skibum5
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #13 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens | |
Greg Mangione wrote:
I currently have the 16-35 L and the 70-200 F4 IS and I'm trying to decide what lens to get to fill the gap in my current lenses. Of all the lenses I am considering, I am pretty well versed on all of them as an individual lens. I'm really looking for input based on personal experience with two or more of any of these AND thoughts you might have on zoom vs. prime option.
Prime options:
Canon 50mm (1.8 mk I/II, 1.4, 2.5) or the 60mm Macro (currently shooting 50D)
The only version of the 50 1.8 I've used was the old FD version  . Not bad, very sharp stopped down.
The 50 1.4 terrible AF and the AF can be somewhat prone to breakage. I would say that f/1.4 is a big difference in DOF and speed compared to the f/2.8 of the 60mm. The 60 macro is superbly sharp, but so is the 50 1.4 once you are starting at f/2.8. I owned both at one time since they met different needs for me.
Zoom's
28-135 IS, 24-105 IS, 24-70 L
Honestly I'd sell the 16-35L and get the tamron 17-50 2.8. You won't miss 51-69mm nor miss having to carry a third lens around.
I didn't think the 28-135 IS was impressive, even on APS-C the edges were not so good and it was just kind of very blah. The 24-105L I tried were definitely better and not bad on APS-C at all but they left me very disappointed on FF for the price, blurry edges even at f/8, blah. Never did a truly careful test with a 24-70L but it didn't seem to quite do great edge to edge on FF either and it was heavy and expensive.
Tamron 28-75 was sharper than any of those, center, mid-frame or edge, cra zy sharp on APS-C, yes sharper than the Ls. It had the same or less CA than even the Ls. On FF it was sharper at the edges on the wide end than the others are it too got a bit mushy there too at times and on the long end, near 75mm, the bokeh became nasty near the edges if you had objects at a certain relative distance to the main subject. It was smaller and lighter. The only downsides compared to the others/some of the others are that it is not quite as wide as the 24-'s or as long ranging as the 24-105/28-135, has no IS and the AF was really slow (so long as the lighting is not really bad and the subject is completely still, the AF was very good, but in low light it hunts and if there is any action at all it's sooo slow it doesn't track well at all) and the contrast was a little bit weaker than the Ls (and the bokeh near the edges near 75 on FF only could be a little nastier at times than with the others).
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC. Loved it on APS-C. Dumped my 17-40L after I got it. A bit sharper and better contrast/color than the L at aps-c edges, same sharpness in the center (crazy sharp) although just a touch worse contrast in the center (nothing to worry about and even stronger center contrast than the tamron 28-75). AF is a bit like a hornet, kinda higher pitched than many, loud and buzzy. Seemed to focus faster than the tamron 28-75 though. Maybe not quite L speed AF though. A trace more CA than the 17-40 at 17mm, but it cleans up well and both have a fair amount there, less CA on the longer end than the L and the extra 10mm reach is nice as is the 2.8.
It was my single most used lens on APS-C. So much better than than the 16-35L and you really lose nothing in return at all other than how loud the AF is and a little bit in AF speed.
I really wouldn't bother with the 28-135 IS.
Honestly I'd sell the 16-35L and get the tamron 17-50 2.8. You won't miss 51-69mm nor miss having to carry a third lens around.
If you keep the 16-35L then I might nab the tamron 28-75 2.8 unless you had to have IS and then the choice is clear or you had to have really fast AF and then the tamron is out.
I hear great things about the 60...is it worth loosing the 2 stops and DOF you get with the 1.4? Is it really that much better?
If f/1.4 means nothing to you in terms of speed or DOF then get the 60mm otherwise, if you can live with the crummy 50 1.4 AF I think it makes more sense. It is a big DOF and speed difference and if that is what you are after no need to give it up chasing raw image quality, especially since once you are stopped to f/2.8 the 50mm also has stunning image quality and stunning vs 2% more stunning isn't much to worry about.
What do you think about the 28-135 vs. 24-105...what made you switch or stay? I shot the 28-105 some years back and it was always just not *quite* wide enough and I'm wondering if 24 would make the difference allowing me to keep that lens on most of the time?
Have you tried filling a similar gap with a prime and felt a zoom better served you for general photography?
The 4mm does help but it is still not all that wide, I found the 17-50 range better. With a 16-35 and 24-105/28-75 I wouldn't like all the swapping 16-35 for the 24-205/28-75 and back. 15-85 IS and 17-55 IS might be worth looks too.
It depends how you shoot though, it's for you to answer, not us.
Again, I am just looking for "been there, done that" opinions.
Lastly, I have never shot with a Macro before. I love shallow DOF shots which is one reason why 1.4 or a 2.8 zoom is so attractive to me. But does the Macro handle DOF differently from a "normal" lens, or simply allow closer focusing/higher magnification?
Same way although once you get in close DOF become thin really fast, even at f/11 you me mad at how THIN the DOF is! And at f/2.8 and 1:1 you may struggle to get all of a gnat's eye within the DOF, well not quite, but not SO far off either.
|
