FF lens reccomendations

I'd like to ask for some comments regarding reasonable quality (but not all over $2000/lens) lenses for FF.

I'm tired of the various shop-sites that list lenses but don't say EF or EF-S in the title, and then hide that they are -c sensor lenses down in about 3 links deep on the lens page.

I'm interested in doing mainly landscapes, some macro (already have the Canon 100 mm 2.8L IS USM lens), small wildlife (bird on branch, scrub animals and such), portraits.

Zero interest in sports, maybe some pre-focussed bird landings, etc.

I've seen some conflicting reports on Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 - it's billed as excellent quality, better than the similar Canon offerings, but then they say Tokina has crap quality control and some of the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 tested were so bad they had to return them.

How can someone be expected to know which way to go with stories like this?

I'm thinking like this:

Tokina 16-28mm f2.8
or
Canon 10-20 (i think.. basically a decent wide zoom)

24-105 L Canon (forget f-stops)

100-400L Canon (I find teles very good for landscapes, they compress hills into an almost abstract pattern. Most people only think of wides for landscapes..)

My main worry is the wide - I want a upper-middle to lower-maximum quality for this lens.

The mid lens is more of a quick draw lens for general work, the long for the birds and animal shots, the macro will do Macro and portraits nicely.

Any suggestions and comments on the lenses you own that are great or rubbish? Don't be too scathing with the latter, just say if you'd not recommend it and why (I don't want to start a flame thread!)

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is really good for 35mm sensors and is under 2k. This lens has good reviews from users.

Regards,

David

Pretty sure the 10-22 doesn't work on FF. So your options are 17-40 or 16-35.

davidc502 wrote in post #13101845
The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is really good for 35mm sensors and is under 2k. This lens has good reviews from users.

Regards,

David

Thanks for that..

But then I read this as a review at the place where I'm likely to purchase from:

"Razor sharp, no doubt about it, but...

It has the worst auto-focus of any Canon lens I've ever used, making it often useless in low light, even using a flashgun to assist matters. It endlessly hunts and fails to lock on, in conditions and on subjects where my 24-105 doesn't miss a beat.

Distortion is also pretty terrible at 16mm. Comparing it to shots I took with the Sigma 12-24 i sold to buy it, it loses badly. This is the lens that convinced me it's time to save for a Nikon"

And then there's the Canon EF 17-40mm f4 L USM which is only f4, that has very good reports too, with one person only saying "Rather soft at the edges at f4 at 17mm on a full frame Canon. Otherwise pretty good." - all the others say how great it is, except another who says it has massive distortion and fringing - he sent his back (QC problem, maybe?).


There's not that many options for the FF cameras, is there?!

huntersdad wrote in post #13101963
Pretty sure the 10-22 doesn't work on FF. So your options are 17-40 or 16-35.

Yes, you're right - I was being generic with the lens lengths (sorry) - it's a -c sensor only.

There's only two I could find for FF from Canon.. what are Tokina like? They had a good name for 35mm film cam lenses, but I've heard that their QC leaves a little (a lot!) to be desired.

I also don't think much of Tamron lenses, have they improved much yet?

Take a look at this review. I trust this source.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Fluffbutt wrote in post #13101964
There's not that many options for the FF cameras, is there?!

Zeiss 21/f2.8 ZE
Zeiss 50/f2 mp ZE
Canon 70-200/f2.8 MKII

Unfortunately money is always the stumbling block that reduces most folks options regardless of the format.

Regards & Good Luck,

Silverfox1 wrote in post #13102078

Zeiss 21/f2.8 ZE
Zeiss 50/f2 mp ZE
Canon 70-200/f2.8 MKII

Unfortunately money is always the stumbling block that reduces most folks options regardless of the format.

Regards & Good Luck,

Ahh yes... money.. $12800 for a f4 800 mm lens... LOL..

I also must mention - I don't actually like primes that much. they give fantastic images at fast speeds, but they are too limiting for me with positioning (I'd rather zoom a little than keep moving to find the sweet spot for a landscape, only to find it's right on the bullant nest..).

Davidc502 - Many thanks for the link, a very well written and objective review. He says good and bad points to the lenses - I just don't trust the sites that gush over how fantastic something is (Rockwell, mainly, does that.. I think he's on Canon's payroll?)

I've pretty much decided on:

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM (I can get this with a 5d2)
and
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM

(and the 100 mm L I already have)

If I find I need wider then later on get the 16 - 35 (?), maybe, but I think the 24-105 will do me OK.

Comments? I do appreciate all your help with this.

Fluffbutt wrote in post #13102666
I've pretty much decided on:

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM (I can get this with a 5d2)
and
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM

(and the 100 mm L I already have)

If I find I need wider then later on get the 16 - 35 (?), maybe, but I think the 24-105 will do me OK.

Comments? I do appreciate all your help with this.

Do you want to improve your photography? or your signature for bragging rights?

There is one lens to be in everyones bag, it is a 50mm. Really, there is a reason it is called standard... and it somehow makes you a better photographer... just what i have seen...

Pink Avocado wrote in post #13102845
Do you want to improve your photography? or your signature for bragging rights?

There is one lens to be in everyones bag, it is a 50mm. Really, there is a reason it is called STANDARD... and it somehow makes you a better photographer... just what i have seen...

(Why is there always one rude one?) Lets face it, you don't actually have to own a lens just to say you have it in your sig, AND I don't even have a sig..

I don't like primes, and I have no use for a single dedicated 50mm lens. All of my cameras in the past have come with one, it was always either sold or thrown out or stuck in a cupboard.

I don't expect a lens to improve my photography. An 'L' series lens MIGHT improve the images, but it's up to ME to improve my photography.

I chose these as they seem to best suit want I want to do - something a 50mm will never do.

Fluffbutt wrote in post #13102883
(Why is there always one rude one?)

I don't like primes, and I have no use for a single dedicated 50mm lens. all of my cameras in the past have come with one, it was always either sold or thrown out or stuck in a cupboard.

I don't expect a lens to improve my photography. An 'L' series lens MIGHT improve the images, but it's up to ME to improve my photography.

I chose these as they seem to best suit want I want to do - something a 50mm will never do.

I am not being rude, its really how I feel man. I am not a zoom nor am i a prime guy. I am a person that shoots with what is on the camera. Really, I feel that the 50mm focal length opens up a LOT of creativity. and for a really(really) good price.

I suppose the caps would imply yelling, but it was for emphasis. I will change that.


And, with only one exception, all of my best photos have come from my 50mm F1.8. not shabby for 85 bucks!

For a full-frame camera, you really can't go bad with a 17-40mm for your wide angles. I don't know what it is, but it really is just an "ehhh" on crop but amazing on 35mm. I stayed away from the 16-35L since I didn't need the speed for my wide angle shots and saved some money. But I would first see if the 24mm is wide enough for your taste before plunging for another lens.

Pink Avocado wrote in post #13102931
I am not being rude, its really how I feel man. I am not a zoom nor am i a prime guy. I am a person that shoots with what is on the camera. Really, I feel that the 50mm focal length opens up a LOT of creativity. and for a really(really) good price.

I suppose the caps would imply yelling, but it was for emphasis. I will change that.

And, with only one exception, all of my best photos have come from my 50mm F1.8. not shabby for 85 bucks!

It was the 'bragging rights' comment that annoyed me - like I said, I don't have to have a lens to have it in my sig, if I wanted to..

Wunhang: Yes, i thought of the 'lesser' speed one too - I don't need a fast lens for landscapes.
I think I'll see what the 24-105 is like, 24 might me enough for my needs. At least with FF is IS 24mm, not 24 x 1.6 !!

Fluffbutt, we could go on and on about the crop factor.

*disclaimer*
Before anyone else jumps in and turns this discussion into something it isn't, we are talking about the full frame 24mm field of view versus the field of view of the 24mm on a crop sensor. 24mm is 24mm no matter what camera it is on.