Canon EF 28mm vs Zoom Lens?

[william_p]

I've recently decided to rid myself of my excessive photography equipment collection. I'm quite minimalistic at heart, but have suffered

from GAS in the past. Owning too many cameras has been stifling, so I'm in the process of putting an end to it.

 

I've came to the decision to own a FF EOS DSLR, a 35mm EOS SLR, 3 lenses and a 35mm dedicated scanner, and nothing else. I don't

use tripods, filters or flash. When it comes to the lenses, I was going to get 3 primes. My natural focal length choices would be 28, 50 and

100mm. However, for low light I would always drift towards my 50 1.4 and for portrait/shallow depth of field my 100 2. I came to the

realisation that a 28mm wouldn't have a specific role, other than being wide. With my old Minoltas a 28mm f2 prime was a no brainer, as

zooms weren't great back then, but nowadays zooms have progressed, as has ISO performance. What can a 28mm prime offer me that a

zoom can't? The 28mm 1.8 has a wide aperture, but I don't need that if I have the 50 1.4. The 28mm 2.8 has IS, but I don't shoot video

and again, I have the 50 1.4 for low light. So all they offer me is their small size, low weight, sharpness, CA control, less vignetteing,

cheaper price and distortion correction, but L zooms are sharp and handle distortion etc well and according to reviews the 28mm 1.8 isn't

great at these. Another factor is price. I'm not about to drop a £300 28mm and go out and buy a £1500 24-70 2.8 ii. I've got my choice

down to a 28mm 1.8 (£200-300) or a 24-105 f4 (£400-500). If you can't tell, I'm leaning towards the zoom, I've been having the

conversation in my head awhile, but I just want to see if there's any angle to the argument I haven't thought of?

 

 

 

Giving up...

Weight

Size

Aperture

Cost

Image quality?

 

Gaining...

Convenience

IS (Give me a wide aperture any day.)

 

How often would I need a wide and fast prime vs a good zoom and a fast standard prime?

 

I hope writing my thoughts down is coherent enough to make sense.

 

Thanks!

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I came to the realisation that a 28mm wouldn't have a specific role, other than being wide.<br>

If you can't tell, I'm leaning towards the zoom, I've been having the conversation in my head awhile, but I just want to see if there's any angle to the argument I haven't thought of?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps this: IMHO, it's always good to have one walkaround lens that's on the camera most of the time - and there in most cases, a zoom has the advantage. Some people make do with primes only - but it means that in many cases, the "wrong" lens is on the camera. Having a 24-105 zoom and a 50 and 100 prime makes sense IMO, the zoom would take the brunt of the work and the more specialized primes would get used when required.</p>

<p>Personally, 28mm would not be wide enough for me - even 24 is limiting on quite a few occasions.</p>

[steven_clark]

Maybe the pancake? Remember the worst

camera is the one you didn't bring so

having a lens that makes it pocketable

is a good idea.

[William Michael]

<p>The EF24 to 105 F/4 L IS USM is a very versatile Lens.</p>

<p>I would not dismiss the value of the Image Stabilization, even given the quality High ISO capacity of modern DSLR's.</p>

<p>I have (and more importantly for the relevance of this conversation) <em><strong>use</strong> </em>a system of (fast) EF Prime Lenses usually without Flash and often in very Low Light: but a few years ago when I shed some of my professional work to focus on diversifying my business activity, I bought a 'gift' for myself - the 24 to 105/4L IS - <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1051323">it has been a most valuable and most most used 'travel-holiday-walk-around lens'. For those purposes I tend to use it and my 35/1.4 exclusively.</a></p>

<p>This lens has a reasonable 'macro' capacity too. Returning to the IS function - there are many low light situations where a fast Tv is not necessarily required to arrest Subject Motion and IS will allow a relatively lower ISO which is usually always a good thing.</p>

<p>If you are seeking 'minimization' then a 'Standard Zoom' is excellent logic - as you already mentioned, back when you had a Minolta kit, two or three or four) primes were a no-brainer <em><strong>because</strong></em> there was <strong><em>not</em></strong> the sophistication of Zoom Lenses: but, that was then, this is now.</p>

<p>The link that I provided above, contains a range of example shooting scenarios, all of which match your criteria: - no Flash; no Tripod; no Filter; shot on a 135 Format DSLR. Many have the shooting details and can be viewed 'large' - and note the value of using IS, in some.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>William W has made some salient points and given some excellent advice, as usual. I'd just like to add my two cents.</p>

<p>Since I got the 24-70/2.8 L II, I haven't used my fast wider L primes much at all. The image quality of the zoom is at least as good as that of the primes. To wit, I recently sold my 24/1.4 L II and am contemplating selling my 35/1.4 L as well. (I had 24-105/4 L IS, but much prefer the IQ of the 24-70. Of course, depending on your style of photography, having IS may trump having higher resolution, as William has implied.)</p>

<p>If I were you, I'd get one of the standard L zooms and forget about the 28mm.</p>

<p> </p>

[william_p]

Cheers people. I'm pretty much made up on getting the 24-105, having heard your thoughts! As for 24mm not being wide

enough for some, I find it too wide. It can be useful for me, but 28 always felt more suited to my needs. Ruling out the 17-

40 L zoom wasn't hard.

 

Thanks!

[kerry_grim]

I recall Galen Rowell saying he could have used just a 24 and 85 for almost all his photos. He did

adventure and climbing photography so that was appropriate to his situation. I often carry just a 24 and 100

macro both with IS and I would not do without IS.

 

It does seem that the 24-105 would be an ideal range in one lens. Having returned from Olympic National

Park, that would have been the perfect lens for scenics.

[dcstep]

<p>Why are you building a system for 1965? When I shot Kodachrome and Fujichrome on a Spotmatic, I dreamed of the lens kit that you describe. Zooms were not sharp, or fast and film was slow.</p>

<p>In the 21st century we now have full-frame bodies that produce stunning images at ISO 6400. Zooms today often include image stabilization that allow hand holding in low light for those of us not tied to tripods and flash. With two lenses and a teleconverter, you can cover 24mm to 280mm. So, my own core kit, and suggested for you, is full-frame body, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS and EF 1.4x TC-III.</p>

<p>To get the optimal IQ from your lenses, particularly zooms, shoot in Raw and use Digital Lens Optimization software to automatically correct for geometric errors, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc. at every focal length and every aperture. Digital Photo Professional comes with all Canon DSLRs and includes DLO. Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro have DLO modules, which you should load and use. </p>

<p>If 24mm isn't wide enough, it's easy enough to stitch together two, three or seven images to get what you need, even hand held. I do own an EF 14mm f/2.8L II, but you have to have "the eye" for that, or it would be a waste of money. Back in the day, we thought 35mm was wide.</p>

[pjmeade]

The 24-70/4 IS is reputed to have very much better IS than the 24-105. It also costs quite a bit less than the 24-70/2.8.

 

As it happens, I've got both 24-70/4 and 24-105. The former sits on a 5D3 and is my standard go to lens, the latter sits on

an EOS 1v using a red filter and BW film. In short, the 24-70/4 is probably a better all round lens than the -105 and keeps

the 100/2 relevant.

[dcstep]

<p>Compare for yourself at www.the-digital-picture.com (this site will not allow me to post a direct link).</p>

<p>Compare at 24mm and 70mm at f/4 and f/8, and you'll see that they're equivalent. Compare at 105mm and you'll see that there's no comparison.</p>

<p>Also, realize that those test shots are before Digital Lens Optimization, which will further diminish any perceived difference.</p>

<p>Why keep a 100/2 "relevant" bay arbitrarily limiting zoom range?</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>There's also a 24-105 STM lens which may cost a little bit less than the 24-105 L, and while it doesn't have better image quality across the whole zoom range, may be better at the wide end. It depends on whether you can get the L one cheaply as part of a kit.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Go for the best IQ that you can afford. You'll use lenses through many bodies and over many years.</p>