orly_andico

<p>Sony has a 24-105/3.5-4.5 which is native E mount. About $600 used at KEH.<br> Echo the observation that the Canon 24-105 is not one of the best of the L lenses.<br> Depending on your requirements (ultra-wide or long) the 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 II, or 70-200 are all sharper than the 24-105.</p>

<p>Good points.. I have noticed that the 6D burst rate is significantly less than my former, antique 40D. AF is better though particularly when it gets dark (I never use AI servo or area AF, I just use the center point - I guess I'm an antique as well). The 6D can AF where I can hardly see.</p>

<p>I know this topic has been beaten to death over the years, and DxO Mark rates the 5D Mk 1 higher than the 7D.</p> <p>I used a 40D for a long, long time (just recently managed to sell it.. for $200.. it's probably the best bang for the buck I ever got in a camera given how many years and frames went through it). Am now using a 6D which is a significant step up. The main thing is full frame and high ISO, everything else is just gravy to me.</p> <p>Now I'm looking at the tunnel-vision dim viewfinder 550D (used) that I got to replace the 40D and feel short-changed. The control system is also different enough after many years with the 40D (the 6D is also different, but less so, and it has a rear QCD and top LCD).</p> <p>Am now thinking, I can sell off the 550D for basically no loss, add another $200 and get a 5D Mk 1. I know the 5D Mk1 is even older than the 40D but shares a similar control UI. It is full frame and has a big viewfinder. But.. for the same price as a 5D Mk 1, I can get a used 60D or 7D Mk 1 which would both be improvements over the 40D and have much newer sensors than the 5D Mk 1. And the 5D Mk 1 is sluggish, has a small off-color LCD, and the mirror is known to fall off.</p> <p>Also, since I sold off my 10-22mm, I don't have a wide-angle lens on the crop body (my widest lens is now the 16-35 f/4L). Does it make sense to stay with APS-C, or should I just get the old 5D Mk 1? (I don't want to spend for a used 5D Mk 2 or 6D, as I already spent quite a large sum on the 6D and 16-35 recently).</p>

<p>Since I got the 28/1.8 for its shallow DOF, I wonder if the 24/1.4L would be a better choice (probably better corners wide open?) there's a vast gulf in terms of price and size though..</p>

<p>I like the 28/1.8<br> It is a bit soft wide open but at f/4 it can challenge the $1000 16-35/4L IS (I have both).<br> At f/1.8 it has decent bokeh, good enough for environmental half body portraits.<br> The build quality is great, almost L class, and the USM / FTM are nice. Not so sure about the DXO rating, I used the lens comparison chart on the-digital-picture.</p>

<p>I'd go for the 16-35/4. Yes it's expensive but it's jaw droppingly good. Probably too good for a 5D classic, actually.</p>

<p>I am a big fan of super wides. I used a 10-22mm on a crop sensor body on a couple of trips and I loved it. I have now moved to the 16-35mm on an FF body, which has the same zoom range.</p> <p>I used the 17-40 on a trip in 2011, and it wasn't wide enough for my liking. For this reason the 15-85 or 17-55 are better bets (the 15-85 covers a more useful range since it's wider, and I love wide).</p> <p>I survived two long holidays with the 10-22mm and didn't feel any lack (oh, except at 10mm the 10-22mm will cast a huge dark blob shadow when using the built-in flash). The 10-18mm STM is probably a better bet due to its IS.</p> <p>The 10-18mm STM and the 50mm together are probably good enough. Use the 10-18mm for 70% to 80% of the trip, and the 50mm as a "poor man's telephoto" - after all it is 80mm equivalent on crop sensor which is telephoto enough.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I ended up with a 135mm f/2 L. It's right smack in the middle of the 70-200 range.</p> <p>I suspect it would be a bit long for general use on FF (I was looking for the 85/1.8 or 100/2 but somebody was selling the 135 for a decent price) and there's a huge gap from the long end of the 16-35 and 135. The 135 is also about the same size and weight as the 16-35.</p> <p>But then again I always wanted this bokeh monster, so I guess I'm just doing self-justification..</p>

<p>That web site is pretty useful! didn't know one could pixel peep resolution charts with such interactivity nowadays..<br /> After some poking around, I discovered that the old 24-85mm USM is better at 85mm f/5.6 than the 24-105 STM. And at 70mm f/5.6 it's about the same as the 24-105 L (!) at least to my eye. Now that's a cheap alternative..</p> <p>Also, as I mentioned in the original post, I already have the 16-35L IS, which is an amazing lens in my own initial testing. So no 16-xxx zooms for me.</p>

Hmm it does seem that the 24-105 STM is at least as good as the L, which admittedly is one of the lesser L's. I can get a used L for the same price as a new STM though.

<p>Thanks David, I am indeed starting to come around to the conclusion that the 70-200/4L is a good choice. I'd probably go for a used, non-IS version, since bright light travel won't really require IS (and I want to keep my cash out to the $500 range, since I just splurged on the 16-35 IS).</p>

<p>After seeing for myself the comparative corner performance of my 10-22 versus new 16-35L IS, I don't think I want to consider a consumer zoom like the 24-105 STM. I do value low weight, but not at the expense of performance.</p>

<p>I started another thread to cover the long end - http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dLGU</p> <p>I have never had the chance to use a 100mm prime on an FF body (back when I had the 100mm macro, I had a crop body) and 160mm equivalent is way too tunnel-vision-ish for my taste as a general-purpose lens. Maybe on FF it's less limiting, but I suspect 85mm is easier.</p> <p>I've had lots of experiences where a lens was "too long" and getting the subject into the shot a royal PITA.</p>

<p>This is a segue from my other question regarding an ultra-wide travel lens (I ended up with the 16-35/4L IS).</p> <p>Current plan is the 6D, 16-35, and 28/1.8 (which is really light and really fast, even though the FL is redundant).</p> <p>I now want to have a somewhat longer lens for those times when I need a bit more reach. I realize that the 24-105/4L IS or 24-70/4L IS are actually "better" all-around travel lenses because they combine moderate wide angle with decent reach, however I <strong>love</strong> the 16mm focal length and 24mm is simply no substitute.</p> <p>I do have a 70-200/2.8L non-IS but as some contributors have pointed out, it is one heavy piece of kit.</p> <p>I want to keep costs moderate but I want to stay away from non-Canon lenses.</p> <p>The 70-200/4L is moderately priced, of decent weight (about the same as the 24-105 and 16-35/4), I can probably get one used cheaply, but it's 100% redundant with my existing lens and doesn't have shallow-enough DOF.</p> <p>The 24-105 is an option as well, I can live with the weight, there's a good deal of overlap with the 16-35, and from experience it doesn't knock out backgrounds that well at 105mm either.</p> <p>The 24-70/2.8 and (old) 28-70/2.8 weigh a good bit more than the 16-35, 24-105, or 70-200/4, but a good bit less than the 70-200/2.8.</p> <p>Any other suggestions or options? for the record here's my "weight list"<br /> <br /> 70-200/2.8 1.4kg<br />70-200/4 0.7kg<br />16-35/4 0.62kg<br />28/1.8 0.31kg<br />10-22/3.5-4.5 0.39kg<br />28-70/2.8 0.88kg<br />24-105/4 0.67kg<br />tamron 28-75/2.8 0.51kg</p> <p>There's also the Tokina 28-70/2.8 AT-X at 0.6 kg and Ken Rockwell seems to like it (whatever that is worth). It's also dirt cheap. I have the Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 (also warmly lauded by Ken Rockwell...) and.. well the raspy AF motor and lack of FTM really ruin the user experience. I have no idea about the optical quality (hardly ever used mine) but did I mention it was cheap?</p> <p>For a portable travel tele-zoom, I can probably live with poor user experience, since I do have a good tele-zoom (that I don't want to carry around Germany).</p>

Ended up getting the 16-35/4L. It wasn't much bigger in person than the 10-22 and not much heavier either. Also got an Optech strap just in case. I hear the point about "long enough for portraits" but in my own experience I always ended up using the 10mm end of the 10-22. I almost never thought "gee I wish for more long end" but there were times when even more wide end would be useful. 35mm isn't particularly long, so I guess if I really want a long end I'd lug the 70-200. But I probably won't, based on past trips, a lens that long simply isn't that useful. Now I wish I hadn't sold my 85/1.8...

<p>Stefan, that is an excellent idea! these OpTech straps are fantastic, I should get a couple.</p>

<p>The Canon 11-24 is totally out of the picture. I'm not spending that much..</p>

<p>Just read up on the Tamron 15-30. The B&H price ($1200) is actually higher than the local price in Singapore for the Canon 16-35/4L IS (about $970). And while the Tamron is f/2.8, has FTM and a USM drive equivalent, it won't have in-camera vignetting and CA correction. And it's a Tamron. And it is larger than the 16-35/2.8L II (let alone the f/4 version).</p> <p>I'm not really after ultimate image quality, so the manual focus and T/S lenses are overkill. I do care about convenience, so I don't want manual focus. As for the 10-18 STM, I realise it has been getting a lot of mileage (claimed better performance than the 10-22, and cheaper) but the build quality leaves something to be desired. Anyway seems it's down to a used 17-40 or a new 16-35. I'm leaning toward the latter, because IS is useful, it's slightly wider, and I'm a specs geek. Or just keep the darn 10-22 and save some money.</p>

<p>Robin, I tried the 70-200/4L IS before buying the 70-200/2.8 non-IS. The f/4 versions don't knock out the background as much as I'd like.</p> <p>Kenneth, as I already have the 70-200/2.8 non IS, I wouldn't buy the f/4 version or any of the 70-300's. The problem really is weight. If I bring that big white lens, maybe I should bring two bodies, since swapping lenses is a hassle, and with two cameras my wife and I can have one each. So 70-200 on the 6D (alternate with the 28/1.8), and 10-22 on the 550D.. zero $$ to spend!</p> <p>One side benefit of bring the 550D.. I don't need to carry a dedicated flash. Why Canon left the pop-up flash off the 6D beggars belief.</p>

<p>The dedicated crop-sensor lenses have a flange at the back which physically prevents them from mounting on a full frame body.</p> <p>Some people hack off this flange but it results in the mirror striking the rear of the lens at certain focal lengths (the wide ones).</p> <p>I suspect Nikons work because their flange registration distance is (much) larger than Canon EF, so there's room for the mirror to clear.</p>

<p>I forgot.. I also have a Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 which I thought would be my cheap wide-angle. However... 20mm is not as wide as 16mm (equivalent), there's no Full-Time-Manual or USM drive (the focusing sounds like Ratchet & Clank) and there's no lens correction profile either.<br> So I guess it's down to the 16-35/4 or the 17-40/4 if I'm on a budget.<br> Another thing.. Aside from the UWA zoom and the 28/1.8 (which is pretty small) I'm wondering if I should also bring a telezoom. My long Canons are the 70-200/2.8 and a couple of long (180mm+) primes of which only the zoom is appropriate but which is quite heavy (to put it mildly).<br> I've only brought the 70-200mm on one trip and it proved fairly useless (but that was on a crop body) so am wondering if I should take on the additional massive bulk.<br> Also I love the 10-22! maybe I should just bring the 550D for it... zero cost. The only challenge is the high ISO is compromised and I've gotten addicted to the clean sensor on the 6D.</p>

<p>.. incidentally i cannot consider a 4/3 or fixed-lens compact. None of them go as wide as 16mm, and they have terrible high ISO compared to the 6D.</p>

<p>My wife and I are planning an epic (Castle) Road trip in Germany in a couple months. I need to decide what travel lens to use.</p> <p>We have a 6D body and a 28mm f/1.8 prime. Normally I would say that's all the lens one could possibly need (moderate wide angle, very fast). But.... I have a 10-22 EF-S and the 16mm equivalent is quite addictive! I love this focal length range...</p> <p>sadly the 10-22 won't fit on the 6D.</p> <p>I could bring the 10-22, but that would mean packing another body. From past experience, nothing ruins a nice vacation faster than heavy camera gear dangling like an albatross around one's neck.</p> <p>I carried a 17-40L around Europe a few years ago, and it was an OK lens. Back then I used a crop-sensor body, so the 17-40L was boring. And not fast enough at the long end to produce nice bokeh (the 28/1.8 does much better). I could live with another 17-40 (sold the last one) as they are relatively cheap.</p> <p>However..... there's the new 16-35/4L IS. Objectively pretty darn perfect, except (1) it weighs as much as the 16-35/2.8L; and (2) it is more expensive - not prohibitively so, but I can get a used 17-40 for less than half the price (used 16-35/4 are rare and the savings is not worth it versus buying new).</p> <p>Another downside of both the 17-40 and 16-35 is that they weigh a bit too much for my taste (the 17-40 + 40D a few years ago was a real pain in the neck). However I don't want to bring a crop sensor body and the 10-22 because the high ISO of the 6D is so useful.. (and the 28/1.8 is not that useful on a crop body). And.. the smartphone integration on the 6D is perfect for travel selfies...</p> <p>Any thoughts on this?</p>

<p>You could also try looking for an APS-C Sony NEX body. The newer ones have focus peaking. For example<br> https://www.keh.com/354426/sony-nex-7-black-digital-camera-body-24-3-m-p<br> They also have substantially less back-focus than DSLR's because they have no mirror.<br /> Best of all there's the full frame A7, A7S, A7R which are a poor man's Leica M9. Still not cheap though.<br> I have a Canon 40D with a 3rd-party split-image viewfinder which I use for manual focus. It got old pretty fast. I realized that I was only using those manual-focus lenses because I couldn't afford the Canon L glass equivalents, but since getting the L glass, I never use the MF lenses anymore.<br> The 3-digit Canon bodies have a rather dim and low-magnification pentamirror, so very undesirable for manual focus.</p>

<p>I don't think the bay of fleas is a good place to buy stuff cheaply. They take 15% off the top, so you can get better deals from KEH and so forth. I did get a Canon 300/4 for $500 a few weeks ago.. but that's bad luck for the seller (the lowest on KEH was $600).</p>