Lens Linup for my needs

Well as of late I havent been keepin up on my photography practices, between work and an upcoming wedding its a bit hard sometimes.

Now with my wedding out of the way next month Im looking to revamp my lens setup, gradually but Im having a hard time deciding which lenses to buy.


My interests are mostly macro and animals. I found over the course of the past year that most of my enjoyment had happened on a trip to the Woodland Park zoo, the Seattle Aquarium and Northwest trek, tho I was armed with a Sony H2 rather than my DSLR at the time.

I take pictures at family events, but without a good flash I tend to avoid indoor things. You could say Im camera shy, I HATE HATE HATE taking picures of random people, I mean I love candid but Im not comfortable with them seeing me. Tho when Im taking pictures of other things it dont bother me.

For example, my last trip to Lake Tapps, I swear as soon as I pointed my camera out over the water I thought that I was going to get screamed at. Im not comfortable shooting younger kids unless Im somehow affiliated with them (family or close). While on my visit to Lake Tapps I think I managed to take a total of 5 pictures and put my camera away. No matter how hard I tried I just didnt like the feeling from the looks I was getting, tho maybe If I was moving around more I wouldnt notice?


So that leads me to my idea on a lens setup. Im very happy with the 28-105mm FL length, and use pretty much all of it. For me its the ideal walk around, tho I also like the 18-55 on my kit, if only it was a little faster and I often find myself wanting something longer. 24-105 F4L is a no brainer to me and would be the perfect upgrade to my 28-105 that I currently have.

And then there is the 17-55 IS. When I am at family events, or indoors this lens would be perfect. Also for indoor exhibits at zoos or any other type of places Ill be going with my wife to. But there is that bug in me just wanting my first L.

Between the 17-55IS and the 24-105L, I know I would be 1000% happy with the L its perfect in every single way but would have me wanting something wider and faster for some occasions, my kit lens already has me craving something so I would have to purchase a wide angle sometime. The 17-55IS would handle my low light and wide end nicely all in 1 lens allowing me to go with a 100mm Macro.

So 10-22 + 24-105L? is the 10-22 handholdable at 1/30s? $1700-1800ish

Or 17-55IS + 100mm Macro, or 85 1.8 and tubes? $1600~$1700ish


I figure that would take care of my wide to walkaround for the most part but I cant decide.


For the long end, 100-400L is pretty much a no brainer, but there is also the option of the 70-200F4 IS and a 1.4/2.0 tele for flexability?


I dont really have a budget limit as the lenses wouldnt be purchased all at once. Im just trying to come up with a lineup that dont involve 10 lenses or too much overlap with the zooms. 3 zooms tops is what I would like to achieve, and maybe 3 primes tops too.

Last summer I shot 10-22, 24-105, 100-400 on our vacation. It was a great combo.

If 24 is wide enough buy it first. It gives you a lot of options. Maybe pickup a fast prime in that same buying spree. There is a lot of mileage there. Add some tubes for macro work.

For the 10-22. I can hand hold 1/30, but to each his own.

I'd get the 100-400 last b/c by then there might be better options.

100-400 was definately near last on my list for now. Im just torn between the 17-55 and 24-105.


How is the 24-105L indoors?

It would make sense for you to get a long lens and a macro lens.

I used the 28-105 for over 1 year and I was very happy with it. I thought it was a great focal length and I rarely needed anything wider. I had no doubt that when I upgraded, it would be to the 24-105. Didn't turn out that way.

Don't get hung up on a Letter. What is it that you want from an L lens? Excellent image quality with great color and contrast? Razor sharp images? Fast, accurate USM focus and a constant aperture? High quality UD lens elements? The 17-55 has all of this.

If you want a metal body with an EF mount, weather sealing (even though your camera may not be), and your focus ring in front with the zoom ring in back, then an L lens may be just the thing for you.

I think the 10-22 + 24-105 is an excellent combination. I assume the 24-105 will be the main lens and you will only use the 10-22 when you want something wider. Personally, I can pretty much stick to 1/focal length to get decent pictures, so I could probably use the 10-22 at 1/30.

I ended up with the 17-55 and haven't regretted it for a second. I have still been tempted to add the 24-105 to my bag. If my only other lens was the 100mm macro, I might feel limited with this combination.

There's a big difference between a 95mm focal range on your first option and a 38mm range on your second option.

I would like to have both, but I think the 70-200 would get more use.

17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
70-200 f/4L IS USM
30mm f/1.4 (or 24L)
50mm f/1.4
100mm f/2.8 macro (or f/2)

I still wouldn't rule out the 10-22 + 24-105. While I think the 17-55 + 70-200 is probably the better combination, my choice would depend in part on how often I would need to change lenses. If the majority of my shots are in the 35-85mm range, then the 24-105 might be the better way to go for convenience.

I shoot with two lenses...

I have a really nice battery of excellent glass. However, for most of my shooting, I can make do very well with just two lenses on two bodies: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. I will also most often, bring a 1.4x Tc along with me since it is so small and so light in weight.

This duo on two bodies satisfies my needs for most photo coverage. The 17-55mm gives me a top-line medium range zoom with a fairly wide short end. The IS and constant f/2.8 aperture provides a low light capability. The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is just a dandy medium telephoto lens with reasonable lower light capability.

However, I also have a 12-24mm f/4 Tokina, 90mm f/2.8 Tamron, 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L. I will bring the 12-24mm (often on a third body) when I know that I will need wider coverage and I will bring the 300mm or 400mm lenses (or both) when I know that I will need longer focal lengths. The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS lens would probably cover the focal lengths of the 300 and 400mm lenses but, I was able to pick up these two great lenses from a friend for roughly the price of a new 100-400mm and I do love those lenses.

I carry the 17-55mm around my neck on one body and the 70-200mm is on a second body in a holster case over my left shoulder with a hand strap.

I find 24mm on a crop camera fine - it might just be me but I personally like to keep my crops tight when framing a subject as Im not keen on acres of space around my photos - unless shooting a landscape of course. I mainly use a 24-70 - but even indoors I find it isnt fast enough at f2.8 so when im indoors i seem to favor using a flash. If no flash then I go for the 50 1.4. Keep in mind though that the 24-70 2.8 has no IS which is great for indoors low light and I you do find more keepers with the 24-105 at shutter speeds below 1/60 - waaay more keepers.. unless the subject is moving of course.

The 24-105 can be a little slow indoors.... at f4 I do find it at 1/30 1/15 in poorer lighting conditions and unless the subject is pretty still the images can have some motion blur - and i do find in such low light without a bit of fill flash that they are a little flat anyways.

I say choose a lens for everyday in fair conditions, choose a wide angle, choose a tele and choose a low light lens (prime).

I personally would go with the 24-105 for its reach when out and about cropping in tight to select your subject and add interest - you will have your 10-22 anyways for arty wide shots - which is less useful for every day shots of people. I would consider a 70-200 range tele as I very often find the 100-400 just too much to take out on an average family event where photography isnt the reason for the outing.

The 70-200 f4IS is amazing for being in the kit at all times and grabbing out for nice portraits or opportunity shots. Way way way sharper than 100-400 and the IS is twice as good. (faster too)

Put a good flash at the top of your list. It makes all the difference in the world.

I would really recommend the 17-55, it is a great lens; I've never regretted buying it. If you want to save some money, think about getting the sigma 10-20mm. The price difference between that and the canon would almost pay for the flash. Then consider the Canon 70-200mm.

JMO

Kinda off topic, but how is Northwest Trek? I never knew about it until you mentioned it. I looked on the website and it seems like an interesting place to visit. I only have a tamron 17-50 right now. Would that be good enough or should I wait until I get a tele-zoom?

chowmien wrote in post #5720299
Kinda off topic, but how is Northwest Trek? I never knew about it until you mentioned it. I looked on the website and it seems like an interesting place to visit. I only have a tamron 17-50 right now. Would that be good enough or should I wait until I get a tele-zoom?

northwest trek is great. we went there last year and plan to go back this year. at a minimum i would have a 70-200L. a 1.4 TC is also a good idea.

when you on the tram the animals get very close but are also at a distance.

we went on a drizzly day in july and i did a lot of shooting at iso 800 and 1600.

ed rader

I have both the 17-55 and the 24-105. I bought the 24-105 first before the 17-55 came out, I really loved that lens but quickly found that I wanted to go wider which led me to the 10-22 which is also superb. However, once I got the 17-55, I really never used the 24-105 again and I use the 10-22 MUCH less. However, I do use my 70-200 more.

Based on what you mentioned in your post, I would get the 17-55 and 100 macro. Then you can spend some time considering if you want the 10-22 (or similar) or the 100-400 for your next lens.

I have nothing bad to say about the 24-105, its just that for me the 17-55 is a more useful focal range, and the IQ is as good or better.

dontblink wrote in post #5720612
I have both the 17-55 and the 24-105. I bought the 24-105 first before the 17-55 came out, I really loved that lens but quickly found that I wanted to go wider which led me to the 10-22 which is also superb. However, once I got the 17-55, I really never used the 24-105 again and I use the 10-22 MUCH less. However, I do use my 70-200 more.

Based on what you mentioned in your post, I would get the 17-55 and 100 macro. Then you can spend some time considering if you want the 10-22 (or similar) or the 100-400 for your next lens.

I have nothing bad to say about the 24-105, its just that for me the 17-55 is a more useful focal range, and the IQ is as good or better.

that's my pattern too. 1.3 crop actually makes an UWA lens much more useful to me but then you are stuck without a perfect lenth walkaround like the 17-55 is on a 1.6 crop.

ed rader