Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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 07 Apr 2008 (Monday) 10:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Buying my first L glass, cant descide

 
robbyh
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
190 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
     
Apr 07, 2008 11:46 |  #16

Canon Soldier wrote in post #5277687 (external link)
hmm, maybe if you want to shoot sports, and its usually sunny, go for the 70-200 f/4L, save the extra 500

You know I was thinking about the f/4 being that its lighter and cheaper. But the lower f stop I know will come in handy.
But being that this is just a fun hobby cheaper might be better, in terms of the wife not hurting me..lol..


Flickr (external link)
500px (external link)
6D, 24-105 f/4 L | YN 565 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Perry ­ Ge
Batteries? We don't need no...   . . . or cards.
Avatar
12,266 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 289
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Apr 07, 2008 11:48 |  #17

burnxkr wrote in post #5278231 (external link)
Get the 70-200 f 4 non IS. Its sharper than the 2.8 and spend the rest on a 50mm 1.4.

Sharpness is way overrated and makes people obsessive. You've gotta be one hell of a pixel peeper or chart shooter to need or want something sharper than a 70-200 2.8 (in general, not you in particular). A normal person wouldn't be able to tell the difference, especially after some proper sharpening (see link in my sig). The 2.8 is just a better lens. Why? Because f/2.8 is a whole stop faster than f/4. Simple.


Perry | www.perryge.com (external link) | flickr (external link) | C&C always welcome | Market Feedback & Gear | Sharpening sticky | Perspective sticky

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robbyh
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
190 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
     
Apr 07, 2008 11:48 |  #18

perryge wrote in post #5278212 (external link)
Neither. You can get a sweet set of faster, sharper, lighter, cheaper primes for equal or less.

Over $1000 bucks for a 24-70L? Come on, you can get a Sigma 30 1.4 and 85 1.8 for that price with over 400 bucks left in the bank. Pair those with your 50 1.8 and you're set. f/2.8 is for chumps.

$1000 for a 70-200 2.8? Again, psh. 200 2.8L/135L, 85 1.8, and again, you're set.

never thought of those..But you make a valid point..
Time to browse around here for some info on those..


Flickr (external link)
500px (external link)
6D, 24-105 f/4 L | YN 565 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Perry ­ Ge
Batteries? We don't need no...   . . . or cards.
Avatar
12,266 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 289
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Apr 07, 2008 11:49 |  #19

robbyh wrote in post #5278251 (external link)
You know I was thinking about the f/4 being that its lighter and cheaper. But the lower f stop I know will come in handy.
But being that this is just a fun hobby cheaper might be better, in terms of the wife not hurting me..lol..

If you want light, cheap, and large apertures, some of the primes I listed are the way to go.

Edit: you beat me to it :lol:. Those primes will blow the zooms out of the water, by the way. The speed will give you low-light ability and DOF control like you wouldn't believe, and at f/2.8, they're all better in IQ than the zooms wide open. Of course, you can't even open the zooms up to f/2 or faster if you needed to...and then they're lighter...cheaper...fa​ster. Give me an extra stop or two of light over the ability to zoom anyday.


Perry | www.perryge.com (external link) | flickr (external link) | C&C always welcome | Market Feedback & Gear | Sharpening sticky | Perspective sticky

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
robbyh
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
190 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
     
Apr 07, 2008 11:54 |  #20

Yea currently my 50 spends the most time on my camera. Only down side is lack of adjustability quickly. But I guess if you plan accordingly you dont really need too much zoom ajustibility.

lol well guess my descision just got more involved.


Flickr (external link)
500px (external link)
6D, 24-105 f/4 L | YN 565 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Perry ­ Ge
Batteries? We don't need no...   . . . or cards.
Avatar
12,266 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 289
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Apr 07, 2008 11:58 |  #21

A good set of primes, if you learn to use them, are infinitely more versatile than a slower zoom imho. I've never, ever felt like I've missed a shot because I needed the ability to zoom. I have on many occasions though, back when I used zooms, lost a lot of shots because I couldn't open my aperture up another stop or two. And that is why I shoot almost exclusively with fast primes. Not to mention price, weight, IQ, bokeh, and all that wonderful stuff.

YMMV


Perry | www.perryge.com (external link) | flickr (external link) | C&C always welcome | Market Feedback & Gear | Sharpening sticky | Perspective sticky

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mlav
Goldmember
Avatar
1,227 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Detroit, USA
     
Apr 07, 2008 12:00 |  #22

70-200 2.8. After you get it, you start to see things in the viewfinder in a whole new way. You actually fill the frame. It rocks.


http://mlav.com (external link)http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mlavander/sets/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JoYork
Goldmember
Avatar
3,079 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2007
Location: York, England
     
Apr 07, 2008 12:14 |  #23

perryge wrote in post #5278262 (external link)
The 2.8 is just a better lens. Why? Because f/2.8 is a whole stop faster than f/4. Simple.

I can get keepers at 1/30 or 1/15 of a second from my f/4 lens thanks to the IS. And the lens only weighs roughly half as much as the f/2.8 version.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.


Jo
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ben_r_
-POTN's Three legged Support-
Avatar
15,893 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Apr 07, 2008 12:15 |  #24

I say go with the 24-70 first as it will be a closer replacement to your kit lens and is a wonderful lens at that.


[Gear List | Flickr (external link) | My Reviews] /|\ Tripod Leg Protection (external link) /|\
GIVE a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. TEACH a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Apr 07, 2008 12:31 |  #25

17-55 EFs if you want a zoom.
Don't obsess over "what lens is sharper" or "L lenses". Get what you need.
(You have the kit lens now, what focal lengths dou you shoot at most?)

JoYork wrote in post #5278430 (external link)
I can get keepers at 1/30 or 1/15 of a second from my f/4 lens thanks to the IS. And the lens only weighs roughly half as much as the f/2.8 version.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

True, but IS doesn't help when the subject moves ;)


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JoYork
Goldmember
Avatar
3,079 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2007
Location: York, England
     
Apr 07, 2008 12:38 |  #26

Indeed :)


Jo
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Radek
Member
96 posts
Likes: 105
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Warsaw/Poland
     
Apr 07, 2008 12:43 |  #27

I'd chose neither of these two lenses. I think 17-55 IS would fit best your needs - it's very versatile lens with excellent optics. L-lenses are really great (used to have some of them) but not necessarily for amateur use. Canon 70-200 L-lenses are excellent (especially for shooting sport) but not really very useful as one-and-only -lens solution.


6D + 5d2 + 24-70 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 IS II + 24 1.4 + 50 1.4
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/mrozku/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bubble
Goldmember
Avatar
3,382 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Yorba Linda , CA
     
Apr 07, 2008 12:47 |  #28
bannedPermanent ban

perryge wrote in post #5278212 (external link)
Neither. You can get a sweet set of faster, sharper, lighter, cheaper primes for equal or less.

Over $1000 bucks for a 24-70L? Come on, you can get a Sigma 30 1.4 and 85 1.8 for that price with over 400 bucks left in the bank. Pair those with your 50 1.8 and you're set. f/2.8 is for chumps.

$1000 for a 70-200 2.8? Again, psh. 200 2.8L/135L, 85 1.8, and again, you're set.

geez..you never get tire of this prime crap eh?


Canon 5D II, 7D | 16-35L II | 24-70L | 24-105L | 50L | 85L II |  iMac 27 | Redrock Micro DSLR Cinema Bundle | Elinchrom Ranger RX-AS Kit| Elinchrom Digital Style 1200RX/600RX | Turbo SC |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sfordphoto
Goldmember
2,564 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Apr 07, 2008 14:07 |  #29

dawei213 wrote in post #5277680 (external link)
You have the kit lens. Pick the zoom lens. In the end, you'll probably end up getting both.

They're both zoom lenses, lol


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeeTee
Goldmember
Avatar
1,286 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: London, UK
     
Apr 07, 2008 14:40 |  #30

If you're really new do as I did and go for the general zoom, it'll get your feet wet and give you an idea of which end you like (wide, mid, or tele).

I know I did and I still have my 24-105 years later as my primary.



5DmkII & 85L
and a bunch of other glass that rarely sees the light

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

4,598 views & 0 likes for this thread
Buying my first L glass, cant descide
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is yycPhotog
803 guests, 286 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.