Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2013 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up

  
 
MasonBoring
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


Hey friends,
I'm in the process of upgrading my lenses. I currently have a 5D Mark II, Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and 50mm 1.8. The Rok is great for star scapes and cropped images, but suffers major distortion issues.
I just sold my 28-135 3.5-5.6 due to lack of IQ.
I was thinking of the Tamron 17-35 2.8/4 and get rid of the Rok 14. Or getting the 17-40L or the 24-105L and keeping my Rok.

I shoot lots of travel landscapes/people, backpacking, climbing, and kayaking and occasional portrait shenanigans. Im trying to keep my weight down.

Throw me your opinions!

Cheers




Oct 14, 2013 at 02:47 PM
Roland W
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


If the 24-105 will give you the range you need, it is very nice to have it all in one lens, and it is an ideal match to a full frame. It was originally introduced when the first 5D came out, and is kind of "made for it". My copy is still going strong after about 8 years of moderate use, and now shares time on my 5D3 with various lenses. Out of what you said you shoot, there will be plenty of cases where the IS of the 24-105 will be helpful. You will notice a big jump in IQ over the 28-135. If you need wider, sneak in a 17-40 later or sooner to complement the 24-105.

If you expect to shoot more night and astro stuff, keep the Rokinon 14mm. Besides stars, there are lots of scenes where you can live with the unusual distortion the Rokinon 14 mm gives you.



Oct 14, 2013 at 03:33 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


When I carry a single zoom for photography similar to that which you describe, it is almost certainly going to be the 24-105.


Oct 14, 2013 at 04:18 PM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


Although it's not the best lens wide open, you just can't beat the combination of versatility, IQ, weight, size, build and value that the 24-105 offers.


Oct 14, 2013 at 05:48 PM
garyvot
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


Another option would be a few small, easy to pack primes.

The 24 2.8, 40 2.8, and 100 f/2.0 would be a killer 3-lens travel set. So would the "classic" 24-35-85 or 28-50-100 combos, depending on your taste.

The 24-105L is a very fine lens for landscape, scenic and general wide angle photography. I almost always pack it on wildlife trips. But for shooting people, I struggle with the slow-ish aperture at the long end. Being able to control depth of field, particularly at the 50-100mm focal lengths, is pretty important to me.

If you go with a mid-range zoom, I'd take the 50 along for the times when you need fast. It weighs next to nothing, so there's no loss to pack it.



Oct 14, 2013 at 08:42 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


MasonBoring wrote:
I just sold my 28-135 3.5-5.6 due to lack of IQ.


Don't beat yourself up - we all make mistakes.



Oct 14, 2013 at 08:51 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


garyvot wrote:
Another option would be a few small, easy to pack primes.


Not such a great option for the types of photography mentioned by the OP. A single zoom covering the focal length range of the primes will be more effective. (Tried changing primes while climbing?)

And once you get to, say, three primes, you not only end up requiring lots of lens changes and have less ability to customize FL to the shot, but you lose the potential size and weight advantages once you consider the whole set of lenses.

Dan



Oct 14, 2013 at 09:21 PM
davinyc
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


My travel lens setup is the 24-105 and the 70-300 DO. With these two I can cover pretty much everything and don't have much weight to lug around and they are black so don't stand out.


Oct 14, 2013 at 09:42 PM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


garyvot wrote:
Another option would be a few small, easy to pack primes.

gdanmitchell wrote:
Not such a great option for the types of photography mentioned by the OP. A single zoom covering the focal length range of the primes will be more effective. (Tried changing primes while climbing?)


Lens changes while kayaking can't be good either.



Oct 15, 2013 at 09:48 AM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


Another vote for the 24-105. Its my most used lens and is on its third 5D generation. They are also fairly reasonably priced right now. My two lens travel kit is 24-105 and 100-400. Reliably good image quality over a broad range. You've got the real wide covered with your 14. The 35 f2, 85 f1.8, and 100 f2 or 2.8 are good relatively fast primes you could add later to supplement the zoom if need be.

I personally wouldn't take a 5D kayaking. I use one of the Canon P&Ss in an underwater housing for that.



Oct 15, 2013 at 11:47 AM
garyvot
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


surf monkey wrote:
Lens changes while kayaking can't be good either.


Fair enough. He did say "adventure/expedition", didn't he? "Travel, landcapes, people" was what stuck me first, I guess.



Oct 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


EOS-M plus 11-22, 22, 18-55 for adventure/expedition and light tripod. Light, okay to hang around your neck while climbing, good at f8, and you won't care if you lose it in the river as much. At f8, the 11-22 an 18-55 are indistinguishable from 24-105/17-40 quality. The 22 f2 is pretty good at low fstops. Only thing bad is the battery life and the remote shutter release. All for under $1000ish.

I hiked for a week this summer with 5diii, 1.4x, TS17, 24-105, tripod, and 100-400 and i) it was so heavy I almost died, and ii) it was so precious I did not take it out when I should have, and iii) I was too tired to use it when I got there because of i.

I am now exploring sony nex if it comes in ff interchangable.



Oct 15, 2013 at 03:27 PM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


Is the 11-22 available in the Americas for a decent price? I was thinking that the M & 11-22 might make a good companion to an SL1 + 55-250 for light outings like we're discussing here.


Oct 15, 2013 at 03:45 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


I like all of Jeff's ideas here, and I certainly relate to Scott's pain! My latest was the 5D2 for a "big camera" with 24-105 around neck and 100-400 and G10 in sling bag. That was manageable most of the time. Lighter is better.

I really prefer the no hassle approach of the Canon G-series, and I'd be looking at the G1X as a top contender for quality images and no lens changes.

Or move to the M model with a 18-55, or an Oly M43 model with the kit zoom of 12-50.



Oct 15, 2013 at 04:06 PM
Kisutch
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


I'd say 24-105, only other thing to consider is maybe 17-40 if you don't need the long end and like wide angle, which is very popular for action sports stuff.

Hope your gear holds up better than mine does. I'm a biologist and constantly travel for field work, since March I've damaged my 10-22, 17-55, and 7D.



Oct 15, 2013 at 04:10 PM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


Kisutch wrote:
I'd say 24-105, only other thing to consider is maybe 17-40 if you don't need the long end and like wide angle, which is very popular for action sports stuff.

Hope your gear holds up better than mine does. I'm a biologist and constantly travel for field work, since March I've damaged my 10-22, 17-55, and 7D.



I drove across the pounding tundra for a week on an atv with the EOS-m 18-55 strapped to my neck and a small plastic bag around it for dust. It survived well.

[I also had my 5diii, 7d, and 200-400 on my back and it survived too. The trouble comes when it comes out of the bag. I almost forgot the backpack several times though in the heat of the moment while looking for muskox.]



Oct 15, 2013 at 04:42 PM
juberisk2
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


i have both of these lenses and have used each extensively for years. despite the versatility of the 24-105, i vote for the 17-40 in your case - provided you didn't often use the long end of your 28-135:

-the 17-40 is lighter than a 24-105. not by much but every ounce matters on long excursions.
-it's less costly, which could afford other possibilities with the same resources, such as picking up some accessories or an inexpensive back up camera....either a p&s or used crop body. remote location/extreme temps with one camera is risky. also, a crop body back-up makes a 17-40 more of a normal zoom range if needed. In other words, i think 1 zoom lens with 2 bodies is lighter and generally more reliable than 1 camera and 2 zoom lenses for lightweight travel.
-the front element doesn't extend on the 17-40. makes it a bit more weather/dust resistant than the 24-105, which has an extending front element. i note there is a tendency for lens creep on many copies of the 24-105, which makes the inadvertently extended element more prone to incidental damage during outside activities. you may have experienced some lens creep on your 28-135, but on an L lens, most folks would find such build quality unacceptable. if it annoyed you on the 28-135, this may be a factor for you.
-also, in your specific case the Rok 14 would still be relevant if you went with the 24-105 but arguably a bit more redundant if you went with the 17-40.

just wanted to provide a different perspective. can't go wrong with either.

chris




Oct 16, 2013 at 10:59 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


juberisk2 wrote:
i have both of these lenses and have used each extensively for years. despite the versatility of the 24-105, i vote for the 17-40 in your case - provided you didn't often use the long end of your 28-135...


I also have both, and I rarely use the 17-40. When I need it, it is critical to have it, but if I were to carry only one lens, it would be the 24-105.

Which is not to say that the OP should take your advice or my advice directly. This simply gets at the subjective nature of lens choices and then necessity of matching the necessary compromises to one's own particular photographic needs. The OP needs to answer the question of focal length.

Dan



Oct 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM
juberisk2
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


agreed, and i said as much in my post.

attempting to actually answer the questions posed with an informed and unique perspective on those compromises and photographic needs should be the point of any response in this thread. obvious posts telling someone to pick what he/she thinks is best suited for them is insulting and a waste of time. the OP in fact provided some info about his travel needs and lens experience. if it aint enough data for you to work with, move along, Mr. Mitchell.

and this is for all you self-appointed forum critics out there.....try to helpfully answer the questions posed, or get the eff out of the way. now I remember why i've only posted 383 times in 8 years.



Oct 16, 2013 at 06:18 PM
Michael White
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Adventure/Expedition Lens Set Up


Ill second the 24-105 even though I never shot one for this reason first and second because everyone I've talked to with that lens has loved it. I've just haven't found a spot for it since I already own the 24-70L &70-200l both f2.8.

I read somewhere that the smart thing to do was invest your money in glass not bodies since the bodies are like computers and have short lifespans and the better glass will be useful for the future and hold its value much longer. Just look at the buy and sale section here L glass can be bought today and be sold years later sometimes for more and defiantly with a big loss.

The above was my reason for recommending it. If you buy it today you can sale it next year for almost the same if not more depending on how shrewd you are.

Once I get the mega zoom or telephoto I want which right now is the new 200-400 I might pick up one for a walkabout lens. I own only one non L lens and it should be the EFS 17-55f2.8IS. My photos are much better iq wise than when I was shooting with consumer grade glass from canon and sigma.



Oct 17, 2013 at 12:18 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.