Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 29 Jan 2018 (Monday) 20:33
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Bit of a lens conundrum

 
Alveric
Goldmember
Alveric's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Canada
Jan 29, 2018 20:33 |  #1

I've an oncoming trip to Europe and am in need of a zoom lens that will cover the 24-70 mm range. The ideal purchase is of course the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM—and then I wouldn't have to start this thread—but that might not be doable, and thus I'm forced to look at two alternatives: the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM or the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM.

Anyone knows if Canon got around to fix that focus shift/RSA problem (external link) on newer copies of the EF 24-70mm f/4L? Apparently, barring that issue, the lens in question has better quality than the EF 24-105mm f/4L II.

Those of you who own these last two lenses, I'd appreciate your input.

Of course, whilst the trip is the main pressing reason for the purchase, I do want the new lens to join my professional toolbox: for now I've covered said focal length range with primes, but a zoom is long overdue—changing lenses isn't always ideal.

Thanks in advance.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
28,962 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Jan 29, 2018 20:42 |  #2

Why not the 24-70 mkI? It's a tremendous value now.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Jan 29, 2018 20:45 |  #3

gonzogolf wrote in post #18552110 (external link)
Why not the 24-70 mkI? It's a tremendous value now.

Yes, of course!

I am very surprised that the OP did not even mention this in his post. . He didn't list it as one of the alternatives he is considering, nor did he dismiss it. . Just no mention of it at all ....... which is quite strange indeed.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Alveric's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Canada
Jan 29, 2018 21:06 |  #4

I can't find version I of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L new anymore, hence I didn't consider it.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
Myth-informed
18,008 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Joined Mar 2009
Issaquah, WA USA
Jan 29, 2018 21:21 |  #5

What about the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (Gen2) or Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Art?


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Jan 29, 2018 21:22 |  #6

Alveric wrote in post #18552126 (external link)
I can't find version I of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L new anymore, hence I didn't consider it.

Oh, no need to go buying new. . There is usually pretty poor value in new lens purchases. . Buying used ensures that you get the best value for your dollar.

In fact, I've bought a good deal of lenses, and the only lens I regret buying is the one lens that I bought new. . Never again.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
22,712 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Joined May 2005
silicon valley
Jan 29, 2018 22:51 |  #7

24-70L II > 24-70L f4 > 24-105L II.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, 35mm ef-s macro, 430exII, gitzo 3542, gitzo GM4562, markins Q10, markins Q3, kirk, really right stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
7,216 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Post has been edited 23 days ago by Bassat.
Jan 30, 2018 01:28 |  #8

24-105 STM? Optically superior to the 24-105 original. Inexpensive, but a tad slow to focus. Fine for travel, but I wouldn't shoot action with it.

Edit:
Better IS, too.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ P
Goldmember
James P's Avatar
Joined Aug 2008
Chatham, Ontario, Canada
Jan 30, 2018 07:35 |  #9

If it's of any help at all, I've been to Europe five times. I found that 24mm on a full frame camera wasn't wide or tall enough. My last two trips I used a 16-35 and was much happier with the results.


1Dx - 5DIII - 40D - Canon 24-70LII, 100L macro, 135L, 16-35L, 70-200 f4 and 100-400L lenses

- "Very good" is the enemy of "great." Sometimes we confuse the two.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Alveric's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Canada
Jan 30, 2018 12:26 |  #10

James P, what were you shooting mostly? I plan on taking my 24mm TS-E for architecture, but for everyday stuff, I plan to have on me the 24-70mm and the 70-200 mm at all times. This is a field trip to Berlin, by the way. It encompasses two classes for my Geography major, and we're staying away from the tourist places.

Yes, something wider than 24mm would be nice to have, my only worry is that then I won't have anything to cover the range from 35mm to 70mm, and I'd have to be swapping to my nifty-fifty all the time.

I'll take a look at the 16-35mm nevertheless, as it appears that the EF 17-40mm f/4L (which I once owned and liked) isn't getting good reviews.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
DaviSto's Avatar
Joined Nov 2016
Abuja Nigeria
Jan 30, 2018 14:54 |  #11

James P wrote in post #18552279 (external link)
If it's of any help at all, I've been to Europe five times. I found that 24mm on a full frame camera wasn't wide or tall enough. My last two trips I used a 16-35 and was much happier with the results.

I agree ... if you want to capture the ancient churches and cathedrals and colleges and castles that account for a lot of the architectural differences between Europe and America, you really need a UWA. A lot of older buildings in historic locations, especially in urban settings, are in cramped locations where you have to be able to shoot very wide to capture all (or even a sufficiently representative 'some') of them. Shooting interiors is another reason why a UWA lens would be a great choice.

I rely on the 17-40L ... but that's partly just down to what I feel I can afford. It has served me well. But one of the 16-35Ls (probably the f/4) would be better.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
DaviSto's Avatar
Joined Nov 2016
Abuja Nigeria
Jan 30, 2018 15:02 |  #12

Alveric wrote in post #18552489 (external link)
I plan on taking my 24mm TS-E for architecture, but for everyday stuff, I plan to have on me the 24-70mm and the 70-200 mm at all times.

The tilt-shift lens would be another way of dealing with cramped locations because you have the option of blending images quite precisely to greatly broaden your angle of view. It's also VERY sharp.

I wouldn't discount the 17-40mm. Yes, it's a bit old and it's out of fashion. It's one of those lenses that attracts a lot of cheap internet hits from people who have only heard about it from other people who, themselves, have never used it. But it's very light, relatively cheap, and will still deliver excellent images. Other options would be 'better' but they would also be heavier and more expensive.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
...never exercised in my life
Lbsimon's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Boston, MA
Jan 30, 2018 19:31 |  #13

DaviSto wrote in post #18552696 (external link)
I agree ... if you want to capture the ancient churches and cathedrals and colleges and castles that account for a lot of the architectural differences between Europe and America, you really need a UWA. A lot of older buildings in historic locations, especially in urban settings, are in cramped locations where you have to be able to shoot very wide to capture all (or even a sufficiently representative 'some') of them. Shooting interiors is another reason why a UWA lens would be a great choice.

I rely on the 17-40L ... but that's partly just down to what I feel I can afford. It has served me well. But one of the 16-35Ls (probably the f/4) would be better.

I second it, all of that. I always take my 24-105 plus the 17-40. Big buildings, and no room to back out, so an UWA is something very useful. I found that 70 mm at the long end is too restrictive, while taking a long telephoto, even a light one like 70-200 f/4, is something that I can easily live without when there.

I have been to Europe many many times (family visits and tourism), and in fact going there again in a couple of weeks. It will again be 5D4, 24-105, and 17-40.


5D Mark IV | 6D | S110
EF 17-40L | EF 24-105L (two) | EF 70-200L F4 IS | EF 100-400L II | EF 85 1.8 | EF 50 1.8 STM | Canon 1.4x III | Canon 1.4x II
Yongnuo 685 | Nissin Di622 M2 | Nissin Di422

LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Alveric's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Canada
Post has been last edited 22 days ago by Alveric. 2 edits done in total.
Jan 30, 2018 19:38 |  #14

Hmm, okay, looks like the ultrawide route is the one to take. I was thinking of the 24-70mm as that covers even the portrait range, meaning little to no lens changes, but I've never been there. Guess I can always have the nifty-fifty in my pocket: one advantage of such a 'toy-like' lens.

Thanks for the input, mates. I'll decide 'twixt the 17-40mm and the 16-35mm as the trip gets near. My current funds now are for the flights. :-(


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
...never exercised in my life
Lbsimon's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
Boston, MA
Jan 31, 2018 09:27 |  #15

Alveric wrote in post #18552932 (external link)
Hmm, okay, looks like the ultrawide route is the one to take. I was thinking of the 24-70mm as that covers even the portrait range, meaning little to no lens changes, but I've never been there. Guess I can always have the nifty-fifty in my pocket: one advantage of such a 'toy-like' lens.

Thanks for the input, mates. I'll decide 'twixt the 17-40mm and the 16-35mm as the trip gets near. My current funds now are for the flights. :-(

If you are tight on funds (who isn't), the 17-40 may fit the bill, as it runs at around $400 to $500, vs. much more expensive 16-35.

But I would not go to Europe with this lens as the only lens in the bag. You will definitely need a normal zoom, like 24-105 or 24-70, and I as wrote earlier, my preference is 24-105.


5D Mark IV | 6D | S110
EF 17-40L | EF 24-105L (two) | EF 70-200L F4 IS | EF 100-400L II | EF 85 1.8 | EF 50 1.8 STM | Canon 1.4x III | Canon 1.4x II
Yongnuo 685 | Nissin Di622 M2 | Nissin Di422

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,326 views & 6 likes for this thread
Bit of a lens conundrum
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00094 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.07s
Latest registered member is gkefalas
817 guests, 317 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017