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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 22, 2008, 6:33 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 17
Default

What do you think is the best overall choice for my 30D?

A Canon 24-105 F4 IS L lens paired with the 12-24 F4 DX Pro Tokina wide angle lens or the 10-20 Canon lens. I think this combo would serve most of my needs. What I dislike about it is the fact that F4 is not fast enough to blur the background when taking portraits. I do have a 1.8 prime, but I'm trying to keep it simple.

This next option would be my fvorite if the 17-55 2.8 IS lens was an L (which it ought to be for the price). Mate the 17-55 with a 70-200 F4 Is L Canon. The 17-55 has excellent image quality, but because it is not sealed like an L, I've read there are dust issues with it and of course the build quality is not an L. I like the 17 mm wide angle for most of my uses, the 2.8 speed for portrait work,and the IS. Pair that with the 70-200 and it would be a great overall combo.

Right now I'm using a 17-85 IS which I would sell. Well, what do you think?
bestofdean is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 22, 2008, 7:00 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

"A Canon 24-105 F4 IS L lens paired with the 12-24 F4 DX Pro Tokina wide angle lens"

Your first option would be my choice with a 1.6 crop camera. I have a 17-85mm f3.5, it's a good lens but thef2.8 as well as the 12mm would have come in handy for me more the once.If I had those two lensthe next lens would be70-200mm L f2.8 IS with a 1.4 teleconverter. Hey I can dream, can't I?
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2008, 7:23 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 185
Default

i really like the 17-55 .very sharp and the wider end really comes in handy in a tight spot.
camerageak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2008, 8:25 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 17
Default

Not sure I understand . Both lenses are F4. I'm also considering a Sigma 12-24 or a Canon 10-20 for the wide angle.
bestofdean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2008, 9:10 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

I have the Canon 70-200 F/4 lens. It's a very nice lens for the $'s, however
I think you get a better quality lens if you shell out extra for a 70-200 F/2.8 lens (like a Sigma).

I can't tell if your a pro or an amateur with deep pockets.

If your a pro I'd stick with the "L" lenses. Not only are they great quality but they have excellent resale value.

If your not a pro and are not too worried about resale, consider the Tokina/Tamron/Sigma offerings. You'll get more bang for your buck.

My setup (currently) is a Sigma 10-20 (love it, not a pro lens however), a Sigma 17-70 (great lens but not a pro lens) and a Canon 70-200 F/4 (great deal at the time, nice light lens with good build quality - but would consider a Sigma F/2.8 at this point) paired to a Canon 20D.

I'd probably buy all Sigma lenses at this point, but then again I generally do not get paid for my work but occasionally get published on websites and small newspapers.

The 17-85 is a good lens, however I gave it a miss over the Sigma 17-70. the Sigma is not a significant upgrade over the 17-85, but has less barrel distortion and kind of an interesting macro capability.
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2008, 8:55 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 17
Default

I'm leaning toward the Canon 24-105 F4L mated with the 12-24 Sigma. I think I like the 12-24 Sigma over the 10-20 because it will work in a full size sensor format should I later upgrade from the 30D, and it has better image quality than the 10-20. Wish the Canon was an F2.8, but maybe I'll get a 70-200 F2.8 later. Much as I like the image quality of the Canon 17-55, I just can't see paying that much for a lens that is not an L, and therefor has the good glass, but not the build quality. What do you all think of this decision?
bestofdean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 7:26 AM   #7
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Just to answer the part about using f4 with a 30D, I have some shots using my 30D with the 24-105mm f4. I rarely use this combo as it is usually on my 5D or sometimes 1D mkIII but when travelling it gives a useful range and then a P&S covers video and wider angle.

Here are two shots of my friends taken at f4. The first is at 105mm and the 2nd is 55mm so you can see what to expect from the combo. Certainly it is not extremely shallow dof but for a lot of use it is fine.
Attached Images
 
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2008, 7:26 AM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

2
Attached Images
 
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2008, 1:58 AM   #9
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Well you will have the focal length range covered whatever you choose, but for me the main decision would be whether I wanted to have to change lens when I moved across the 24mm boundary (40mm equivalent).

To me that cuts thingsin two; wide angle OR telephoto. Instead of cutting in two I prefer a zoom (when I use one) that allows me to have both moderate wide angle and short telephoto. What is often referred to as a "standard zoom", one that covers the moderate wide through normal to short telephoto. i.e. 28-70 at least in 35mm terms.

So I use the 24-105 on my 5D, but would not use it on a crop camera. On a crop I would use a 17-50+. So from your list I would definitely go with the 17-55, or look at maybe a Tamron/Sigma alternative if the Canon is too expensive. Or in fact I'd probably just stick with the 17-85 and get a copy of DXO to sort out its minor flaws.

But some people get along fine and predominantly shoot either wide or tele and don't mind changing lenses to switch from one to the other. It all depends on your style really.




peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2008, 7:24 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 17
Default

In a way I agree with you. I would like to go with the 17-55 because optically it tested great in Popular Photography magazine, and it is a fast 2.8 lens....but---it has a plastic build with no O rings to seal out dust and moisture. A search shows alot of complaints about dust entering the lens as it has in my 17-85. My 17-85 has alot of barrel distortion at the wide end although I did not understand your DXO comment. What did you mean? I like the image stabilization that all of these lenses have, which the Sigma, Tamron, Tokina do not. Also, being that 24-105 is a very good range for portraits, and would cover most of my general usage. I'm leaning toward that ,paired with the 12-24 for group pictures and landscapes. If the 17-55 were an L lens , (since it would be getting the most usage), then I would prefer it combined with the Canon 70-200 F4 IS. I am willing to go with the 70-200 F4 over the 70-200F2.8 because of the size and weight of the 70-200 F2.8. Since the 70-200 F4 is stabilized it will be fast enough for my needs.

So like you say, "You can't have your cake and eat it to." Either way, one of my lenses will not be an L to get me where I want to go. And Ill have to switch lenses to take group shots or potraits. (80 to 200 mm seems to be best for portrait photography leaving out the 1.6 crop factor)
bestofdean 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 12:07 PM.