Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 9, 2006, 4:43 PM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2

I cannot believe I just lost my whole message....:evil:

Anyway, what I was saying was I am interested in purchasing two lenses. My current setup is canon 10D, 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.8 macro. I like taking pictures of wildlife, my 1 year old, pets and I like taking pictures in available light.

The lenses I am looking at is the canon 16-35mm f/2.8L, 17-40mm f/4L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 24-105 f/4L IS and the 70 -200mm f/2.8L IS. Now I am pretty sure that I will purchase the 70-200. But I am having a hard time deciding between the super wide and the wide zooms. Aside from that I am leaning towards the f/2.8 lenses because of my interest in available light photography. I do have two vacations planned for the next year. This year I will be going to San Francisco and next year I will be going to Alaska. This is what kind of sparked the need for two new lenses.

Two things bother me about the super wide lenses. One is I am not sure if it will be a good walkaround lens. And two, if I did choose the 16-35 and the 70-200 there will be a big gap. But I do have the 50 f/1.4 to compensate for the gap.

So, will the 16-35 be a good walkaround lens? or would one of the others (24-70 or 24 - 205) be a better one?

Can someone offer some words of wisdom? I am driving myself batty over this :? I think I am the most indecisive person in the world.

WildAboutAnimals is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 9, 2006, 5:26 PM   #2
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,528

Well, you don't mention landscape work - which is where the wide would really shine. Given your stated purposes, a 24mm lens would be wide enough for anything but a group shot indoors (unless you have a large room). So, I would be more inclined to go with the 24-70 2.8 (vs the 24-105 because you want available light). But that's just me. I think the 24-105 is a great focal range but at f4 you'd have to switch to your prime for available light (uh oh, someone's going to bring up IS now )

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2006, 5:47 PM   #3
Senior Member
Caboose's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625

I agree with John, the 24-70mm is a lot more versitile than the 16-35mm for a walk around, and really plenty wide for decent landscapes too. And assuming when you talk about a walk around lens most of your shots are going to be outdoors the extra length of the 70mm will come in handy. However, having said that if most of your shots are going to be indoors in tight spaces taking shots of that 1 year old and the pets, maybe you might be better off sacraficing some range for the wider lens.

oh, and John I'm not going to bring IS. :-)


Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2006, 6:37 PM   #4
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2

I would like to take pictures of landscapes and the 16-35 came to mind because of my vacations coming up to San Francisco and Alaska. Also, since I live near a lake and state park I thought the 16-35 would come in handy. But then again the 24-70 would be a great lens too because of the longer range.

By walkaround I mean lens that I would use for pets, my 1 year old, and just general photography. It would be the one lens that I would take with me everywhere.

Thanks for the replies
WildAboutAnimals is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:00 AM.