Which lens to compliment 24-105?

Hello all, on Monday my new Canon 6D and 24-105 f4L lens arrive and I'm considering getting one more lens to compliment the 24-105. I've narrowed it down to three possibilities, and I'm hoping for a little input or direction. The three contestants are the 70-200f4L IS (which I had once before and LOVED!)...the 70-300f4-5.6L IS (never seen one in person, but I've read it might be every bit as good as my coveted 70-200 f4 IS)...and the last is an odd-ball, the Zeiss Distagon T* 18 f3.5 ZE.

All three lenses are right in the same ballpark as far as price is concerned, and I've read nothing but rave reviews about each of them. What I'm wondering, is which would most effectively compliment my 24-105, especially considering these two lenses will likely be the only two I can have for quite some time. My uses include everything from a walk-around, to landscapes, to travel, etc. The 70-300 range is incredibly appealing from a focal length standpoint, but on the other hand, 18mm is something I just can't duplicate on the wide end with a 24. It probably wouldn't be on the camera near as often, but when an ultra-wide is needed, it seems like nothing lese will do.

Anyways, I'd love to hear some thoughts on which way you folks would vote if you were limited to a 2 lens set-up for a while and the 24-105 was already one of them.

" My uses include everything from a walk-around, to landscapes, to travel, etc."

Doesn't appear you need telephoto per se, so my vote would be going into ultra wide.

A lot of it would depend on what sort of framing you like to do of your subjects (tighter, looser, etc). Personally, I would go with the 70-300 in that combination for when you want a tighter frame and may not have the room to get close(r); 24 is pretty wide, although not UW on the 6D, so the utility of a telephoto there would seem more likely to be useful.

Heya,

To me, the 24-105L already does what you're asking for.

So for me, a compliment would be a shorter, faster aperture prime so that you have that option which you lack.

Otherwise, the 24-105 really already covers what you intend to shoot rather well.

Maybe throw a 35 F2 (old one) or 50 F1.4, and Rokinon 14mm in the bag, and you're set.

Do you really feel you need 300mm for the landscape, travel and walk around you do? It's possible of course, such as areas with distant large things, like mountain areas, and travel that includes a lot of zoo or close range wildlife stuff, and 300mm walk around works if you like to spy on people in the city, versus you're obvious standing on the beach. Depends on what you're doing!

Very best,

I appreciate the feedback so far, Gents. I realize that "walk-around" was a little vague. My previous 70-200f4l IS was on my 5DII at least 95% of the time. I guess you could say my "vision" of what I like to shoot leans way more towards telephoto than medium or wide. I enjoy taking zoo picture with the family, but also shots on my motorcycle touring of my buddies riding towards me, my dogs running towards me, etc. The tele lens comes in very handy for those kind of shots.

There is not a doubt in my mind that if I got the 70-200 or 70-300, it would be on my camera far more than an ultra-wide would. If only the decision were that simple. Because as has been said, I can't duplicate an ultra-wide shot with the 24-105, but I can, to some extent, take shots that I would with a 70-200.

Jedi5150 wrote in post #17560383
I appreciate the feedback so far, Gents. I realize that "walk-around" was a little vague. My previous 70-200f4l IS was on my 5DII at least 95% of the time. I guess you could say my "vision" of what I like to shoot leans way more towards telephoto than medium or wide. I enjoy taking zoo picture with the family, but also shots on my motorcycle touring of my buddies riding towards me, my dogs running towards me, etc. The tele lens comes in very handy for those kind of shots.

There is not a doubt in my mind that if I got the 70-200 or 70-300, it would be on my camera far more than an ultra-wide would. If only the decision were that simple. Because as has been said, I can't duplicate an ultra-wide shot with the 24-105, but I can, to some extent, take shots that I would with a 70-200.

Hi!

Hmmm... decisions, decisions...

Here's what I'd do, and what I typically do. I'd write down a list of the candidate lenses, and how I'd use them. Also, I'd write the prices and other relevant characteristics. Where would you use the 18? Where would you use a 300mm focal length? Yes, to some degree you have decent reach with the 24-105, and you can crop to "zoom". At 300mm, you can crop to zoom even more. Do you need f/4 all the way to 200, or can you get by with f/5.6 at longer focal lengths? I actually use a mind map to collect and review information as it is easier to manipulate than a list, but you could do a list (on a computer or by paper and pen/pencil) and that would work. Also note strengths and shortcomings you find in reviews you trust. What tradeoffs are acceptable? Which are not? Usually for me, one lens will stand out.

All that said, from what you have indicated, you would really use a 70-200 or -300. I have both the 24-105 f/4L IS and the 70-200 f/4L IS, and use them all the time on my 5DM3. I also have a Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6. In the last month I was looking for a sports lens and examined the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS and IS, the 70-300 f/4-5.6L, and the two 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 offerings, Mk I and II.

I love my 70-200. It is sharp and sufficiently fast to shoot sports. It doesn't have a long reach, but it is good. But then you already know how well it works. When I was looking for a sports lens, a review of the 70-300 indicated the IQ at long focal lengths wasn't as good as it might be. Still, it may be sufficient for your needs. On wide angle, I don't use my 12-24 a lot and when I do it spends a fair amount of time at 24mm, but there are times when only wide angle will do.

I just did a bit of checking. My lens use is as such across almost 35,000 photos, based on counts through Lightroom:
24-105: 53%
70-200: 42%
12-24: 5%

How would I vote? I'd go for the 70-200. It's a solid lens that has excellent IQ, and I'd take that over the extra reach of the 70-300. Additionally, I'd use the 70-200 far more than the 18mm, though I'd keep it in the queue as a next lens.

Hope this helps!

Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts Graham. You have a very logical approach to deciding, and I'll give it some thought for sure.

As for the 70-200 vs 70-300, every review I've seen has said that the 70-300 is every bit the equal, and in some cases surpasses the IQ of the beloved 70-200....even in regards to it's legendary sharpness. I do like that the 70-200 doesn't extend. If I decide to go with one of the two telephoto lenses, it is not going to be an easy choice.

That's a tough one. I spent the last 8 months traveling Canada, the States, and Mexico by motorbike and had to limit what I brought with me. I ended up bringing three lenses - my 11-16, 15-85, and 70-200/4L. Obviously I'm shooting crop, but it works out similar to your situation where my 11mm is equivalent to your 18, 15-85 is similar to 24-105, and 70-200, well, it's a bit longer on my body. What I'm getting at is that I used all of them a lot and I would have a hard time not having either the UWA or the Tele. I think if I had to choose, though, I would keep the 70-200. It's just such a good lens that does so much. I shoot a lot of portraits with it, sports, some wildlife, some landscapes, and on and on. I absolutely love my UWA for land/city/nightscapes, but I could pull that off with my 15-85 and do some stitching if I want.

In the end, as you very well know, it's all personal preference and choice, I just thought I'd lay out my thought process. Again, though, I absolutely love playing with UWA. Maybe tomorrow I'll re-read this and come to the UWA conclusion instead. Maybe 70-200 for now and save a bit of money up for the Rokinon 14mm or something.

Jason

Jedi5150 wrote in post #17559353
Hello all, on Monday my new Canon 6D and 24-105 f4L lens arrive and I'm considering getting one more lens to compliment the 24-105. I've narrowed it down to three possibilities, and I'm hoping for a little input or direction. The three contestants are the 70-200f4L IS (which I had once before and LOVED!)...the 70-300f4-5.6L IS (never seen one in person, but I've read it might be every bit as good as my coveted 70-200 f4 IS)...and the last is an odd-ball, the Zeiss Distagon T* 18 f3.5 ZE.

All three lenses are right in the same ballpark as far as price is concerned, and I've read nothing but rave reviews about each of them. What I'm wondering, is which would most effectively compliment my 24-105, especially considering these two lenses will likely be the only two I can have for quite some time. My uses include everything from a walk-around, to landscapes, to travel, etc. The 70-300 range is incredibly appealing from a focal length standpoint, but on the other hand, 18mm is something I just can't duplicate on the wide end with a 24. It probably wouldn't be on the camera near as often, but when an ultra-wide is needed, it seems like nothing lese will do.

Anyways, I'd love to hear some thoughts on which way you folks would vote if you were limited to a 2 lens set-up for a while and the 24-105 was already one of them.

Jedi.
The 24-70 and 70-200 lenses are staples of the industry for a reason. Like me, you have the 24-105 f/4 L IS. We all know what that can produce and the versitily it provides. Even when I eventually grab the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II, the 24-105 will remain in my bag.
Regarding your choices, go with your heart, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS.
Eventhough I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II, and yes it really is all that, I still have the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS. And for good reason. Smaller, lighter with superb image quality. If my f/2.8 L IS Mark II needs service, I know I have the good old f/4 L IS in the bag. As the years go by, I really like the option of traveling light. The f/4 L IS really shines when called upon.
You already know how the f/4 L IS performs.
Go grab your old friend!

Get the 70-300. If you're going to shoot a slow zoom, might as well get better reach.

I have the 70-300 L and I love it! I find it very sharp. Ask yourself how many times were you at 200mm on the 70-200 and wishing for more reach? That will be a good indicator if you need a 70-300.

70-200 f4 IS on here right now for $750. Buy it! Killer deal on a killer lens.
(No affiliation to the seller)

I was in your situation a few months ago. However, I was on the fence with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 70-300L. I went with the 70-300L and the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 for the exact same cost of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

The extra focus of the 70-300L, and the added range of the 10-22 was well worth my decision.

In my opinion, the 70-300L is a great lens; therefore, I believe you will love it.

I will throw a curveball in and say the 16-35 IS instead for an UWA prime.
If you are cruzing on you bike, you can get killer UWA shots of the riders as they pass you.
With IS, Servo focus, and a fast shutter speed. You then have to ability to zoom in a bit closer at 35mm.

Although I don't shoot over 100mm,
I would chose the 70-200 IS and get a 1.4x or 2.0x later you you need more reach.
Buy used, and each could be sold off separately as well if things change.

I think two things... previously you kept the 70-200 95% of the time, so that was either by far the lens that gave you the best IQ, or you just really love that focal length.

Of your shots with the 70-200 are most of them @ 200 or close to it? That would suggest you like the reach, and the 70-300 might be better. If a lot of your shots are well short of 200, then maybe the constant aperture and pretty light weight of the 70-200 f/4 are more in your ball park.

Since you pose the question though, of what two lenses I would use if I had the 24-105 as one... I'd be really torn. My only other choice would be the 100-400 (or 70-300 in your budget), because I shoot a lot of outdoor youth sports and need the reach. The kids sports are the most important thing I shoot (to me), but if I excluded that one item from things that I shoot, I would probably get the sigma 50 1.4 ART. Even though my zooms are about 80% of my pictures overall (looking at Lightroom data like Graham was), my most favorite pictures, and ones that go on walls, are about 75% shot with my primes. And I don't even have the primes I want. I've got Canon 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, and I could get both of those for the budget of the other lens.