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 03 Dec 2009 (Thursday) 20:44
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "35L or 24-105L or something else"
35L
82
67.2%
24-105L
36
29.5%
Other (explain)
4
3.3%

122 voters, 122 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

35L or 24-105L?

 
bsaber
I have no idea what's going on
Avatar
3,536 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Dec 03, 2009 20:44 |  #1

By late January, I hope to have enough money for either the 35L or 24-105L. Not sure which one to get so I want some opinions. If you look at my current gear list, you'll see that I already have the 24-70L and 35 f/2. So why get either a 35L or 24-105L?

The 35L is faster, quieter, and built better. The 1.4 and USM is enough to make me want to replace the 35 f/2. The 24-105L is because I want a good light weight walk around lens. The constant f/4, IS, and extra range is what I want.

Some stats from the last 4 or 5 months worth of pictures show that I often shoot around the 35mm range even when using zooms (35mm is my favorite FL). Top 3 FL is 35mm, 200mm, and 50mm. Top 3 ISO is 1600, 3200, and 400. These stats are quite biased. It doesn't include all my pics.

So if you were in my position, which would get first? I do plan to get both lenses eventually.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Replaces
Goldmember
Avatar
1,079 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
     
Dec 03, 2009 20:46 |  #2

i'd go for 35L.
i never liked f/4s.


"If you don't walk today, you have to run tomorrow."
Nikon, then Canon, then Nikon again. But I still love POTN over NikonCafe. :p

Nikon D90, MB-D80, Nikon D600, MB-D14, Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G, Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dorman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,661 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
     
Dec 03, 2009 20:47 |  #3

Use the savings for the 35L and sell/trade your 24-70 for the 24-105? You could also sell the 28-135 for some extra coin, maybe grab a tamron 28-75 if you're afraid to lose the F/2.8 on a standard zoom



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheHoff
Don't Hassle....
Avatar
8,804 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Dec 03, 2009 20:48 |  #4

35L is a nice lens and it will open up a ton of possibilities for you as you have nothing faster than f/2 now. Especially since you shoot 1600+ a lot.

I had the 24-105 and got annoyed with the distortion at both ends of the range. It also isn't lightweight or small -- it gets longer at the shortest FL.


••Vancouver Wedding Photographer  (external link)••| [gear list] | Latest blog: 5 steps to stopping image loss (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KRUSH
Goldmember
Avatar
1,257 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
Dec 03, 2009 20:58 as a reply to  @ TheHoff's post |  #5

I don't understand how you came to compare these two lenses.

35mm f1.4L


The presence of the observer changes the nature of the observed...
Canon EOS 5D Mk II | Gear List & Feedback
For Sale: Canon S5 IS |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
3,008 posts
Gallery: 91 photos
Likes: 872
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Dec 03, 2009 21:01 |  #6

Sell 28-135 and 35 f2, then
Buy 24-105 and 35 L
You may find that you don't need the 24-70 and can sell that as well.


Nikon Z6, 24-70mm f/4 S, 70-200mm f/4 G VR, 35mm f/1.8 S, 85mm f/1.8 S, FTZ, Flashpoint/Godox Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bsaber
THREAD ­ STARTER
I have no idea what's going on
Avatar
3,536 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Dec 03, 2009 21:15 as a reply to  @ jrscls's post |  #7

KRUSH wrote in post #9131196 (external link)
I don't understand how you came to compare these two lenses.

35mm f1.4L

I'm not. Just wondering which I should go for first.

TheHoff wrote in post #9131152 (external link)
35L is a nice lens and it will open up a ton of possibilities for you as you have nothing faster than f/2 now. Especially since you shoot 1600+ a lot.

I had the 24-105 and got annoyed with the distortion at both ends of the range. It also isn't lightweight or small -- it gets longer at the shortest FL.

I have a 50mm f/1.4 but you're right. I do shoot a lot of low light.

Dorman wrote in post #9131149 (external link)
Use the savings for the 35L and sell/trade your 24-70 for the 24-105? You could also sell the 28-135 for some extra coin, maybe grab a tamron 28-75 if you're afraid to lose the F/2.8 on a standard zoom

I plan to sell the 28-135 IS and 35 f/2. But I'll only have enough for one or the two by Jan.

No way in hell am I going to get rid of the 24-70L. LOVE that lens. I just want something better than the 28-135 for general walk around and travel which is where the 24-105L comes in. The question is which to get FIRST. I'll most likely own both by the end of next year :D

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bsaber
THREAD ­ STARTER
I have no idea what's going on
Avatar
3,536 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Dec 03, 2009 21:16 |  #8

I should also mention that most of the time when I'm in low light it's for work. And in most cases, flash is allowed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bear ­ Dale
"I get 'em pregnant"
Avatar
4,866 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 742
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Australia
     
Dec 03, 2009 21:22 |  #9

I'd go for a 135


Cheers,
Bear Dale

Some of my photos featured on Flickr Bear Dale (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bsaber
THREAD ­ STARTER
I have no idea what's going on
Avatar
3,536 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Dec 03, 2009 21:28 |  #10

ConDigital wrote in post #9131325 (external link)
I'd go for a 135

I thought about it but it's not a FL I use very often. Did two events in Nov that made up the majority of the pics that I used in the analysis and in both events I couldn't get very close. Which is why I said the stats are biased. I should do another analysis on ALL the pics from a 4 month period and see what comes up :)

This lens has been on my radar though. If you were in my position, why would you get the 135?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
6,796 posts
Gallery: 112 photos
Best ofs: 5
Likes: 2160
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Asked to leave Paradise...
     
Dec 03, 2009 21:41 |  #11

35L.

Killer in low light. 'Nuff said :) .


xgender.net (external link) Miss Julia Grey (she/her/Miss)
OST, API, MPP & MLI explained (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marloon
Goldmember
4,323 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC.
     
Dec 03, 2009 21:46 |  #12

i say sell your 350D, 28-135, 35 f2 to generate the cash faster.


I'm MARLON

Former Canon Platinum CPS member

5DII • 24L • 35L • 50L • 85L • 135L • 200LIS

Wordpress Blog (external link)Youtube Channel (external link)Twitter (external link)Gear List (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bsaber
THREAD ­ STARTER
I have no idea what's going on
Avatar
3,536 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Dec 03, 2009 21:48 |  #13

Marloon wrote in post #9131452 (external link)
i say sell your 350D, 28-135, 35 f2 to generate the cash faster.

My sister uses the 350D and she'll kill me if I sell it :D I will definitely be selling the 28-135 and 35 f/2 though. No question about it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Collin85
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,164 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Sydney/Beijing
     
Dec 03, 2009 21:51 |  #14

bsaber wrote in post #9131130 (external link)
Some stats from the last 4 or 5 months worth of pictures show that I often shoot around the 35mm range even when using zooms (35mm is my favorite FL).

I'd go 35L due to that. Make no mistake, it is a hard choice, since for your situation, the versatility you'd get by upgrading from a 24-70L to a 24-105L as a walkaround is higher than what you'd get from going 35/2 to 35/1.4, since you say most of the time you need low-light, you're permitted to use flash. But since you naturally go for 35mm quite often, I'd suggest the 35L.

G'luck Ron.


Col | Flickr (external link)

Sony A7 + Leica 50 Lux ASPH, Oly E-M5 + 12/2
Canon 5D3, 16-35L, 50L, 85L, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EcoRick
Goldmember
1,863 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Dec 03, 2009 21:55 as a reply to  @ Collin85's post |  #15

If your not going to sell the 24-70L, I'd get the 35L. I'd also consider the 135L. See what range you shoot and see if you'd use it. It's a great lens with a short MFD and produces great results.


Gear: Canon 1Ds MkII, 35L, 85L, 135L, 24-105L

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

4,817 views & 0 likes for this thread
35L or 24-105L?
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 BobNoyes
792 guests, 300 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.