Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Canon Lenses (
-   -   Rapidly going to "L". (

JohnGaltNY Oct 23, 2008 4:52 PM

Hi all,

Sorry for the terrible pun but I'd like your reaction. In no particular order, I like to shoot wildlife, Hudson Valley landscapes, baseball at all levels and portraits/candids of pretty women. I'm a total hobbyist.

I currently own (1) 18-55 IS; (2) 28-135 IS USM; (3)55-250 IS and (4)50mm 1.4 for my 450D. Throw in a 430EX flash and I'm done.

After recently renting a 70-200 f4L IS, I see such a vast and immediate difference that I'm buying one on Saturday (used but still expensive). After that, I plan to sell the 28-135 and the 55-250 to partially fund a 24-105L as a main/walkaround lens. The new lineup (hopefully enough for life) would then be the 24-105L IS, 70-200f4L IS and the 50MM f1.4 with the 18-55IS in the bag for whatever. I also carry my S5 but that's not really rlevant here.

SOOOO query: Like this setup? Hate it? Any suggestions for different alternatives/combinations?

Thanks in advance.


algold Oct 24, 2008 9:47 AM

It looks like a nice general setup, but imho you need something longer than 200mm for wildlife, something faster than F/4 for sports and something wider than 24mm for landscapes.
Both L's you've mentioned are great lenses though.

JohnGaltNY Oct 24, 2008 10:07 AM

Thanks algold.

You're absolutely correct in a "money no object" analysis. However, what I'm trying to accomplish is the best reasonable set of Ls ( I don't believe I'm calling L glass "reasonable") that I can afford and still carry around.

The 18-55 IS will cover the wide end for me as a non-L. The 38-360mm eq. L coverage of the two lenses will do 80% of what I need. I recently got a suggestion to take a 24-70 f2.8 instead of the 24-105 and that would fit in with your thoughts. Lastly, for a special event I can always rent a longer L, even a long prime.

I also still have my S5 which I still love and carry in the bag at all times. For a quick trip out to 432mm F3.5, it still works really well.

Thanks again.


peripatetic Oct 24, 2008 2:16 PM

Consider the 16-35 f2.8 or 17-40 f4 as alternatives to the 24-105.

For example 17-40, 50 f1.4, 70-200. Is a pretty good combo.

Even better would be the 16-35 f2.8, 50 f1.4, 70-200.

Unless of course you never use wide angle, which makes me shudder a bit, but hey it's your camera. :-)

JohnGaltNY Oct 24, 2008 2:29 PM

Thanks periP.

In truth, I tend to shoot 100-200 most, 40-80 next then evrything below that. I do use my 18-55 IS but <28mm is pretty much only for my Hudson River shots.

That said, the ability to get the Hudson Highlands wide with an L lens is really tempting. I may have to at least rent one.

Meantime, I'm gonna tape my 18-55 at 24mm this weekend and seehow it feels.

Thanks again.


algold Oct 24, 2008 4:11 PM

imho 17-40 is a fantastic little lens on a FF body, on a crop body it's neither wide enough for vistas, nor long enough as a general walk around lens. The IQ is great though and as L's go, this is 2nd cheapest L after the wonderful 70-200 f/4 non IS.
At least for me the focal range wasn't really useful, but I often use my 70-200 as a walk-around :-), YMMV. I really wanted to like the lens more, but after playing with it for almost a month returned it (it was a borrowed lens) and bought a 17-50 Tammy. It's not an L, but I feel more comfortable with it, wish it was 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but couldn't justify the price :-).

JG, if you aren't strictly locked on Ls you may consider this setup:

1) 10-22, 17-55 f/2.8 IS, your current 50 f/1.4, 60mm f/2.8 macro and 70-200 f/4 non-IS, 430ex
2) 10-22, 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 non-IS, 430ex, your 50 f/1.4 and either a 60mm macro or 85 f/1.8. Your sport needs aren't covered with either one, but it's a nice general setup for almost everything else.

JohnGaltNY Oct 24, 2008 4:38 PM

Thanks Al. Some good thoughts there, particularly the "fish nor fowl" of the 17-40 on a 1.6 crop. Appreciate it.

I also have some time to think since tomorrow's70-200 f4L ISwill pretty much wipe me out for awhile.


peripatetic Oct 25, 2008 2:45 AM

17-40 => 27-64 equivalent.

That's hardly an unusual zoom range. It's bang in the standard zoom territory. Everyone makes FF zooms covering a very similar range to that.

But if you don't use wide angles much then keep the 18-55 and go for the 24-105, it's a very nice lens.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2