InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16949387
^ To MJ
Have you considered the 24L
You state that your not alway happy with your lenses wide open. I can assure you even at f1.4 my 24L
is sharper than my 50L
and at f1.8 or f2.0 it is great.
While it is unknown how real world comparisons will be to the new 16-35 f4 IS, it is a much faster lens.
Each time I've been in NYC or any tightly packed space and have wanted to take a wide photo I've always found my 24-105L to not be wide enough. Especially after using a 10-22 for many years.
And I know for a fact that when I'm walking the streets of Beirut, Byblos, Sidon and Tyre, I'm absolutely going to want wider. That's why I ordered the 16-35 4L IS.
Although a great lens, 24L will not suit my needs.
Your 24-105 lens is a great workhorse lens, and is well respected by many.
However, it has both barrel distortion and pincushion distortion that should be corrected in post.
Sometime newer optics offer better quality and less post processing work.
Maybe renting a 24-70- f2.8 is an option. Stepped down to the same f4.0 should be sharper.
I would love to have the 24-70 2.8II. I haven't read a person say anything bad about it all. Being sharp edge to edge is also something awesome to have.
However, it's $2,200.
I completely agree with you in regards to the distortion of the 24-105L and it does honestly bother me a bit, especially on the wide end. I find myself adjusting the distortion quite a bit so that it's not as extreme and more acceptable. It's definitely work and I agree that I'd love to get rid of that as part of my work flow.
However, is it annoying enough to be worth $1,600 (after selling my 24-105L), I don't know. It also doesn't have IS, which is a reason why the f4 max aperture isn't as much of a burden as it may seem. Especially on a 5D3. That extra 2-3 stops really helps.
Lastly your choices between the 70-200L and the 135L seem like apples to oranges to me.
What are you expecting to shoot. Something where you cannot change your position? = Zoom.
Or something like a nice portrait with a creamy background, or a distance scene. = 135L
I shoot a lot of everything. People, Landscapes, Automotive, Urban.
I realize the differences. But a lot of you here use the 135L, and so I wanted to get your opinions in regards to these different uses and if you'd still advise the prime over the zoom. They are both some of Canon's absolute best lenses in terms of IQ so I don't think you'd be hurting either way depending on what you need.
What I liked about the idea of the 135L is that I'd have to use my legs and/or be forced to just deal with being in the spot that I was in and work around it. I've done this in the past when using my Kenko 1.4x tc on my 85 1.8. With the 135L, I could have f/2 @ 135, or f/2.8 @ 189.
Way back in the day, I owned the 200 2.8L II for a couple of days before I returned it to B&H. Dumb move, but I was too much of a noob to realize what I had. Since then, I've never owned a telephoto lens. My 24-105L is the longest I currently have, so in reality, is that any different from using a prime if you're constantly at 105mm? And will 135mm even be worth it since it's only 30mm longer?
So at that point do you go 200 2.8L II or 70-200 4L IS?
This is just my personal advice based on the options you gave.
If I was taking the trip myself, I would pack the 16-35 f4.0 IS or the 24L II
The 50L for standard and the 70-200L f2.8 for occasional portrait and distance shots.
I alway have the ability to separate the subject and use them in low light; or stop down for added sharpness.
70-200 2.8L non-IS or IS?
I know I can pick up a 70-200 2.8L (non-IS) for just about the same as its 4L IS brother. But Idk that the extra stop outweighs the amazing optics and IS ability of the latter.
Thanks for all your opinions/input and please keep them coming if you have more! I love hearing the thoughts and having the discussion.
Dj R wrote in post #16949455
does he have the automatic lens correction turned on, on the mark iii?
I don't know if I do, so I'll have to check that out! But regardless I usually perform corrections in ACR. Is one better than the other?
The 16-35L, giving you 16-23, is far FAR wider than 24.
Yes the 24 is normal wide. And should be fine on a vacation.
But it's not ultra wide. That is one area, where a prime isn't the answer, b/c the 14L and the 17L are such niche items, and soooo expensive.
Looking back, I was NEVER using the 24L for portrait work, it was ONLY used for low light (night), my 50L will work there. I obviously was using the 24L for wide work, but most of the time it was real estate, cars, and landscape/travel.... so the 16-35L 2.8II is my answer. I would have gotten the 17-40L on the last round of refurbished gear sale from canon, 1 year warranty, $525, free shipping. but that sale is over. If there was a L prime in the 16mm range that cost roughly the same as the 16-35 2.8II, I would have gotten it.
The 17-40 f4 would have been fine for what I am using my wide lens for. But I found a guy who wanted to trade lenses, so it was perfect, now I have the 16-35 2.8II.
Having gone from 16-35L 2.8II to the 24L 1.4II and then back to the zoom (only b/c of real estate projects), I'm content. I was NOT doing the real estate work when I originally made the swap to the prime.
I completely agree with this. There's no way the 24 is wide enough, and there's a huge difference between 16-23 as you've mentioned.
The Sigma 50 art, looks promising. but I will never go there. I had one Sigma lens and the AF sucked. I am a canon CPS member. I like knowing that I can get my gear cleaned and repaired for little to no charge, AND FAST, I mean 1 or 2 days fast.
I've been on the same boat as you in regards to Sigma and their older lenses. I've never owned one for that reason alone. But I've read all the stories and comments about how crappy the AF was. However, with this new one, many many people are posting great results and usability. Also, the photo examples and lens comparison tools don't lie. At 1.4, the 50L definitely isn't as sharp. Yeah, we might be pixel peeping, but still. I think we could definitely notice the difference between one and other.
Canon offers a 1 year warranty, Sigma offers a 4 year warranty, so that's good to have.
But as you mentioned, the ability of having CPS membership and with me being a 45 minute drive from Canon's Jamesburg facility is incomparable. Definitely a HUGE bonus.
Outside of getting my 16-35 4L IS, I don't know if anything has been clarified yet! LOL
I can clear shop and sell 28,50,60,85,24-105,10-22,17-50, see what I get and potentially pick up a 24-70 2.8II and come out of pocket for either Σ50A or telephoto prime/zoom.
I can clear shop, but keep the 24-105L and pick up the Σ50A and come out of pocket on the telephoto prime/zoom.
I can clear shop, but keep the 24-105L and 85 1.8 and pick up the telephoto prime/zoom.
Going with this means I will have to accept and deal with the softness of the 85 which idk I want to do mainly because I want to take the best photo possible SOOC.
Any other thoughts/opinions???