Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

Archive 2007 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

Jason Gorske
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

Ok, so I have a few quesitons. I am a college student and well, I can't really afford an L series Lense. I have a 30D with the 17-85mm, f/2.8 50mm, and a telescopic lense. I really want to get an L series 24-105 f/2.8 and I have the money but don't know if I should spend it all on that particular lense. There is a Canon EFS 10-22mm Ultrasonic lense for sale and I could get a good price on it and was wondering if it is a nice lense or if anyone has any pictures they ahve taken with it. I also want your feedback on the L glass.

Thanks,

Jason

Jul 20, 2007 at 12:11 PM

neema t
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

The 24-105 is f4... Not being pedantic, just pointing it out in case the promise of a fast aperture became a deciding factor!

I have the 24-105 (on a full frame 5D) though, and I have to say, its amazing- before that I had a 350D/XT with a 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 II USM and it was ok, but the colours were nowhere near as vibrant and its just amazing, very sharp too (but thats probably my eyes not being used to L lenses!).

However it depends, as great a lens the 24-105 is, on a 1.6x crop body like the 30D it would be too cropped for my liking. That's just my opinion, but if you love wide-angle photography as much as I do, you'd go with the 10-22 instead which is supposedly an amazing lens in its own right. But again if you're on a tight budget the focal length range of the 24-105 would maybe be better?

Jul 20, 2007 at 12:22 PM

Jason Gorske
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

Thank you for the info. What I actually meant was the 24-70mm f/2.8, not the 24-105mm f/4. I've also heard of some debate between the IS and the 2.8, but don't know what the debate is about.

Jul 20, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Lord Fluff
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

For bang for the buck go for some of the cheap but good primes such as the 35/f2 and 85/f1.8. I used to have the 10-22 and it was a great fun lens to use and good quality too (similar to the 17-40L from tests I have seen).

You may be in danger of asking too many questions in one thread here, but the two L zooms have their relative merits - a wider aperture (good for shallow depth of focus and catching movement in low light) vs IS (stabilisation) that allows for a slower shutter speed to be handheld. The 24-70 is also bigger and a bit heavier so the 24-105 is more popular for travel, the 24-70 for those of us who need the shallower focus and/or the wider aperture

Hope this helps. If you don't know the Canon range well, try the reviews here and at www.photozone.de where they test pretty much every lens and give details.

Jul 20, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Sean Mills
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

FWIW, the 10-22 is a great lens. On a 30D you really almost have to have it to get any kind of WA coverage. I highly recommend picking one up.

I had used various other pieces of L glass on my old 20D. If you can afford it, it's hard to go wrong. neema t pointed out there is no 24-105 2.8, there is however a 24-70 2.8.

Personally I would take the 24-70 2.8 L over the 24-105 4 L any day. However this is the subject of great debate. Both are sharp as hell and provide great color and contrast. The deciding factor should be whether you want that f2.8 or the extra reach. Don't let anyone tell you one is sharper or captures better color than the other. You'll hear both, and it simply isn't true. Reach Vs the extra F stops. Period.

The 10-22 and the 24-X L lenses are completley different beasts.

If you feel you are missing out due to not having the superwide end covered, the get the 10-22. It really is a nice piece of glass (easily the nicest in the EF-S lineup IMO).

If you feel you are missing out on quality in the mid range, and can justify the cost, get one of the 24-X lenses, go for it!

You will not be disappointed with any of these lenses.

Jul 20, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Tad Killian
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

Build up on some "cheap" primes. Not only are they faster, if needed, but I believe that primes really help a person grow as a photographer when first starting out, or it helps to take them to the next level. You exercise your "eye/creativity/problem solving" skills.

Also, you seem to be all over the place with just wanting to buy a lens, but what do you shoot? Do you feel your 17-85 isn't wide enough? Is it the speed? What do you shoot?

Here are some really nice primes that Canon offers at reasonable prices. I am a wedding photographer, and can tell you that you will find the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.0, and yes even the 28/1.8 in a lot of photogs bags.

Here are some primes to look at........
28/1.8
35/2.0
50/1.8 or 1.4
85/1.8
100/2.0

I also use the 17-55/2.8IS, and can tell you it is one he11 of a lens. IQ is undoubtedly on par with the L's, it just lacks in build and a red stripe.

Just a suggestion,

Tad

Jul 20, 2007 at 12:58 PM

CGrindahl
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

I'd second the recommendations regarding prime lenses. They are excellent value for the money and give excellent results. I'd also second the observation that what you buy depends on the kind of shooting you do. The 10-22 has an excellent reputation and would be a fine addition to your kit if you're interested in shooting wide. I found the 17-40 f/4L to be an outstanding complement to a cropped Canon (28-64mm equivalent) but then I enjoy shooting landscapes so I wasn't quite so concerned about managing depth of field. You can pick up a near new copy of the 17-40 for around the same price as the 10-22. Professional glass is seductive AND expensive. Give yourself time and with care you can build the kit you want. In the meantime, enjoy taking photos. That ultimately is what this is all about.

Jul 20, 2007 at 01:12 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

Hi Jason,

I have the Canon 10-22 and I like it a lot. I use it mostly for landscapes and for these types of shots you should also get a good tripod and a remote release. If you want to shoot landscapes and you want a ultra-wide angle perspective. This is an excellent lens. It can also be very nice for architectural shots, environmental portraits (shooting portraits with a scenic background), and group portraits, among other uses I am sure. Here are some of my favorites shots with it. I am sure others will post nicer ones, however.

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~sspencer/pictures/kissing_bridge_new_sm.jpg

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~sspencer/pictures/Sunset_Kissing_Bridge_midcrop_sm.jpg

I hope this helps.

Jul 20, 2007 at 01:31 PM

claudermilk
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

Getting back to the original lenses, ok you have three different lenses in consideration: 24-105/4L IS, 24-70/2.8L, and 10-22/3.5-4.5. These are three different tools for three different jobs. What are you shooting?

The 24-70 is an excellent mid-range zoom for low-light. The 24-105 is more of a general walkaround lens. Finally the 10-22 is an ultra-wide mainly for grand vista landscapes. Different purposes, and all three lenses are excellent for what they are.

Oh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't present the Tokina 12-24/4 as a good alternative to the 10-22.

For me, the 24-70 and 12-24 do the job.

Jul 20, 2007 at 02:07 PM

EOS20
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

You might want to look at the Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 instead of the 24-105. You loose the IS, But gain a extra f/ stop and the Tamron is allot cheaper and produces images just as good if not better then the Canon lens!

On a crop camera though, a better walkabout lens (IMO) is the Tamron 17-55 f/2.8.

Jul 20, 2007 at 02:59 PM

Perdu
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Lenses Lenses Lenses

What about a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. You might also like a fast lens. The 50 2.8 is great, but you might want to trade it for the 50/1.4.

Jul 20, 2007 at 04:42 PM


FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell

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