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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 23, 2008, 5:52 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
JohnGaltNY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 102
Default

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.

JG
JohnGaltNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 24, 2008, 10:47 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
algold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Israel
Posts: 369
Default

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.
algold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2008, 11:07 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
JohnGaltNY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 102
Default

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.



JG
JohnGaltNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2008, 3:16 PM   #4
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

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. :-)
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2008, 3:29 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
JohnGaltNY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 102
Default

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.

JG
JohnGaltNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2008, 5:11 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
algold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Israel
Posts: 369
Default

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
or
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.
algold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2008, 5:38 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
JohnGaltNY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 102
Default

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.

JG
JohnGaltNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2008, 3:45 AM   #8
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

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.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 10:50 AM.