24mm f2.8 and system upgrade strategy for landscapes

[will_barraclough]

Hi there. I have been reading this forum quite extensively, and I'm sure that

someone can help me decide what best to do.

 

I'm currently using an EOS 50e for landscape photography and have got to the

point where I want to go digital and improve my kit (probably my first L

series). My current favourite lens is the 24 f/2.8, I also have the 20-35

f/3.5, 28-135 f/3.5 IS, 50 f/1.8 and 75-300 f/4-5.6 non USM. I've considered

selling the lot and going large format for the best quality and enlargability,

but I would miss the SLR flexibility and I can't justify the investment, I'm

only a serious amateur. With a single film body (since my EOS5 died),

permanently loaded with Velvia, I just don't take any pictures of the family or

anything other than landscape, so a decent digital SLR has got to be the way

forward. I'll be selling the 20-35 because I just don't find the images are

satisfying (although I can't honestly describe why), and I don't really need to

go as wide as 20mm. I've pretty much decided on the 5D for the full frame

capability, as I would seriously miss the 24mm wideangle. So here are some

specific questions:

 

1. With the 5D, would the 28-135 be letting it down and should I get an L

series zoom such as the 17-40 or 24-105? How do these L zooms compare with the

non-L 24mm prime for image quality? Could I actually be disappointed going from

prime to L zoom? I nearly always shoot from a tripod, stopped down to about f11

or more, so lens speed is not a priority, but quality is, especially contrast

and sharpness.

 

2. Although my 24 f/2.8 is my favourite lens, it doesn't get mentioned that

often as a great lens. Do I really need to plan for the 24mm L tilt and shift

or 24mm f1.4L?

 

3. The 75-300 has actually provided some excellent pictures, despite it's

cheapness and age. I'm planning to replace with the 70-200 f/4 at some point,

but should this be a big priority? On paper it's a much weaker lens than the 24

or 28-135 I already have so it may ought to be my first L lens choice, despite

it being the lesser end of the focal lengths I use.

 

4. I've come to the conclusion that the 5D is the only choice because of the

wide angle end and I will want to print as big as my resolution will allow, but

should I seriously consider one of the crop sensor bodies? I would need some

very expensive glass (14mm L) to acheive the 24mm wide angle equivalent, so cost

wise I don't think there's a benefit. I wont buy any EF-S lenses, so that rules

out the 10-22.

 

Money is a big driver behind this decision, the ideal set up would be 5D with

24T+S, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200L, 50f1.4L, maybe 35 f1.4L, but I can't afford or

justify it. Realistically it'll more likely be 5D and one L series lens to

start with, progressing from there. Maybe the classic 5D+24-105 would be the

complete answer, or maybe the 5D and primes only for the landscape work, plus

keep the 28-135 for general use (for which I'm not as fussed about quality).

 

You can probably tell how confused I am, there are too many options! Thanks in

advance for any suggestions.

[tdigi]

5D with the 17 - 40 f4, a 50 1.8 and a 70 - 200?

[biggiephoto]

Hi Will,

 

Tommy is right.

I have the 5D and a 1Ds Mk1,had the 28-135 but the quality just wasn't there with that

lens.

You should skip it,too.The 5D is kicking a@#$% ss! The full frame and the big/bright

view-finder is God. The zoom L's are really close to some excellent primes and you have

the options 24-105,17-40,24-70,20-35 to suit you.

Now i have the Tamron 28-70 XR Di 2.8 excellent lens,not L-grade but REALY CLOSE to

IQ.

Also the Canon 50/1.8,100/2.8 Macro & 70-200/4.

I would say go with 5D + 24-105 and add later the 70-200/4 and 17-40 if you need to

go really wide. Until then enjoy the 5D/24-105 combo.

Happy Shooting.

 

Robert

[ken munn]

It seems to be me you're pretty satisfied with your outfit at the moment, except that it's

not digital.

 

So, get the 5D.

 

You're pleased with the 24mm f2.8 - keep it. I seriously believe that variation in one

product line means that some lenses are really good, most are average, and some are

worse than average. Sounds like your 24mm is one of the better than average ones. Also,

you don't shoot wide open, so why go for a faster version of the lens?

 

If you're happy with the results you are getting from the 28-135mm on Velvia, you'll be

happy with them on digital. The same goes for your 70-300mm.

 

Given the above, buy the 5D, use it with your existing lenses for a while, and only think

about changing lenses if you're unhappy with the results you're getting. But do bear in

mind that nothing digital is going to exceed the quality you're getting from well-exposed

Velvia shot on a tripod at small apertures.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>But do bear in mind that nothing digital is going to exceed the quality you're getting from well-exposed Velvia shot on a tripod at small apertures.</i></p><p>Well, maybe not from the 5D. However, the Hasselblad H3DI-39 has a 39 Megapixel (5412×7212) 36.7×49.0mm sensor. That'll give you a bit more data than even the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III. Then, there's the <a href="http://www.gigapxl.org/">Gigapxl Project</a>. There, images are 40,784 x 26,800 pixels.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

Why go digital? If landscapes are your thing, there is no need to spend so much $$$ on a 5D when all you really need is a something for family pics. Pick up a Canon G9 or Olympus Stylus Epic for that (plus, in your pocket, always with you portability). That 5D and the new lenses will set you back at least 3-5 fully paid National Park trips of your choosing. For most of us, money is a limiting factor, and every new body or L lens = lost experiences/trips you'll never have, and the lost great shots that go with them.

[phule]

[[2. Although my 24 f/2.8 is my favourite lens, it doesn't get mentioned that often as a great lens.]]

 

If you have been happy with the results from your lens, then why worry about what other people say about it?

[jp_and_ap_the_glass_eye]

I'm in the middle of similar trials with the similar objectives. My observations based on my two months of shooting the 5D and the kit 24-105L IS. 1) Yes, in terms of color, contrast and sharpness, it is a much better lens than my tired old 28-105. Much better. 2) I have not seen any vignetting with a Hoya Moose 77mm filter. 3) I plan to try out my 24 f2.8 in comparison with the 24-105 L IS this month in a Yosemite trip.

 

My experience with the 24 is that it is significantly better than the 28-105 Zoom. Is it better than the 24-105L IS for landscape work? We shall see.

 

Once you see what the 5D+24-105 kit will do, I doubt you be satisfied with any other walking around lens. I don't think keeping you 28-135 will satisfy you.

[will_barraclough]

Okay, thanks for the suggestions so far. Really good ideas. A few comments:

 

"5D with the 17 - 40 f4, a 50 1.8 and a 70 - 200?".

Yes that's definitely a feasible option, probably keeping the 28-135 for general purpose use.

 

"It seems to be me you're pretty satisfied with your outfit at the moment, except that it's not digital.".

Yes, that pretty much sums it up.

 

"...nothing digital is going to exceed the quality you're getting from well-exposed Velvia...".

To increase my rate of improvement, I think I really need to go digital. Also, although my Velvia slides are great, I'm not very please with the results of scanning them with my Nikon Coolscan V and a digital body skips all that hassle, and reduces the ongoing cost of taking pictures.

 

"...why go for a faster version of the lens?".

and

"why worry about what other people say about it?".

Although I'm happy with the 24 f2.8, I don't know how much better the pictures could be. It's not the speed that would encourage me towards L lenses, it's the other qualities, contrast, build quality, sharpness etc. I don't know what I'm missing with L quality, as I've never used one (apart from in a shop).

 

"Why go digital? If landscapes are your thing, there is no need to spend so much $$$ on a 5D".

Excellent point, and one that's very much on my mind, despite my comments above.

[m_barbu1]

Another point to consider is that you could purchase a used 5D. Since your current camera body is used, you wouldn't be losing anything, per se, but might save a sizable chunk of change.

[images_in_light_north_west]

Dont forget the computing end, have you thought about what you will need there? software, external drive, RAM, The 24-105 is a nice sharp lens, you cant realy go wrong there, in combo with a 5D, you should be real happy.

[PuppyDigs]

I have an EF 24 2.8 I bought new in 1990. It's an amazingly sharp and tiny optic would have

sold it long ago if it were not so. Perhaps the newer vintage suffers from more sample

variation but I'd ignore all the bitch 'n whine if you know you got a good one. With that said,

my 17-40 is just as excellent at 24mm F4 save a wee bit of barrel distortion. Never a

problem except for large areas of horizon. The 24-105 L is similar at the wide end.

[arie_vandervelden1]

For landscape, have a look at Canon 40D plus Canon 10-22.

 

If you like 24 mm full-frame, you'll love APSC 10 mm which is equivalent to 16 mm full-frame. The Canon 10-22 will mate nicely with your 28-135, and for the in-between focal lengths you even got a 24/2.8

[g dan mitchell]

There are a lot of different ways to go with lenses for a landscape setup on a 5D. (And I think the 5D is a great choice for landscape, by the way.) Factors that

might lead to different choices include: preference for primes/zooms, maximum wide/tele desired, preference for few/many lenses, desire or not for

overlapping focal lengths, extent to which lenses might be needed for non-landscape purposes.

 

FWIW, let me describe my kit, building out from what I regard as my core lens (the one I would usually take if I could take only one) to the more "specialized"

lenses - recognizing that this prioritization reflects my own individual approach to the subject.

 

My core lens is the 24-105mm f/4 L IS. On some lightweight pack trips I've gone with this lens alone, though I tend to miss having something a bit wider for

certain subjects. For landscape this is a very fine lens. Mine is almost as sharp at 50mm as my 50mm f/1.4 prime, and that's saying quite a bit. It is generally

plenty sharp across the range to perhaps at its best in the center and toward the wide end. The lens can vignette and show some corner softness shot wide

open, especially at the wide end - but that isn't much of an issue for typical landscape shooting on FF where smaller apertures are typical. In my tests, the

optimum aperture for resolution seems to be around f/11, though f/8 and f/16 are nearly indistinguishable.

 

Running a close second for me as a landscape lens is my 17-40mm f/4 L. When I backpack (and I often go out on extended trips in fairly challenging terrain)

the 17-40 and the 24-105 comprise my basic lens kit. The 17-40 as something of a "personality" that you need to understand. At f/4 it is not the world's

greatest performer by some standards - in particular, corner softness can be an issue. But we're talking landscape here, and again wide open performance is

rarely an issue. Stopped down to f/16 or even f/22 when required this lens is a great performer.

 

I own two other zooms, a 70-200mm f/4 L and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS. My 70-200 is the non-IS version, which is usually fine since I'm going to use a

tripod for almost all landscape shots. If I were purchasing this lens today, though, I would get the IS version for the added versatility. Again, there is little need

for the larger f/2.8 aperture that is available on other versions of this lens - for landscape we're usually shooting at smaller apertures anyway. The image

quality from this lens is excellent, and I appreciate its small size and weight when I'm traveling on foot. I don't always take it on overnight pack trips since I'm

trying to save weight, but I virtually always take it on day-long hikes and I certainly take it when I doing car-based landscape photography.

 

When I got the 100-400 I really wasn't thinking of it as a landscape lens. I was sort of surprised when the first time I took it out I used it to capture some of the

best landscape shots I've made recently. Live and learn. However, as useful as it can be and as fine a performer as it is, it is lower on my priority list for

landscape work. It is part of my "take everything" kit and part of my "might shoot some birds and critters" kit though.

 

As to the zoom vs. primes question... I thought about and studied this quite a bit. The facts turn out to be a bit surprising and, for me at least, made me decide

to begin with a complete zoom-based kit. Especially with the wide-angle lenses, the primes are often not substantially if at all better than the zooms in terms

of resolution, and this is especially true at typical landscape apertures. I also considered the 24mm f/2.8 and the 35mm f/2, among others - but the evidence

suggests that my 17-40 and 24-105 are going to virtually as "sharp" for landscape work. Of course, even if the primes were a bit sharper, the fact that I can

precisely frame my compositions with a zoom generally means that I'm going to do less cropping, thus improving the potential image quality - at least on

average - when I use zooms.

 

My two cents...

 

Dan

[mark u]

You may find these lens reviews interesting:

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

 

I think the 24-105 is an outstanding 35-70 f/4, but not quite at the same level outside of that. It sounds as though lengths shorter than 24 are of less interest to you, so I'm not sure that the 17-40 makes sense. The T/S 24 does have some advantages, including being able to do parallel stitches, as well as tilting the field of sharp focus: however, you really need a good tripod setup. I'd suggest reading up on it and renting if you are interested. Although the 24 f/1.4 is a very fine lens you don't need to spend out the money on it if you don't need its fast aperture, as the tests linked above clearly show.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>For landscape, have a look at Canon 40D plus Canon 10-22.</i></p><p>Arie, re-read the original post. Will has already stated, "I wont buy any EF-S lenses, so that rules out the 10-22."</p>

[sheldonnalos]

I have found my 5D with good glass to be superior to well exposed 35mm transparencies.

 

The 24mm f/2.8 is a good lens. I have owned two of them, and neither was any sharper than the 17-40mm lens I owned at the time. The 24-105mm L lens I now own is even sharper still than the 17-40 I owned, so don't worry about L zoom quality compared to your 24mm prime.

 

I would sell everything you have except for the 50mm f/1.8, then buy a used 5D ($1700) a used 24-105mm L IS ($900, nothing wrong with good used glass), and a used 70-200mm f/4 L ($475) with tripod collar ($100). This will cover all your typical landscape photography with absolutely superb image quality. If you find yourself wanting to do more family photography and need a faster aperture lens, look at the 35mm f/2 ($200) and the 85mm f/1.8 ($300).

 

Assumming you have a good tripod, this lens kit would be completely flexible, and provide image quality that is beyond reproach.

[djphoto]

"nothing digital is going to exceed the quality you're getting from well-exposed Velvia shot on a tripod at small apertures."

 

 

I quit believing statements like the above when I found that no one (including experienced art directors, other professional photographers, and even the lab technician) could distinguish a 16x20 shot with my first digital camera, a six-megapixel Canon 10D, from a similar 16x20 shot with a Pentax 6x7.

 

Pick up a clean used or refurbed 5D and use it with the lenses you have until you know what you need to get next.

[PuppyDigs]

""nothing digital is going to exceed the quality you're getting from well-exposed Velvia shot

on a tripod at small apertures."

 

He didn't quality the details. If he meant a scan 'n print of the slide, well, heck no. The 5D

dances circles around it. However, there is a certain sparkling magic to viewing a Velvia

chrome on a light table with a quality loupe that can't be matched by a print or monitor view.

Maybe that was what he was referring to. Also, a projected slide can be nearly as stunning.

[will_barraclough]

Many thanks for all your ideas. Some really good information there.

[chris.sager]

Given the current pricing structure for the 5D kit which includes the 24-105, i think it would be foolish for anyone to purchase the body alone. Even if the plan was to simply sell the 24-105 immediately on ebay, as that should net you a lower price on the body only. Buy the kit, compare the 24-105 to the 28-135 and sell the mid range zoom that makes the most sense to you. Keep the 24 and 50. Sell the 20-35 and 75-300. Save for whichever 70-200 makes the most sense for you.

[yakim_peled1]

I think that a 5D + 24-105/4 is a very good start.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.