rethinking my lenses

OK so with my health getting more tiresome and me not ever wanting to give up photography as my hobby I'm needing advice.

I'm a prime girl. No way around it. I currently have 24, 35, 50, 100 macro and 200 covered and never really feel a gap. I would think about the 85 for my husbands gigs, but for now the 100 is ok.

Now with my health I've been having problems switching lenses quickly. I've been using my cheap zoom a lot more then I'd like to admit and it's hurting my IQ slightly. I'm not sure what to do.

I really don't shoot wide often, maybe when I'm out 10% of the time I'd like something wider then my 24 but most of the time I'm fine without it. I tend to shoot 24-100 and sometimes wish I could go a bit longer (I don't drag out the 200 when I'm out unless it's for birds.)

I was thinking of the 24-105, but worry about the IQ a bit. I'm so used to what I get with the great primes. My lens (28-105 II) is very sharp and very good in great light, I really doubt, unless you blow it up big, you'd really be able to tell the difference between it and the 24-105 when stopped down in this kind of light. So I hesitate when thinking of buying the L.

I go between that and the 17-40/70-200 f/4 IS pairing. It'd be nice to go with the pair over just one since I really love the colors and sharpness from the two I tried a couple years ago. I borrowed a 24-105 and wasn't impressed. But I use that range so often.

Part of me just wants to keep what I have and not worry, but my health is really getting the best of me and it's getting worse. I went on a hike/walk this weekend with the zoom and the 35 and used the prime more. The zoom helped with some of the shots where I couldn't get closer, but the images from the prime were really so much better. But if I had the 24, 50 and 100 with me I wouldn't need the zoom. But for me to carry all that (I try to make my husband only carry the tripod so he doesn't feel like my pack mule,) would be hard.

I'm just not sure what to do and could use some help.

Sorry to hear about your health.

Ok, so I have a couple observations. I have the 24-105 and the 17-40. I get decent images with the 24-105, but love the 17-40. I used to have the 70-200 F4L non-IS and loved it as well...I only sold it in anticipation of getting the 2.8 IS version. I think that if your looking for something in a zoom, you would be ok with this combo. I don't know what money is like or if you really need the wide end, but also consider the 24-70 2.8 if you don't need that extra wide end and can afford it. that way you don't have that middle gap.

Also, if you want to keep your primes, and don't want to change your lenses.....have you considered the option of just buying a second body? You could pick up a 40D for quite a bit less that the 17-40/70-200 combo your thinking about!!

gardengirl13 wrote in post #6615927
OK so with my health getting more tiresome and me not ever wanting to give up photography as my hobby I'm needing advice.

I'm just not sure what to do and could use some help.

If your health is not good right now, then you need to cut back on the foot zooming. That means go for a zoom. I like your idea of the 17-40 and the 70-200. Good quality, flexible range. Keep a 50 prime for the times you want to use a prime.

Mike55 wrote in post #6616135
If your health is not good right now, then you need to cut back on the foot zooming. That means go for a zoom. I like your idea of the 17-40 and the 70-200. Good quality, flexible range. Keep a 50 prime for the times you want to use a prime.

Good point Mike, I didn't think about that when I was posting. Sorry!

It would help if we knew which camera body, or the sensor size you are using. With a crop size sensor you are eliminating the corners where a full frame camera will show the differences between a L grade and mid price lens the most. If I am reading between the lines correctly you have a crop frame camera (either a Digital Rebel XXXD or a XXD camera). If you are happy with the results you get with your 28-105 II I would be tempted to supplement its zoom range rather than to replace it. If you want something wider you could buy the 17-40 F4 L or if you want to go longer the 70-200 f4 L would be a good choice. There is also the 28-135 f3.5 to 5.6 IS which is currently being sold as a kit lens with the 40D and 50D. http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …elephoto_EF_28_​135mm.html

Wayne

Yeah I was thinking of adding the 17-40 and 70-200 and keeping the 28-105, that way I'll have everything covered. The cheap lens won't sell for much so it's almost worth it to keep it.

Weight is also a concern (a big one) and IS is sometimes going to be needed.

Oh and I have the 30D for now. Some day I'd love to get a 5D(II) to use higher ISO, but for now that's what I have.

I think the 24-105L gets a bad rap.

My 24-105L is RAZOR sharp. Sharpness is never the problem with my 24-105L. From what I have read, there was at one point a problem with copy variation but I believe that's been sorted out. (?)

The distracting bokeh however can be an issue in specific situations where you have bust backgrounds close to the subject. Well that and the f4.

But I would never describe MY 24-105L as "does ok". Sure for task specific shoots I almost always use my primes, for vacations and such the 24-105L is a great lens to have.

I have the 70-200L IS F2.8 and the 70-200L F4. I use the F4 when I need a lighter weight setup and the light is good. I think you would really like the 70-200L IS F4. I also have the 17-40 and they make a great combo (the hood for the 17-40 is a bit bulky). Probably want to keep the 50 for low light and such. I had a 24-105 and I just didn't like the images as well (probably just me), but I really liked the zoom range and IS, just didn't seem sharp all the time. Good luck.

nicksan I shoot like you, I use primes for most everything and use the zoom for vacations fairs and festivals type shooting where it's not good to need to switch lenses because you'll miss the shot.

Part of me wants to just upgrade my primes and keep the cheap zoom as my "p&s" but I worry as my health gets me I'll need the zooms more. My husband is the one to make the suggestion on the 2 zooms instead of the 24-105, and agrees with me about keeping the cheap one for places I don't want to "the photographer" and would like a few snaps while having fun.

And as for the primes I'd have to keep the 35 and 50 (and would never sell the 100 unless my health insurance decides to drop me) for my husbands gigs. I really should keep the 24 as well. I just don't know.

It's hard to give up old habits. You do give up some of the sharpness with zooms, it's true. I would love to have the flexibility to have 4 camera bodies and can grab which one I need without switching lenses, but that really is not practical. I have the 24-70 for my 5D and that covers just about everything I do. But I love my 85 1.8, which just doesn't make life easy indoors.

I suggest you borrow or rent a zoom that is what we pros would use and see how you like it. Don't spend $1200 for a lens if you don't think it would work for you.

I've borrowed the 17-40, 24-105 and the 70-200 (both f/4's) and loved the two and hated the 24-105. Maybe the guys copy was just not right and soft, but I tested it against my 28-105 and could only tell the difference in 3 out of 100 photos. I admit I was really pushing both lenses and had to crank the ISO in many shots. But if that's what I need to test it so be it.

It's weird I keep testing fate with the 17-40 (those numbers come up a lot in things I do, like bills and acct numbers) and that's the one I'm stressing most about. I know the 70-200 would be good since I really need IS for my 200 now.

My husband just told me to keep the 24 even with the 17-40, but for now I'm trying to pick the 17-40 or the 24L for the gig shots, which will be better then the 2.8 that I have. That way I'll have 24, 28-105 and 70-200 covered, plus the other primes I have. I'd only have to sell the 200 (even though it'll make me cry since it's so good) and the 24 to upgrade to the L.

hmmm maybe that'll work? What do you guys think?

gardengirl13 wrote in post #6620863
I've borrowed the 17-40, 24-105 and the 70-200 (both f/4's) and loved the two and hated the 24-105. Maybe the guys copy was just not right and soft, but I tested it against my 28-105 and could only tell the difference in 3 out of 100 photos. I admit I was really pushing both lenses and had to crank the ISO in many shots. But if that's what I need to test it so be it.

It's weird I keep testing fate with the 17-40 (those numbers come up a lot in things I do, like bills and acct numbers) and that's the one I'm stressing most about. I know the 70-200 would be good since I really need IS for my 200 now.

My husband just told me to keep the 24 even with the 17-40, but for now I'm trying to pick the 17-40 or the 24L for the gig shots, which will be better then the 2.8 that I have. That way I'll have 24, 28-105 and 70-200 covered, plus the other primes I have. I'd only have to sell the 200 (even though it'll make me cry since it's so good) and the 24 to upgrade to the L.

hmmm maybe that'll work? What do you guys think?

You don't really need wider than 24mm, you really do need the range between 24mm and 100mm the most and you are struggling to change lenses physically. I guess the 17-40 just doesn't make a lot of sense to me in this scenario.

I have both the 17-40 and the 24-105 and I don't really see any difference in shots from either. They are both extremely sharp. The 24-105 vignettes a bit at 24mm but otherwise it is excellent.

Here - basic snapshot at my niece's birthday party. This is the 24-105.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

But do you have one from a crop? I hear it really shines on FF and on a crop it's a bit less.

Yeah the 24-105 would make it easy to choose, maybe I should just try another copy? How do the colors compare? That's what I like most about the 17-40 and 70-200, the colors are just so "canon" if that makes sense. I know I'm really dreaming here but I want my shots to be close to my 35, I love the colors that thing produces.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #6620919
But do you have one from a crop? I hear it really shines on FF and on a crop it's a bit less.

Nope. I kept my 30D for a while after I got my 5D, but I don't think I ever even mounted the 24-105 on it. I basically kept the 30D for a while thinking I'd want it for 'reach' but I found that I was basically content to just use the 5D so I sold it off.

Boy was that long winded!

Answer = no.

Ha ha! I'll have to look through the 24-105 thread again. thanks!