D, and currently use a 17-40mm f4 L, 50mm

f1.4 and 70-200mm f4 L.

 

I feel that with the full frame sensor 5D the 17-40mm may be a little too wide

for an everyday walkabout lens, which I feel I may be missing in this lineup.

Furthermore I've been craving a walkabout thats a little faster and have been

considering getting rid of both the 17-40mm and 50mm to put towards financing a

24-70mm f2.8 ... as much as I know the 50mm is a great little lens to have I

don't really use it that much except in cases where I want greater background

blurring, which I feel I could probably come close to with the 24-70mm f2.8.

Having this would also ensure I don't have unreachable focal lengths between

40-70mm which is pretty much the case the moment.

 

Unfortunately I do not have the cash right now having upgraded the camera, to

hold onto my existing lenses and buy further upgrades so I'm not sure what is

the best move. Do I get rid of the 17-40mm and the 50mm to help buy the 24-70mm,

or stick with what I have? I tend to work mainly with cityscapes, portraiture

and architectural photography and would like to feel my set up is suitable and

flexible for this subject range. I do at some point after significant saving

intend to upgrade the 70-200mm f4 to the f2.8 version, but am content to sit

with the f4 for now.

 

Any advice? I have also been recommended the 24-105mm f4 but feel I may miss

having a 'fast' lens in my kit.

 

I really appreciate any advice... cheers!

[bob_osullivan]

I would stick with what you have and wait to save up for either the 24-70 or 24-105is. Since you didn't mention sports or other fast moving subjects I think the IS version may be just as well if not better. But wait.

 

I find the range between 40 and 70 on ff to be the least interesting to me. It all looks about "normal" view and I'd just assume step up or back withe the 50. However, once you lose the 17-40 you'll miss that ultra wide range or all of a sudden find needs for it. These were my first three lenses and many other users here as well. Except I have the 1.8 50. Don't give up those very cool lenses for one that's just a convenence.

[mark u]

Check your EXIF data to see what starting focal length makes sense for you. If you can get away with 28mm, then pick a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for image quality that ought to match the 24-70 L in a package that is much smaller, lighter and cheaper. I don't think you really need the faster focus speed and heavier build that the Canon offers.

 

If you really want to add 24mm, then I'd give very serious consideration to an Olympus Zuiko 24mm f/2.8 with an OM-EOS adaptor: optically excellent, relatively cheap, and very compact. You won't miss AF given your subjects, and will have the benefit of a DOF scale.

[becky_johnston]

I should also add... I have previously used the 17-40mm satisfactorily with the Canon 30D where I am aware due to the x1.6 crop factor that it is the equivalent of 27mm... for this reason I feel I may not benefit as much from the 17-40mm on the 5d as I did on the 30D due to the full frame sensor, and the 24-70mm range would still be slightly wider.

 

Eeeh, decisions....! :)

[robin_sibson1]

Well, today I bought a 5D - I've a number of reasons for wanting a FF camera, but for the moment at least this is to complement the 20D not replace it. The best financial deal was the 5D+24~105 kit. Yes, I already have a 24~105, but it's been spending more and more time on my wife's camera, and there comes a moment ... etc.. So to test out the new kit I took with me my 17~40, 70~200/4IS, and TS24 (being able to use the TS24 'properly' is one of the reasons), and took about 40 shots on a gentle walk through Trafalgar Square, down Whitehall, and past County Hall (er, that's London). I must say, I'm VERY impressed with the image quality and the flexibility of this combination. I even took a few shots with the Extender 1.4x on the 70~200 at full stretch - works really well. Unless your priorities very strongly point towards changing the kit you have, don't get rid of anything (except possibly you should consider the 70~200/4IS as your upgrade from what I assume is the non-IS version, again depending on your priorities). Instead, save up and think about what your current kit can't do, and if unbroken coverage of the 40 to 70 range is what you need, add one of the 24~70 or 24~105IS, whichever better meets your needs.

[peterlyons]

I agree with a couple of others who have suggested the 24-105. I have a similar set of lenses

to what you have, but you're right, you're missing the important middle of the range.

[whwhitejr]

Becky, If you work in low light as much as I do you will need the 24-70 f2.8L. If you work mostly in daylight then you will be happy with the 24-105 f4L IS. They cost about the same with the 24-70 f2.8 coming in a little higher. The 24-70 stays on my 5D most of the time except when I'm shooting sporting events. I use the 17-40 f4L for large groups and a few landscapes but I could get along with out it. I have a not much used 30D that I'm going to sell and convert into a 1DmkIII some time in the next 6 months. Then I'll have to have the 24-105 F4 as a walk around day light lens. Get one or the other and never look back. "I have found that the very best is only mediocre at the when you need it the most". Regards, Bill

[becky_johnston]

I think the 24-70 may be my choice here as low lighting could be an issue at times. Also I really don't have the funds to stick with my current lens and save for one of the others, nor can I justify it when I don't think I'll really be able to use both to their full potential. One or the other like Bill says! I think its the 24-70mm f2.8 for me... by the way Bill your aviation photographs are truly stunning.

 

Thanks for the input everybody

[colinsouthern]

Becky,

 

If it were me, I'd say "go for the EF 24-70 F2.8L USM" - it's a fantastic every day lens, regarded by many as being as good as a prime.

 

It was the first L Series I bought, and I wouldn't part with it for love nor money.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[sandy_labana]

I will sell 17-40 but keep 50mm for low light. For walk around 24-70 f2.8 is great lense. It is large and heavy. I find it tiresome after some time. You may want to look into 28-135 IS f3.5. It is quite a bit lighter. It does not have the image quality of 24-70 though. May be good enough for your work. Sandy

[jon_austin]

I love the 5D/24-105 combination, but it sounds like you know what you're doing and what you want. I just bought my 5D last month, but since getting it, I've only mounted my 17-40 once -- to capture some interior shots of a room.

 

If you're keeping your crop camera, I'd recommend that you also keep your 17-40 for it, but if that's gone, only you can decide whether or not you'll use the wide zoom any longer. But I join the chorus that recommends that you save up for the 24-70, rather than trading in existing lenses for it. If you miss any glass that you sell, it'll probably be more expensive to reacquire it than to have held onto it in the first place.

 

If after you've had the 24-70 for a while, you find that your two older lenses are just collecting dust, you'll know it's time to sell them.

[david_skirmont]

I would keep the 17-40. I use it a lot on my 5D for groups and landscapes. You'll regret selling it.

 

The 50mm is really good for low light. You may be able to get by without the zoom of the 24-70.

 

The 24-105 is my normal lens. I find I use either the long end or the

short end the most.

 

So don't sell anything now, get the 24-105 later.

 

DAS

 

DAS

[tom_swanson]

Have you considered something like the tamron 28-75 f2.8? Great optics and low price. (Build isn't great. I've bent one.) But it should tell you if that focal range is what you want and be cheap enough to keep on top of your current lenses. (And if you DO want that range you can sell em all and get that 24-70.)