got L fever

[Kronie]

24-105=full frame
17-55= crop

I have owned both. Get the 17-55. I wish I had a 17-55 equivalent for my 5DMKII. I miss the 2.8 and I'm sorry but the 24-70 is a huge heavy brick.

Ideal crop setup (IMHO):
10-22
17-55
100-400 or 70-200 F4 or 2.8 IS

Ideal full frame (once again, IMHO):
16-35 or 17-40
24-105
100-400 or 70-200 F4 or 2.8 IS

 

[Jaro65]

^^^^^
I'll second that. Except that I would also throw in a prime or two as well.

 

[Patriks7]

^^^^^
I'll second that. Except that I would also throw in a prime or two as well.

Or even three. Say, the 35 1.4, 85 1.2 and 125 2. Then, the next step would be to rob the bank down the road...

 

[peskaa]

24-105=full frame
17-55= crop

I have owned both. Get the 17-55. I wish I had a 17-55 equivalent for my 5DMKII. I miss the 2.8 and I'm sorry but the 24-70 is a huge heavy brick.

Ideal crop setup (IMHO):
10-22
17-55
100-400 or 70-200 F4 or 2.8 IS

Ideal full frame (once again, IMHO):
16-35 or 17-40
24-105
100-400 or 70-200 F4 or 2.8 IS

Psht. Ideal set up for full frame is:
16-35
35/1.4
50/1.2
135/2
70-200/2.8

 

[Jaro65]

Or even three. Say, the 35 1.4, 85 1.2 and 125 2. Then, the next step would be to rob the bank down the road...

I'm looking at getting either the 35mm f/1.4 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4 with my 7D. The latter is significantly less expensive and also would be just a little wider, but I would not be able to use it on a 5DMkIII.

The 85mm f/1.2 turns to a 136mm telephoto lens on a crop camera. This could be handy, but not as flexible for general use as an 80-200mm f/4 IS lens.

 

[JFreak]

Psht. Ideal set up for full frame is:
16-35
35/1.4
50/1.2
135/2
70-200/2.8

I have the two zooms of this list, and once I get that 50/1.2 I'm seriously going to drool over full-frame as well

 

[Jaro65]

I have the two zooms of this list, and once I get that 50/1.2 I'm seriously going to drool over full-frame as well

Do you think it's worthwhile getting the 50mm f/1.2 as compared to the f/1.4?

 

[pdxflint]

Psht. Ideal set up for full frame is:
16-35
35/1.4
50/1.2
135/2
70-200/2.8

You might as well add the new 200/f/2 to the list. I don't know how good it is, but I'll get a chance to run it through some paces at a workshop where Canon is bringing all their latest gear to actually use during the day. Even though I'm shooting Nikon, it's always good to know what the other guys have to work with.

 

[HBOC]

i just read a review about the 70-200 2.8 vs the 200 f/2 at 2.8 and the 70-200 was sharper.. let me see if i can dig up that test..

 

[Kronie]

Psht. Ideal set up for full frame is:
16-35
35/1.4
50/1.2
135/2
70-200/2.8

IYHO. But who wants to mess with all those primes? You must like changing lenses

Actually what I have is
16-35
85 1.8
100L IS
24-105
70-200
100-400

Can you tell I like zooms?

 

[jbernie]

I won't tell you which lens to buy....but something to consider....

What lenses do you plan to own in the future?

I prefer to buy once, not buy item X now, then in 6 months or 2 years or whatever sell item X & then buy Item Y which is what I should have gotten in the first place.

If the 24-105 is your end lens, then buy it. If your longer term plans involve buying say a 70-200 then you might be better with the 24-70. Another thing to consider is whether you are going with the f2.8 or f4 all around or a mix. Not a big factor but something to consider. Also worth noting, where do the majority of your photos fall? if you have a lot falling in the 50-120 range you might find the 24-105 a better option than the 24-70 as you wont need to change lenses as much, if they fall into two distinct groups say 30-60 & 130-200 then the 24-70/70-200 combo might work best for you.

I just went through the whole which L lens should I buy first routine. I had the 24-70, 24-105 & both 70-200 IS lenses as my selection. My existing lenses are the 28-135 (40D kit lens) & the 50 1.4. A 70-200 is really good as it give me more reach, but really, I spend more time below 135 so do I buy something to do what I do now better or buy something new to expand my options?

To help, I split them into two groups, the 24-70/24-105 & the 70-200s, as really i was buying one of two types of lenses not one of 4 lenses. I did the pros/cons of the lens itself, vs the other lens in the pair and vs what I already have.

Ultimately I decided on the 24-70. Although the 28-135 may not be an amazing lens, it has more reach than the 24-105 and speed wise it is a bit of a mixed bag, f4 vs f3.5-5.6 though quality is a different factor, and I couldn't just straight sell the 28-135 either way, well not until a 70-200 comes home with me . Even if I did get a 70-200 the 28-135 was staying put a while longer.

Now if only Canon would give us a 24-105 f2.8

Long story short... as much as you should focus on what you are buying now, do not ignore what you intend to buy down the road as you may find yourself doing more than planned.

 

[JFreak]

Do you think it's worthwhile getting the 50mm f/1.2 as compared to the f/1.4?

Definetely. What I'm thinking about is whether they're going to stop there or is there going to be a Mark II model any time soon so should I wait? But the thing is, the 50mm and 135mm L primes are so good it's hard to imagine any improvements so perhaps I shouldn't wait...

I wouldn't buy the Canon 50mm 1.4 in any case. There's a slightly better Sigma available, in case I need a fifty now and cannot afford the L glass.

 

[Jaro65]

Definetely. What I'm thinking about is whether they're going to stop there or is there going to be a Mark II model any time soon so should I wait? But the thing is, the 50mm and 135mm L primes are so good it's hard to imagine any improvements so perhaps I shouldn't wait...

I wouldn't buy the Canon 50mm 1.4 in any case. There's a slightly better Sigma available, in case I need a fifty now and cannot afford the L glass.

Not sure if you've seen the rumors, but a 50mm f/1.4 II is apparently coming out from Canon in the near future. Still won't be an L lens, but it is apparently optically improved. I'm getting a 7D and I'm looking at either a 24mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/1.4. I'll most likely wait until the new 50mm from Canon is out to see how it performs. As far as the 135mm f/1.8 L lens, it would be great if Canon updated it with IS. Optically though, that lens is most likely as good as it can get.

 

[HBOC]

well, i have changed my mind on a lens for the time being. I am taking an unexpected trip to the SW next month for a few weeks (hitting up the grand canyon, slot canyons, etc) so i am going to be buying the 17-40L. When i get back (and also may just keep that lens) i could sell it and get what i had originally planned.

Someone had mentioned (I think over at fred miranda) that a camera shop in Tempe rents lenses, so i could rent a longer lens for the canyon or where ever i may go.

 

[JFreak]

Not sure if you've seen the rumors, but a 50mm f/1.4 II is apparently coming out from Canon in the near future. Still won't be an L lens, but it is apparently optically improved.

I have not seen the rumors, thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. And this is just the thing I've been wondering about, whether there are going to be modern versions of the lenses in the near future.

I have the 16-35L f/2.8 and I'm thinking if I should or should not switch to the Mark II model.

I have the 70-200L f/2.8 IS and I'm thinking about switching to the Mark II model.

I'm thinkin of buying the 50L f/1.2 and I'm thinking if there is a Mark II around the corner.

I'm thinking of buying the 135L f/2.0 and I'm thinking if ther is a Mark II around the corner.

You get the picture

 

[Jaro65]

well, i have changed my mind on a lens for the time being. I am taking an unexpected trip to the SW next month for a few weeks (hitting up the grand canyon, slot canyons, etc) so i am going to be buying the 17-40L. When i get back (and also may just keep that lens) i could sell it and get what i had originally planned.

Someone had mentioned (I think over at fred miranda) that a camera shop in Tempe rents lenses, so i could rent a longer lens for the canyon or where ever i may go.

Make sure you have a good wide-angle lens. I went to the canyons in Utah last fall and I could have really used something wider.

I have not seen the rumors, thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. And this is just the thing I've been wondering about, whether there are going to be modern versions of the lenses in the near future.

I have the 16-35L f/2.8 and I'm thinking if I should or should not switch to the Mark II model.

I have the 70-200L f/2.8 IS and I'm thinking about switching to the Mark II model.

I'm thinkin of buying the 50L f/1.2 and I'm thinking if there is a Mark II around the corner.

I'm thinking of buying the 135L f/2.0 and I'm thinking if ther is a Mark II around the corner.

You get the picture

Yes, I get the picture. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is getting some really good reviews! That lens though is simply too heavy for me to take it hiking/traveling. I'll be getting the f/4 IS version instead. I also really like the 135mm f/2, but it is really about time for Canon to put an IS on it. If I were to get it, I would get a used one.

 

[HBOC]

Yeah, i tend to buy used when i can. Fred Miranda.com hasn't treated me wrong yet.