Archive 2012 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
ijtalbot Offline • [X]
p.2 #1 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
I'm going to have to jump on the Tamron bandwagon here. I picked up the 28-75mm 2.8 a little over a year ago and have love it on my 50D. I just got an older 28-70mm L on the boards here that should be arriving tomorrow. We'll see how the quality compares, and if you'd like I'll get back to you on it. While I don't see myself keeping the Tammy, it certainly won't be because the IQ was lacking...
If you want a monstrous bang for your buck, check out the Tamron offerings. The IQ difference isn't as big as the price difference
I 100% know what OP was getting at about having FF capable lenses just in case the time is ever right for upgrade. When the time came for a 5D2 it just kind of happened and I was glad I was prepared.
p.2 #2 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
The only nice thing about the 50 f/1.8 mk II is the IQ from f/2. Otherwise it's so badly built and AF is crap, I'd never recommend it. Of the Canon 50's I'd recommend the macro 50 f/2.5.
I'm not sure what the budget is, but I'd wait and see what reports are like on both the 24-70L II and Tamron 24-70 VC. The Tamron 28-75 is very nice. Also Tamron make a 60 f/2 macro which might worth looking into.
Personally the 50 I would get is the Sigma 50 f/1.4, but just try it before you buy it for AF consistency. Mine was fine straight out of the box. Wonderful lens; fast AF, sharp wide open, creamy bokeh. It's actually a 48mm lens BTW.
p.2 #3 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
So, is the 50 1.4 (canon) a love it or hate it lens? I don't think I've read as much negative feed back before this thread! Frankly my original plan was to get that 50 1.4 but then I started thinking of options and thus this thread.
It may be worth waiting for reports on the Tammy 24-70...the Canon is way out of my budget...even the first version is likely unrealistic. The 24-105 is getting down into the $700's often enough I could save a bit longer and go for that...I don't want to spend much over $300 for a prime right now. I've read so many reports of focus issues on the sigma's and I've never been thrilled with the build of the the Tamron's. I had pretty well decided to stick with Canon. Yes, I know that may be short sighted and I may re-consider, but sticking with one brand helped narrow the option list! A light weight camera setup is not a particular goal of mine.
If I stick with FF capable lenses, (and if I stick Canon) my gut is leaning towards the 50 1.4 or the 24-105 IS. I'm going to now rule out the Macro's...if I go for a prime, I want the speed. And I'm not going to consider the 1.8's either. The Tamron 28-75 could be a consideration if I step outside of Canon, though I wish it was a bit wider.
IF I decide to go back to an EF-s lens, it would be the 17-55 IS
I just feel that FF is a real possibility in the relatively near future and am hesitant to have a primary lens EF-s ... but it's on the table anyway.
I really appreciate everyone's thoughts and letting me use you as a sounding board. It has helped distill the choices a bit.
I guess I'm still interested if there's anyone who has a strong opinion of filling my FL gap with a prime vs. Zoom. Obviously the ideal would be both...and I will eventually.
p.2 #5 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
I tried the tamron 28-75. Must have gotten a bad copy as it was not sharp when zoomed to 75 wide open. stopped down to f4 beyond it was good. It has one of the world's most dumbest lens hood that creates a diagonal vignetting effect. That didn't do it for me. Colors were dull.
28-135 IS wasn't sharp enough for me and the zoom lock began to loosen over time just based on built quality.
50mm 1.8 ii falls apart in itself. it really feels like it'll fall apart if you are unscrewing a filter from it. and you'll have to be careful manual focusing as well too. loud auto focus. friend of mine is on his 3rd one in less than 6 months >.<
24-105mm f4L this one is excellent build. the colors are good but it tends to burn on darker skin (studio wise). the daily 40d studio camera just can't handle it. i prefer the look from the 17-85 ef-s over this sometimes.
24-70 2.8L is my most used out of the bunch. the weight doesn't concern me because this is the "normal" camera weight for me. everything else becomes "light". out of my 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 IS II - if i wanted to take one lens with me to do it all, it would be this 24-70 2.8.
50mm 1.4 is the lens i use most when i want super sharp photos. since it is my only prime other than a fisheye lens, i put this on when i want detail in my shots. sharper than my 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS v1. have not had my IS II long enough to know but it beat all the rest hands down.
my personal choice out of your options to "fill the gap" brings me to:
a) 24-105 f4 IS (if you don't need f2.8)
b) 24-70 2.8L FF or 17-55 2.8 crop
p.2 #6 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
ytsaelle,
Thank you for your thoughts!
Everything you say aligns pretty closely with my own thoughts at present...though if I add budget to the equation, the 50 1.4 might be in the running somewhere....
Thanks!
Feb 16, 2012 at 02:28 AM
Guest
Guest
p.2 #7 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
Tamron 60/2 macro is great, works on APS-H as well if you upgrade later. (I sound like a stuck tape here).
p.2 #8 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
Given that you currently have the 16-35 and 70-200 i would get the 24-70 MKI, its an excellent lens, extremely flexible and covers a very nice range even on a crop body. I used to own the 17-40 & 70-200F4L and i replaced the 17-40 with the 24-70 and no regrets. Having 2.8 across the range and also having 70 on the long end i have found to be very very useful for family, kids, wedding etc etc. Coupled with the 16-35 and the 70-200 this will cover 99% of your needs. With the 17-40 i found it was a great landscape, outdoor lens but it really didn't work for me indoor and 40 was just too short. I used to own the 35 1.4L and its a nice lens but i just didn't work for me, i prefer the flexibility of a zoom but i just felt on many occasion F1.4 results in too narrow a depth of field and so i ended up using at 2.8 so whilst the 24-70 2.8 isn't quite as sharp as the 35 it gives me a lot of flexibility and 2.8 across the range.
p.2 #9 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
EF-S 60 is a very sharp lens from wide open to stopped down with a nice bokeh. Perfect if you like the macro option, but close to your 70-200 in terms of focal lenght.
EF 1.8 50 is cheap, sharp when stopped down a bit, comes with nervous backgrounds and old-fashioned auto focus.
EF 1.4 50 well-priced for what it does, sharp from 1.8 onward, not really stellar in any way.
I wouldn't get one of the zooms. Any of the above primes gives more additional possibilities to your kit for far less money and weight.
p.2 #10 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
Impossible to say, it really depends on your own preferences. Tough to go wrong. I'd trade the 16-35 for a Tamron 17-50 (I had great luck with mine) and a super wide angle, and buy whichever focal length prime you'd like most for low light or portraits - 28 1.8, 30 1.4, 50 1.4/1.8, 85 1.8. Very flexible kit.
p.2 #12 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
Greg Mangione wrote:
Thanks skibum5, I appreciate the detailed info... especially on the primes...some good food for thought.
A friend of mine has the Tamron 17-50 VC on his Nikon but neither he nor I were especially impressed with IQ. He loved the weight of it (especially compared to the Nikon option) but was never very satisfied with it. He has mainly switched to the Nikon 24-70 2.8 as his general purpose lens and his 17-50 sees very little use.
The two Tammy 17-50 lens are very different. The Tammy VC version has always been rated lower in terms of IQ and focus speed. So I would suppose that this would hold up in the Nikon mount version of this lens. I'm with skibum on the Tammy non-VC version. There is no reason to have to pay a good $500 more for the Canon version, assuming that you want to go with EF-S compatible lens. ...Show more →
p.2 #13 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
Interesting about the VC and non VC tammy...Frankly, I don't think I'd go with the tammy for a wide zoom since the canon 17-55 IS works so well...IF I went APS-c only.
The Tammy 60 might be worth a look.
All your input, even the conflicting input, has been a benefit. It may not sound like it, but my focus is narrowing...so thank you!
p.2 #14 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
You probably would benefit from having a prime or zoom to fill the gap.
The 24-105mm is excellent on a crop, better on FF. You will probably use it almost all the tie, unless you do a lot of wide work.
However, somewhere in there, you should have one low light lens, and it looks like a 50mm might work. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 is better on a crop, while the Canon 50mm f/1.4 edges it out on full frame, so take your choice. Neither is spectacular, but they are cheap.
p.2 #15 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
I prefer 24-105mm to 28-135mm. There are three main reasons: build quality (the zoom creep of the 28-135 becomes really annoying really fast), IQ advantage, and for me the 4mm on the wide end are worth more than the 30mm on the long end.
I also have the 50mm f1/4 which I used as my main low-light lens (until I got the 85mm). It was OK. Nothing spectacular, but nothing bad either.
p.2 #16 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
Ultimately, the goal is to have both...a 50 1.4 (Canon or Sig) and the 24-105...maybe even the 24-70 if I find a steel of a deal... 2.8 is so nice...but then so is IS.
For now I plan on keeping my eyes out for good deals on any of those three and try to sell some excess photography and mountain bike gear and see what kind of budget I end up with.
Tamron mid zoom or macro prime options I will probably only consider if there is a deal too good to pass up...same with the 17-55 most likely.
p.2 #17 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
I've have used the 24-105 extensively for 7 years it has never disappointed!! If you stick that between your 16-35 & the 70-200/4 LIS you would have a really great set-up, no matter what you decide to do about the 16-35/2.8. I shoot mainly landscapes & outdoor type of stuff so the f/4 is fine with me (the IS will get you past 2.8 anyway unless you need low light action shots). Good luck with your decision!!
PS: Forgot to mention I have used all the lenses you mentioned except the 60 Macro
p.2 #18 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
Thanks Leon,
My ultimate goal would be the 16-35, 70-200, 24-105, 50 1.4 and a 1.4 TC!
Then depending on how my photography develops, I could throw in a Macro for fun, maybe switch to 2.8 zoom's and maybe a lensbaby for some more fun! I've been working on the kit I have now for quite some time, so it may be a while yet! FF body and/or a 1D crop is also in my sights.
p.2 #19 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
The 24-70L is great if you want to keep the road open to move to full frame sooner or later. It makes your setup much more versatile. The 24-70 is good for your wife's desire to shoot wide open with low DOF and it does have great close focus performance, which is not standard for any lens in this range. Canon designers had the ring shots of wedding photographers in mind when they engineered this piece of glass, but it works for many other subjects as well. Actually I find this range great for a crop body. If you are sure full frame is not in your future I do agree with what others said about trading your 16-35 for the 17-55/2.8 IS. It's an EF-S lens but I find it L quality for crop bodies. It gives you the versatility you are looking for and is a perfect match to the 70-200/4.0 L IS. Two lenses that can do it all in a compact setup. If you want to go prime, take the 5cm 2.5 with life extender. It's an undervalued lens and a bargain as such. The 60mm isn't a slouch either, but it's more expensive and a no go if you want to go full frame later. Have EOSfun
p.2 #20 · Have you used these lenses? Trying to decide on a mid-length lens
eosfun, thanks for that nugget of info on the 24-70's close focus ability...I wonder how close the 24-105 focuses? Hmmm...
Is the quality and value from the 50 CM good enough to sacrifice the 1.4 of the standard?
I would also like reasonable AF speed. Some have indicated the 50 isn't stellar, but at least is a version of USM compared to the 1.8...or am I wrong?
A light weight camera setup is not a particular goal of mine. 