New Travel Lens, What Should it be?!

hey guys, hope you all are well

So I am a passionate traveller and photographer >>> www.asifsalam.com

I love to take photos of interesting places, architectures, little things or even landscape.

And to achieve this I am using 2 body's Canon 1D Mark IV and a new Canon 6D full frame which i love!

Lens wise ...... I use
Canon 40mm f/2.8 = For quick travel carry less purpose
Canon 50mm f/1.8 = For quick travel carry less purpose
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 = interior exterior angles architecture
Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 (Macro) = My all round go to lens and most use!!!
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (Macro) = For super zoom purpose
Samyang 85mm f/1.4 = For Portrait if i need to, which i dont use much

Now over the time my Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 (Macro) is getting weaker, the focus is not great, it's an old lense and its not up to the game BUT I love this lens because it is a f2.8 and it has macro.

This is a lens that tough me when travelling i can take pictures of the small souvenir and make them look so pretty! and also the food close up photo that makes it look so delicious.

So, i been trying my hardest to get a lens that will be 24-70 range, with f2.8 and with Macro.

But none of the new lense have the macro in 2.8 range from Sigma, Canon or Tamron.

So I realised the new Canon 24-70 f/4 has Macro now and I am thinking may be that's the lens I need to get as an upgrade.

But what you guys think?

Seeing f/4, then I am also thinking I can then just go for a 24-105 f/4 version II lens.

But I am struggling to decide so please kindly advise me what should I be getting

Just looking through your link at your stuff, I didn't see much by the way of shallow depth of field work. So really, you don't need F2.8 for that. Instead, you can give up F2.8 and just get 4 stop IS which is worth a lot more for the kind of shots you have posted in that link in lower light where most things are fairly stationary and handheld and not just a bunch of fast action stuff where very fast shutter speed was needed. So really the 24-70 F4L IS would probably be ideal. It does everything you're looking for. And your shots are mostly near full depth of field, so you'll be stopping down a little anyways. Plus it's lighter and smaller in general so its nice to carry compared to heavy F2.8 stuff.

Very best,

Based on your comments, I would have to back Mal on the 24-70 f/4 suggestion. That sounds like the lens that would probably best suit your needs for a newer lens. If you're used to the results from the 24-70/70-200, none of the 24-105 options are likely to make you happy. The distortion and such that come from those are just not going to be happy w/ the results, I suspect.

thanks guys for the suggestion have any of you used the 24-70 f4 lens? what is your verdict?

the 'macro' on your sigma isn't really much of a macro...it's just a marketing thing...the canon 24-70f2.8 vI has more magnification...all the other f2.8 24-70's have .20-.21X magnification to your .26X magnification...so i doubt you'd even notice the difference between the two

as for what you shoot, and if you need f2.8...or macro...it doesn't seem like it...instead of the 24-70f4L, i'd probably just go with a 24-105STM

Asif.
A little bit of history on why I decided on a 24-70 and which one.
When I first went with a Full Frame 5D Mark III now four years ago I had a 24-105, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS and a 100-400 L IS.
Since I came from a 7D "crop" sensor I was in need of an Ultra- Wide Zoom. The choices in January of 2014 were the 16-35 f/2.8 L II and the 17-40 f/4 L. One extra stop of light for twice the price. Checked images from my Canon 10-22 f/3.5 -4.5 on my 7D, (equivalent) field of view, most images were stopped down to the 5.6 ish......
So I bought the 17-40 f/4 L. IS would be nice but they didn't make one in that range...... Sure the corners weren't as sharp as the other brands like the Nikon. Plus IS would be nice but.....
A few months later Canon introduced the 16-35 f/4 L IS.
Buy all reports, this lens hit all the nails on the head. Corner to corner sharpness, color to match both of my 70-200's and at a price that surprised many of us in how reasonably priced it was.
So I kept using the 17-40 but also wondered about this range in IS.
In the summer of 2015, we were going to Rome. A spontaneous trip was the push I needed to go grab the new 16-35 f/4 L IS. Since the Basilica's prohibit tripods, having to shoot Hand Held, IS would save the day.
This lens paired with a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II on the other body, was the combination I used 90% of the time. Shooting Hand Held at 1/10" and Razor Sharp was proof of the value of IS.
So now what about my 24-105? Upon return of the images uploaded of the 24-105, you could see differences in the older technology. Plus at 24mm the 24-105 showed its ugly head.
So what about the 24-70.... You know, the f/4 L IS and all off its bad reports or the much loved f/2.8 L Mark II at twice the price.....so back and forth I went on which one. With a return trip to Italy, this time to Venice and Florence, I decided this was the time to go for it. Following on my "When in Rome?" experience. I went for the smaller, lighter Image Stabilized lens, the f/4 L IS. Of course being a new toy, this lens saw time the old 24-105 did in Rome. Again shooting Hand Held at say 1/10". On return it did not give me any reason not to like it.
This time however, I came home in a bit of discomfort in my shoulder and back. Do I really need to lug around the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II if f/4 with IS paid off in the 16-70 range. Why not take the 70-200 f/4 L IS instead?
Last summer I forced myself into taking the f/4 L IS to Iceland. No problem physically or image quality as well.
Since then my Greek Triolgy, the 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 L IS have been Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands.
So I can certainly recommend the 24-70 f/4 L IS.

hi Dre, yes after doing some details reading up on macro magnification it seems it isnt all that and what I use with .26 is only one fourth of the life size ration of 1. now i just realised sigma have a new art lens "Sigma 24 - 105 mm f/4.0 DG HSM Optical Stabilised"

Would you suggest in that case i go for ""Sigma 24 - 105 mm f/4.0 DG HSM Optical Stabilised""

AsifSalam wrote in post #18503996
hi Dre, yes after doing some details reading up on macro magnification it seems it isnt all that and what I use with .26 is only one fourth of the life size ration of 1. now i just realised sigma have a new art lens "Sigma 24 - 105 mm f/4.0 DG HSM Optical Stabilised"

Would you suggest in that case i go for ""Sigma 24 - 105 mm f/4.0 DG HSM Optical Stabilised""

i'm not sure if it's any better than the original 24-105L...for you it seems to come down to how much do you want to spend for features that you don't seem to use all that often...originally you wanted to get f2.8, but do you no longer need f2.8? there are lot's of options in the 24-XX(X)mm range...

I'de go for either the sigma 24-70 F2.8 OS or Tamron 24-70 F2.8 G2. It does look like you handhold a lot of low light shots, and that added F2.8 will help. Most 24-70's have decent closeup abilities.

Are you looking for "Macro" or just looking to get a bit closer?

For Macro - get a Macro lens. However for many flowers etc a macro lens is not needed a simple and very cheap set of extension tubes will do the job. I have two sets so they are always there whichever backpack I pick up! Yes they are that cheap. These will do the job nicely:

https://www.ebay.co.uk …e6125f:g:2QQAAO​Swj85YRmpY

They will work on all your lenses too.

thanks John, i was actually trying to get some photos little close but not too close as macro so I will definitely check your suggestion as I been looking into those for a while now and wasn't sure which one to get. but now as you suggested I know its a reliable one

So thank you all for the details and information... in UK blackfriday (out thanks giving) yesterday Sunday I went to 4 camera shops and tried out both Canon 24-70 F4 and Sigma 24-105 F4.

There was a bit of practicality that I did not realise and completely missed it, and I will explain what it is.

So both lens was amazing, Canon was short, compact and sharp, zooming ring was a bit annoying as it was so back to the lens. but it was such a sweet lense. however NON macro mode it was not being able to focus on small objects well. it was hunting for it. then I turned on Macro which worked great BUT I had to get super close to the small object.

Now then i just realised sometime I love taking the photo of item from outside a store glass front, and it is impossible to take a shot without getting that close. so this was the deciding factor.

Now with Sigma, it was an interesting test. the lense was sooooooo sharp. both at full 105 and 24.

it was heavy BUT the focusing of small objects was just perfect. it focused even from far away without getting too close to it.

for me this is what I was looking for. it was a heavy lens dont get me wrong, and the fact that i got more zoom range was great

thanks everyone for your kind help and suggestions.

your always so helpful !!!