Have a fund but which 2 lens to get?

I have a 5Dc and just sold my last lens (24-70L)

I decided to continue this hobby and I`m looking for a fast zoom lens or a set of primes.

I shoot:
- Landscape 50%
- Urban 40%
- few portriat/ macro 8%
- sons taekwondo 2%

For me 24mm is wide enough.
I like a lens that produce great IQ and maintain great details.

I tried:

Sigmalux- Don`t like the focal length.
Canon 100mm f2 - back focus and returned it. Focal lens is great and fast aperture too! Build quality seems not good compare to Sigma. I like the weight and exterior build of Sigma. The Canon lens is like a toy!

24-70L - no complaints except heavy for walkaround. Great sharp lens and captures details. 70mm is a bit short. Thinking getting 1 prime to compliment it.

I heard 24-105L is great but not as sharp (detail-wise) like the 24-70L.

I`m close on pulling the trigger for a brand new 24-70L again ,but is there other alternative? IS version is coming too.

Should I wait before ordering? Bing will end soon and would like to take advantage of it. HELP!!!

Actually 24-105 is sharper than 24-70.
If you're on a budget (after selling 24-70 ) - consider Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 + Canon 17-40mm f/4 for landscapes. This will run you: $350 + $600.
I wouldn't wait for the IS version, as nothing is confirmed yet. But if you're a big fan of carrying just one - do it all lens, then go for 24-105. Sharpness/IQ is very good, and IS is a big help as well.

Maybe the 100mm macro if you liked the 100mm focal length? Only $500 and very sharp. It may seem like it's not built well but from what I've heard they used very strong plastic to keep the weight down so handholding is easier which helps a LOT at 1:1

Is it really true that 24-105 IQ is the same as 24-70l? I notice from sample lens pic, the 70 produce great details than the 105

I would say get the 24-70! =)

haha you tired two lenses that i love and returned both!

i'd say for walk around 35mm is great. can you go for a 35L?

you can pair that up with a 85mm f1.8 or something, if you don't like th 100mm f2. the 100mm is great as well.

if you want wide, sigma has a 24mm f1.8

if you are willing to MF and deal with manual apeture, it's contax-zeiss all the way!

get the 85mm f1.8 and the 85L

AWGD8 wrote in post #10409008
Sigmalux- Don`t like the focal length.

What the hell is a "Sigmalux"? I don't see 2 primes that cover everything you do, shame the 24-70L is too heavy, but having one I understand.

jr_senator wrote in post #10409781
What the hell is a "Sigmalux"? I don't see 2 primes that cover everything you do, shame the 24-70L is too heavy, but having one I understand.

LOL! with 4,811 posts, I should be the one asking the Sigmalux?

Sigma 50mm f1.4

Seriously, seems like the 24-70L covers 3/4 of what I shoot. It has wide 24mm , Mid 35mm, semi tele 70mm , does decent Macro, fast enough but not too fast aperture 2.8

Just freaking heavy and when you use it as a walk around lens, you kinda protect it not to get bump!

I`m going to order tonight but here are my last options:

24-70L = $1165 a

or

17-40L + 100mm 2.8 L Macro = $1370 after BING&MR Rebate

Option 2 ?

AWGD8 wrote in post #10409008
I have a 5Dc and just sold my last lens (24-70L)

I decided to continue this hobby and I`m looking for a fast zoom lens or a set of primes.

I shoot:
- Landscape 50%

I generally use UWA to tele (17-400 mm) for landscape photography, with WA to short tele (24 - 135 mm) doing the most of the coverage.

street: 50 to +/- 200 mm
architecture: 17 to +/- 100 mm

portrait: depends on the type of portait; mostly 50 - 135 mm
macro: 50 - 135 mm, occasionally up to 400 mm

How is the lighting? Is 2.8 enough? Do you need fast AF? How great is the distance to the action?

Ok.

Based on the above, I would say that roughly, 24 to 135 should cover most of it, possibly with 1 faster lens for action photography.

AWGD8 wrote in post #10414892
I`m going to order tonight but here are my last options:

24-70L = $1165 a

or

17-40L + 100mm 2.8 L Macro = $1370 after BING&MR Rebate


Option 2 ?

What about 24-105L plus 100 F/2.8 non-L Macro? The latter, with focus limiter on, does focus quite fast. Or even 24-105L with 135 F/2.8 SF, mayeb with a few extension tubes? You could even consider 24-105L with 200 F/2.8L, but that may be above your budget I guess.

Another option could be 24-105L and 70-200 F/4L (non-IS version), or 17-40L with 70-200 F/4L, maybe even the 70-200 F/4L IS. With the 70-200 non-IS you may even have enough left for, e.g. a 50 F/1.4, or 85 F/1.8, or try another 100 F/2.

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks for all the advice. I did try the 24-105L today in a local store and found the bokeh is not great due to f4 . When I focus on a subject at 24mm and 105mm and the backround is busy or colorful, it hurts my eyes. Seems like I got spoiled by my old 24-70L smooth bokeh and sharp details.

The guy handed me a demo of 24-105L and seems like the tele side is not sharp. You think the 100 2.8 L macro will give a creamy bokeh? I think I`m sold with this lens, but still need fund for a better zoom.

I heard the 17-40L is not sharp around the corner. BTW, I like the Canon 100 f2 and maybe the 100 Macro non is, but looks and feels like it`s cheaply made compare to Sigma primes, which has a solid feel and a bit heavy.

It sounds like you really like the 24-70, why not stick with that and something like the 135 or 200 f/2.0 primes for your indoor/portrait shots?

Bokeh is very harsh sometimes on 24-105. The kind of photography you do - I'd say get 24-70mm again.

AWGD8 wrote in post #10415499
Thanks for all the advice. I did try the 24-105L today in a local store and found the bokeh is not great due to f4 . When I focus on a subject at 24mm and 105mm and the backround is busy or colorful, it hurts my eyes. Seems like I got spoiled by my old 24-70L smooth bokeh and sharp details.

The guy handed me a demo of 24-105L and seems like the tele side is not sharp. You think the 100 2.8 L macro will give a creamy bokeh? I think I`m sold with this lens, but still need fund for a better zoom.

I heard the 17-40L is not sharp around the corner. BTW, I like the Canon 100 f2 and maybe the 100 Macro non is, but looks and feels like it`s cheaply made compare to Sigma primes, which has a solid feel and a bit heavy.

If you do like the 24-70L's sharpness and bokeh, that is the one to get, for a zoom anyway.

The 17-40L has less sharp corners at 17-20 mm, but that is the extreme corners. Unless you do architectural photography with it at 17 mm with parts of a building in the extreme corners and enlarge the photograph to 16 X 24s, you won't notice. Furthermore, at 24 mm it is sharper than the 24-70 at 24. However, it is only F/4, not F/2.8, and its bokeh is not as good as the 24-70's.

The 100L has very good bokeh, the non-L macro has average bokeh, although at macro distances that is a moot point: most blur becomes good looking by then. It is a different story with regard to portraits: there you'd want the 100L over the non-L macro. BTW, I do not think that the Canon USM primes are made any worse than the Sigmas, but that may be just me.

From what you are saying, i guess you'd need to get both a 24-70L and a 100L macro. Maybe that is what you need to save up for in that case.

Kind regards, Wim