User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: which L lens should be the first to buy?

  1. #1
    Member 135i's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Apr 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    which L lens should be the first to buy?

    After doing a bit a research--Have a bit of an itch to buy a L series Canon lens.
    Just not sure which on.
    I have 85mm f/1.8 and a zoom lens--18-200mm f 3.5-5.6-canon on a 550d body

    Wondering which L LENS --- ? EF 16-35 mm f/2.8 L
    EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS
    or others?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    sounds like you've decided to get an L before deciding what kind of focal length you're after! what kind of photography do you prefer? a 100-400mm would greatly expand your focal length range
    ____________________________________________________________________
    canon 7d, 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 24-105mm f/4.0, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, 50mm f/1.4

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter
    135i's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Apr 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would like a great lens to take holiday architecture--NYC, HK , Rome , as well as full body portraits--im off on holidays next friday--Only 11 days to go----yipee--5 1/2 weeks
    cant wait....

    Maybe when I have the cash again get a lens that allows my wife to take action pictures of me playing--Im a fast bowler (Cricket) --cricket season restarts in October. So not sure if the 18-200mm canon that I have at moment will take close up pics from the boundary?
    What do you think?

  4. #4
    Ausphotography Site Sponsor/Advertiser DAdeGroot's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Feb 2009
    Location
    Cedar Creek, Qld, Australia
    Posts
    1,890
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    16-35 is nice and having f/2.8 is useful, esp in low light, BUT the 17-40L will get you a similar field of view at half the price with only one stop slower (f/4) and has cheaper filters (77mm compared to 82mm on the 16-35).
    Dave

    http://www.degrootphotography.com.au/
    Canon EOS 1D MkIV | Canon EOS 5D MkII | Canon EOS 30D | Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM | Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM | Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM | Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L & some non-L lenses.

  5. #5
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,438
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Given that it's an L lens you're after AND your camera is a 1.6x crop sensor AND you're interested in architecture AND in full body portraits, then the 24-105 would end up being a bit too narrow IMO (equiv. 38-170 mm approx). At least the 16-35mm would give you a wider field, being 25-56mm equiv. But having said that, you might find the second one still a bit narrow for architecture, especially for inside architecture. (???). Am.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  6. #6
    Member tomtom1's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    17-55 f/2.8 given you have a crop body. It's not L but the name of the lens shouldn't really be a consideration.

    24-105 or 24-70 if you are getting ff later.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    27 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    650
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    16-35 or 17-40 if it has to be an L... or 10-22mm if the priority is to take travel pictures in Europe (mine lives on my camera when travelling and taking pictures of architecture, monuments etc; you really need wider than 16mm for that on a cropped body).
    Richard
    Canon 5D4 | 11-24 f/4 L | 24-105 f/4 L| 100-400 L II | 85 f/1.2 L | 100 f/2.8 L macro | MP-E 65 f/2.8 macro | 1.4x | 580EX2 | MT-24 Twin Lite | Manfrotto | Photoshop CS5


  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    04 May 2008
    Location
    Temora
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd be looking at your current photos on seeing what is your most used focal length. I'd then go for something in that range. Consider if the current lens is a limiting factor. I would caution about getting a 70-200 f4 unless you plan it mostly for outdoors. That said a f4IS is very sharp, though I'd suggest much too short for cricket. If you have load of cash 3.4k at least then get a new 70-200 f2.8 mk2 reports are these are taking 2x convertor very well so will then do double duty in the cricket season. Its easy to talk about but seriously be careful you pick the right one for you. Also think if you are going to go full frame later, then best not to look at EF-S gear best of luck.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Dec 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,051
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    dont disregard the Sigma 10-20 .... thats one funky lens and a little cheaper than the Canon 10-22

    The 16-35 would never be a bad buy, particularly if you plan to upgrade to full frame in the future.

    One tip I will give you, an ultra wide lens (Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22) is HEAPS of fun to travel with .. your photos will be a whole heap more interesting.
    Hi Im Darren

    www.darrengrayphotography.com

    SONY A850 (FF)] + GRIP | SONY A350 (APS-C) + GRIP | SONY NEX-5 +16 2.8 + 18-55 E-MOUNT LENSES | CZ 85 1.4 | 50 1.4 | 28-75 2.8 | 70-200 2.8 | 2 x 42AMs | 24" imac | LR | CS4 | + loads of other junk


  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Jul 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    559
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Sigma is a great lens, I had one and was extremely happy with it! The 16-35 II is a great lens also, very nice but alas its not cheap, so you need to decide if you really need that extra stop with it and the extra IQ it provides.

    You've got a bit of a mixed bag lens wise, in all honesty I think if you are going travelling a wide will be best but you've stated you want to get an L, any wide angle L isn't wide on a 550D so it's a bit of a problem. Unless you are getting FF in the next 12 months or so get something that will be wide on the 550D would be the go I'd say.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    01 Sep 2008
    Location
    Redcliffe/Cairns
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
    16-35 or 17-40 if it has to be an L... or 10-22mm if the priority is to take travel pictures in Europe (mine lives on my camera when travelling and taking pictures of architecture, monuments etc; you really need wider than 16mm for that on a cropped body).
    +1 is a great walkabout lens
    Photoshop CS4 and lightroom 2 (lI know a little bit but am learning )
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated
    Feel free to re work my images, just please let me know what you did, and how you did it so I can learn
    Stu .
    my website
    my gallery

  12. #12
    Member carr0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2009
    Location
    **Suburb/Town Required**
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would say from the choice that you have listed above, the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS would be the way to go. This is my every day walk around lens and i love it. I don't think you will go wrong with this lens. However for portrait photography, i love using the 70-200 f/2.8.

    Good luck with your purchase.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jul 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    659
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For the price of the 16-35, you could almost get a 24-105 and the sigma 10-20, I have both, and if I only want to go light, these are the two that i take, also, if you weren't worried about having L glass, the sigma 24-70 2.8 and 10-20 will definitely be under the price of the 16-35 alone.
    Jayde

    Honest CC whether good or bad, is much appreciated.
    Love and enjoy photography, but won't be giving up my day job.

    Flickr

  14. #14
    Member David's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2009
    Location
    westbury
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dulvariprestige View Post
    For the price of the 16-35, you could almost get a 24-105 and the sigma 10-20, I have both, and if I only want to go light, these are the two that i take, also, if you weren't worried about having L glass, the sigma 24-70 2.8 and 10-20 will definitely be under the price of the 16-35 alone.
    +1 on this idea: have had the Sigma 10-20 and later got the Canon 10-22mm and did not notice much difference on my 1.6 crop body 50D: great for wide angle landscapes and architecture work and the 24-105mm is a very very good walk about IS lens which is very sharp and reliable I have found (particularly hand held) across the 24-105mm range which brings in the idealised portrait lengths on your crop body between 85-130mm , perfect. Plus you don't to lug the weight and awkward carry of the 70-200mm 2.8 around all day -

    The only concern would/could be not having the 2.8 faster apeture indoors or when you are shooting moving subjects cf the 4.0 but I find most of the time bumping up the ISO a stop or 2 covers the deficiency pretty well.

    You might want to look at the 16-35mm later on but to begin with I would go with the 10-22mm Sigma and Canon 24-105 IS USM pairing. I found them both to be very good travel lenses.
    Comments and CC welcome..

    Gear: Canon 6D & 1Ds Cameras l Canon EF 17-40mm F 4.0 L USM l Canon EF 24-105mm F4.0 L IS USM l Canon EF 70 - 200 F4.0 L USM Lenses I Manfrotto Tripods I Adobe Photoshop CS6 l Lightroom 3.0 I Lee Filters



    "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust 1871 - 1922

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Dec 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,051
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Most times you wont shoot wide open at UWAs anyway .. no need when shooting landscapes, casue most times youll be on a tripod anyway and handheld shutter speeds arent imperative.

    Personally I dont think fast apertures on UWA lenses is a must have.

  16. #16
    Member
    Threadstarter
    135i's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Apr 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    what great advice guys
    thanks heaps
    Should I buy here online r via shop (Im in Melbourne) or in HK (i leave oz next sat morning and spend 3 days in HK)--then off to europe for 5 weeks and then lastly 1 week in NYC before return to reality

    or NYC

    where would be cheapest--for 10-22 mm and 24-105mm-canon with filters i guess
    ?

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Dec 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,051
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    B&H or Adorama in NYC would be good value at the moment with the AUD so strong. But I guess thats at the end of your trip, so that kinda sux ..

    Id wait and buy in HK ... that way theres no risk with anything "mysteriously going out of stock" like they regularly do in some of these online stores. Buy in HK and then you got it in your hot little hand and ready to fire it up !!

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jul 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    659
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you buy online, i'd make sure it's an Australian shop that you're dealing with, and that they have stock on hand, you'd hate it if your lenses didn't turn up in time.
    I've dealt with Cameras direct on the gold coast, and Discount Digital Photographics in Brisbane, both sell grey products and are great to deal with.
    ATM, cameras direct are showing the sigma 10-20 for $697 and the 24-105 for $1,355, both in stock

  19. #19
    Member
    Threadstarter
    135i's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Apr 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks again
    is there any diff b/w sigma and canon lens (eg 10-22mm)?
    and what lens cover size do i need for both of these?

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jul 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    659
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the biggest difference between the two is the price, a $1,000 for the canon, as David mentioned, he didn't notice between the two, I'm not sure if he meant in IQ or the extra 2mm you get with the canon, both lenses use 77mm filters and have quick focus drives, I've never used the canon, but I'm very happy with the sigma, I've used it on fast moving objects and never had any problems with focusing issues.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •