Which of these non L wides for my 5Dc

Hello All,

Well I decided to forgo the 24-70 for now as the used prices are ~ $1100 which is only $200 less than new at this point - crazy. And I cannot afford the $1300 for new right now. So I am going to get one of the less expensive wide lenses for the time being. I shoot mostly landscapes, portraits, and some walk around city stuff. My current lineup (that I am keeping) is the 5Dc (coming in today!), 50 1.8, 100 2, 70-200 4 IS, 300 4.

So between the 20, 24, and 28 f/2.8, 35 2, and 28 1.8, which is the better lens as far as IQ and value goes? Which one holds it's value so when I decide to resell and 24-70 I won't take a huge hit? Is there one I am missing? Should I just go for the 17-40 4 L as a better all arounder to fill the bottom end? It is def cheaper and can be found used.

Thanks - jriley

I think the 17-40 is very good value for the 5D.
The extra mm in the short end means quite much, it is far more versatile and the IQ is almost on par with the 16-35.
After i got the 17-40 I rarely use my 24L as I find the versatility is preferred over the low light abilities, for my shooting at least.

If you are still after a 24-70 replacement, I would get the Tamron 28-75.... I have never been tempted by the brick as a replacement.

With the rebate on the 17-40 it is very tempting @ $700 shipped from B&H... I might have to reconsider - AGAIN...

bohdank wrote in post #10173054
If you are still after a 24-70 replacement, I would get the Tamron 28-75.... I have never been tempted by the brick as a replacement.

^^^^^
+1

indeed i too am surprise i'm not tempted by the 24-70 after owning the tammy

I would just go with the 17-40. Out of the primes you mentioned, a few of them get poor reviews. Specifically, no one seems to like the EF 20 f/2.8. There is a devout following for the EF 28 f/1.8 on this board, but there are also many detractors. If you wanted to get risky, you could go with the Samyang 14mm f/2.8, but that's got bad distortion, and is arguably a lot less usable of a focal length than any of the other lenses you mentioned.

jriley wrote in post #10172859
So between the 20, 24, and 28 f/2.8, 35 2, and 28 1.8, which is the better lens as far as IQ and value goes? Which one holds it's value so when I decide to resell and 24-70 I won't take a huge hit? Is there one I am missing? Should I just go for the 17-40 4 L as a better all arounder to fill the bottom end? It is def cheaper and can be found used.

There are lots of alternatives to a 24-70, and a 17-40 isn't one of them - ultra-wides are not typically "all arounder" lenses, unless you really like wides. There's the Sigma 24-70 Macro, Tamron 28-75, and Sigma 24-70 HSM, all of which are good to great lenses.

For the primes, all of them are good, except maybe the 20/2.8. Which one fits you depends on what you're looking for. All of them will retain their value.

OP, what other lenses do you have? If you have a lens that can cover focal lengths above 40mm then the 17-40mm may be best for your.

Well, on the one hand, the 17-40 is not a suitable replacement for the 24-70 on a full frame but OTOH the 17-40 is a must have for 5Dc and 5D2 users. As stated above, the Tamron 28-75 would be a good choice or, if you don't need the 2.8 (and I do not), try the 24-105 IS.

If you stick with a prime I can highly recommend the 35mm f/2. The copy I had was fast and sharp and did well on my 5D2. I only sold it because I bought the 35L.

I have the 24mm 2.8, the 28mm 2.8 and the 35mm 2.0. The 28mm 2.8 has the best center sharpness wide open but the worst edge sharpness. The 35mm has excellent center sharpness starting ar 2.5. The 24mm 2.8 has the best edge sharpness. The 35mm 2.0 holds the value the best and the 28mm 2.8 the worst, but because of this, you can get the 28mm 2.8 used for $110 to $150. You have an excellent group of lenses. You really do need on the wide end, so maybe the 24mm 2.8 might be the best choice of the 3.

17-40 + 28-75.

I would start with the 17-40. With your 50mm and 70-200, you'll lose very litle reach. Only if you want the comfort of the zoom, I would wait with buying the 28-75.