[immiketoo]

So, I'm getting a Canon 50D for my trip to Europe, and I was wondering if some of the gurus on the forum could give me advice about lenses and other accessories I might need. I'm debating between the 24-70 L series and the 24-105 L series with IS. Does anyone have a set up other than those and can you give me your thoughts between them?

Thanks,

Mike

[AMPowerJ]

I don't have Canon equipment ... Nikon D300 and Nikon glass. But for a trip I would go with the 24-105 with IS. This lens will give you good range and you will not waste time having to change lenses. You might want something wider as well for landscape shots. Have fun.

[Johan@WSTO]

Originally Posted by AMPowerJ

I don't have Canon equipment ... Nikon D300 and Nikon glass. But for a trip I would go with the 24-105 with IS. This lens will give you good range and you will not waste time having to change lenses. You might want something wider as well for landscape shots. Have fun.

I agree. The 24-70mm is definitely a great lens but I would go with 24-105 for a trip too.

[Bimmer Nerd]

this should be posted in the video/photography forum

[immiketoo]

Apparently the Mods thought so too, but does anyone ever look there? Anyway, thanks to those who have replied. I think the 24-105 is the way I will go. Can anyone explain what I'll be missing without the 2.8 f-stop?

[Vudoo4u2]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Apparently the Mods thought so too, but does anyone ever look there? Anyway, thanks to those who have replied. I think the 24-105 is the way I will go. Can anyone explain what I'll be missing without the 2.8 f-stop?

speed

it helps in low light situations and shallow DOF

the 24-70 is a bit sharper of a lens as well

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Apparently the Mods thought so too, but does anyone ever look there? Anyway, thanks to those who have replied. I think the 24-105 is the way I will go. Can anyone explain what I'll be missing without the 2.8 f-stop?

That doesn't matter, you should always try and post in the correct section. Anyhow, for a travel lens, you don't need 2.8 (but it does give you better bokeh). The thing is you have look at the long term. If you think you're going to be using the lens in low light conditions in the future, then you should invest the 24-70mm 2.8. Or if you shoot in low light conditions and will be purchasing prime lenses then just go with the 24-105. Of course if you're going to rent the lens then it's a moot point.

[TWiTCHY]

Personally, if this was my situation, I would go with the 24-70mm f/2.8 and then start saving up for a 70-200mm if you need the extra zoom.

That way, you can just move on to other lenses you want instead of having to sell the 24-105mm and then getting the 24-70mm (if you wanted to shoot in low light), and in the end losing some money if you ever decide to go that route.

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

Personally, if this was my situation, I would go with the 24-70mm f/2.8 and then start saving up for a 70-200mm if you need the extra zoom.

That way, you can just move on to other lenses you want instead of having to sell the 24-105mm and then getting the 24-70mm (if you wanted to shoot in low light), and in the end losing some money if you ever decide to go that route.

That's the way I would go as well. However, some people prefer the extra reach on the 24-105 and they can always buy primes if they need to shoot in low light conditions. For me, I would hate to lose the versatility of a zoom lens so I would go with the 24-70mm.

[sandyeggo325i]

here's my two cents from an amateur nikon d90'er...

get a more versatile lens for your prime...i had the 18-55 and 55-200 or whatever their kit is...and it was terrible!

of course a lot of shots are of my kid running around and i would always miss the shot cause he was either too close or too far. i hated switches lenses...

my 18-200 is an awesome walk around lense...but i'm just a newbie for sure.

[asian010]

have you considered at 17-55mm? it may not be a L lens but it is a great walk around lens

[Cyruz]

Originally Posted by asian010

have you considered at 17-55mm? it may not be a L lens but it is a great walk around lens

the 50D is a crop body with a 1.6x sensor. while the 24-70 and 24-105 are both really great lenses for walk around stuff, on the crops they arent really wide at all. the 24mm is really 38.4 mm, and the 17mm is really 27.2 mm.

im at work now and there is a really good comparasion i cant get to due to a fire wall showing the difference between the 38 and 27mm.

i have a 40D and use the 17-55 as my main lens. its a work horse and has the optical quality of both the 24-70 and 24-105, which has been proven time and time again. it does lack abit in build quality and for the price id want more out of the build, but it does serve it purpose and do it well. mate it up with a 70-200 and its a great lens line up for any crop body.

but if i had to choose between the two, the 24-70 edges out the 24-105 im my book. lenses are never shapest at thier most wide open, and the sweet spot is usually about 2 stops down. therefore the 24-70 should have a sweet spot in the 4-5.6 range while the 24-105 in the f/8 range, which gives shit bokeh. the IS on the 24-105 is great but unless you are shooting in low light with out an external flash then its not "needed".

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Cyruz

...
but if i had to choose between the two, the 24-70 edges out the 24-105 im my book. lenses are never shapest at thier most wide open, and the sweet spot is usually about 2 stops down. therefore the 24-70 should have a sweet spot in the 4-5.6 range while the 24-105 in the f/8 range, which gives shit bokeh. the IS on the 24-105 is great but unless you are shooting in low light with out an external flash then its not "needed".

I use the f4L 24-105 with a 5DMkII, so I have the advantage of full frame AND much better high ISO performance (it's amazing in this regard, yielding great images at ISO 6400). However...

DxO's Optics Pro software makes body-specific and lens-specific corrections that bring the performance of this L-zoom up to the performance of a prime lens (actually better at the wide aperatures and short focal length). No longer to you need to worry about stopping down to get a sharp picture. This software is amazing, making both geometric and sharpness adjustments that I would have thought impossible.

My 24-105 lens was "soft" in comparison to the amazing f4L 70-200 IS and I'd receive permission to send it into Canon for analysis and correction. About the same time I downloaded the trial of Optics Pro and ran a batch of images through it. The increased sharpness was astounding. It's now like I've got a bag full of prime lenses. Now I do all my RAW conversion in DxO and save PS4 for more extreme adjusting.

I'm am simply amazed that DxO's software does so much better at lens and body correction than Canon's own software. The adjustments are len and body specific AND aperature/focal length specific.

You do need a powerful computer to process with speed. In batch mode, working with 25MB RAW files, DxO takes about a minute per image to do just basic adjustments and convert from RAW to jpg, DNG or whatever format you prefer for work in PS. Most of my travel photos go straight from RAW to hi rez jpg, but one or two out of 100 I'll take to DNG (digital negative) and process in PS.

Dave

[TWiTCHY]

You seem to mention DxO in EVERY single post

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

You seem to mention DxO in EVERY single post

No, just when someone mentions zoom lenses being soft or less than prime.

Dave

[john0213]

this is what i've posted on the other forum, hiope this help~

this topic is definitely a subject of beating a dead horse. However, it is also a very common problem for people new to DSLR.

We, forum members have went through arguments over arguments on which is better than which, and in most cases, such topic leads then to battle between certain lenses fans. LOL

Really, the essence of which lens works for you really depends on what you shoot. deciding a primary walk around lens, to me, should be consider very carefully as this is one of the most important decision you will make through your photography life.

walk-around lens affects greatly on how you set up your lenses collection, and it greatly affects on your telephoto end too.

Let me just give you some example:

17-40 L: some people opt for that due to the price. this is definitely one of the very good lens among all the choices due to it being the cheapest, not only that, it also provides that L series branding with such a good price. this is a very big plus for many.

For me, this seems to be too short in Focal range, it leaves too big of a gap toward the telephoto end. imagine that 40-70 gap when I am completing my range by adding the 70-200 f/2.8. What lens am i going to use to fill that? that's the reason i opted out on that lens.

Some people go for the a prime in that range to fill; I personally am finding too many lens to carry.

24-105L: IMO one of the best choice since it gives you that flexibility of not upgrading to a telephoto so soon. if you won't be looking at a telephoto in the near future, then this will be the one to get. your next upgrade on telephoto end will be a 100-400 f4 L.

One precaution on this set up, you are completely missing that F2.8 ability through out the range; if you don't need it, it's all fine. However, anyone considering a long end telephoto of 70-200 f/2.8 imo should not consider the 24-105 due to the focal range overlapping each other too much.

24-70L: If i didn't go for the 17-55 is, this will definitely be my choice in the L series. F2.8 + 24-70 gives perfect coverage on focal range. your ultimate collection will then be 10-22 wide angle/24-70L/70-200f2.8L. Essentially, this set up gives you no overlapping. 24-70 always provides Better IQ through out the range than 17-55. The only weakness of this set up is the lack of IS in the 24-70 range. Your walk around night shot is going to need a flash. if you are planning to get a flash anyways, then definitely go for this. However, this will also be the most expensive setup of all choices. Also, I would not recommend anyone new to photography to get this set up since flash is pretty hard to use for beginner. Major pros for this setup: upward compatibility to FF + better resale value!

17-55 IS: Due to all the above reasons, it makes this the very popular candidate for crop body user and especially beginner. IQ is on par with 24-70. it also provides a very handy IS feature which will delay the purchase of flash for quite a bit. the gap between the 55-70 range is not too huge and it also provides a wide enough short range to delay the purchase of wide angle for a while. cons on this: some people can't get over the L branding when they are paying such an expensive price, pair that up with the fact that this lens is not weather sealed. this might be a deal breaker for some.

I went for this and have just added the 70-200 f/2.8 to my collection. next will be the tokina 11-16 in line and that should set me up pretty well for a while.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by john0213

...
One precaution on this set up, you are completely missing that F2.8 ability through out the range; if you don't need it, it's all fine. However, anyone considering a long end telephoto of 70-200 f/2.8 imo should not consider the 24-105 due to the focal range overlapping each other too much...

Just a quibble or two about john213's excellent post.

First, many of us don't consider lens overlap a disadvantage. For example, on my full-frame DSLR I use a f4L 24-105 IS and a f4L 70-200 IS and think of the first as a wide to portrait and the second as a portrait to telephoto. I can use either for walk around, so long as I don't need the extremes of either wide or tele. I want the overlap to reduce the likelyhood that I'll need to change lenses.

As for f2.8 vs. f4, that'll depend on your camera's ISO performance. Most cropped sensors can stand the extra speed of a 2.8 lens, but on something like my 5D MkII there's very little call for a faster lens. My noise levels at ISO 3200 and 6400 compares to ISO 400 and 800 on prior cameras, so I seldom find myself longing for a faster lens. However, with a 40D or 50D, they'll be at the cusp and it'll depend more on you type of shooting. You won't need a 2.8 for landscapes and travel, for instance, but you might really need it for sports or ballet with those bodies. Bokah is fine at f4, to debunk a too often cited advantage of 2.8 and bigger.

I think that john's post should be viewed from the perspective of a crop-sensor purchaser for two reasons. First, the effective focal length being longer with a cropped sensor will seriously impact the appropriate range for you walk around, particularly at the wide end. Besides the effective focal length differences, the ISO performance and image quality of the latest crop of FF bodies changes your view of various lenses. Software, such as DxO's Optics Pro, even changes your view of prime vs. zoom lenses.

So, assuming we're talking about crop sensors, I agree with john 100% except for that bit about avoiding lens overlap.

Dave

[john0213]

sorry i didn't make my last post clear.

and yes dcstep is completely correct about my subject viewers of my suggestions. The perspective of my suggestions is directly toward the photographers who own crop frame. To be honest, I am extremely unfamiliar with the hardware characteristic of Full frame. I don't have the financial allowance nor the skill to need a full frame yet... T..T

and i have to agree on that overlapping isn't a disadvantage. Though, for crop frame camera w/ 24-105, will you purchase 70-200L as your next purchase or 100-400L?

Don't get me wrong, I'm still very green to photography. I will be frank with you, I still have that feeling, if i am to planning to purchase my next lens, i'd want to have the next longest reach possible for the money i spend.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by john0213

sorry i didn't make my last post clear.

and yes dcstep is completely correct about my subject viewers of my suggestions. The perspective of my suggestions is directly toward the photographers who own crop frame. To be honest, I am extremely unfamiliar with the hardware characteristic of Full frame. I don't have the financial allowance nor the skill to need a full frame yet... T..T

and i have to agree on that overlapping isn't a disadvantage. Though, for crop frame camera w/ 24-105, will you purchase 70-200L as your next purchase or 100-400L?

Don't get me wrong, I'm still very green to photography. I will be frank with you, I still have that feeling, if i am to planning to purchase my next lens, i'd want to have the next longest reach possible for the money i spend.

I'm not sure that FF requires skills not pocessed by a good crop-frame photographer. (I started with 35mm and 44mm, so FF is like coming home to me, so maybe I have missed understand some special issue that FF may present). Alas, the cost factor is undeniable currently. Also, the larger body is a bit of a negative. I hope that prices will moderate and that more and more will be able to enjoy FF.

Once I get out beyond 200 mm I start looking at good prime lenses. When I've used super-tele in the past, it's almost always the case that I could have used a little more reach if I had it. For me, I'd be photographing birds and other wildlife, so I'm needing 400 mm or more. The extra bulk and slower speed of a zoom really starts getting in the way at these lengths, so I suddenly turn into a "prime guy" and get the longest lens that I can afford. Oh, btw, another advantage to the hi rez FF cameras is the ability to crop and still have tons of pixels left over. I start with RAW files that average around 25MB, so there's plenty of "digital zoom" left to play with.

Keep at it. You'll continue to learn.

Dave

[immiketoo]

Thanks guys this has been very informative. I had the 5D MkII in my possession for 12 hours, and it was awesome. Unfortunately, I needed more kit for starters so I traded for the 50D. I opted for the 24-70 L and it seems to be a great lens so far. I am struggling with the flash, just like one of you mentioned, but I am gonna figure it out

I tried playing with the image software today, and thats a whole separate issue. My learning curve is straight up at the moment. I'm gonna need some classes and a few years practice to figure this stuff out.

[TWiTCHY]

Get DxO; not that it's been said already, but from the results I've been getting with it I think it's safe to say it'll be the best $170 you'll ever spend. Even better if you can find a 15% off coupon, but I think all of them have expired by now.

[Cyruz]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

Get DxO; not that it's been said already, but from the results I've been getting with it I think it's safe to say it'll be the best $170 you'll ever spend. Even better if you can find a 15% off coupon, but I think all of them have expired by now.

you use it for all of your raw conversion and tonal adjustments as well, like lightroom?

as for the flash, dont even bother with the built in flash. they arent string enough for anything thats not right in front of you. get a proper external one and you will be set. but again, all in steps or your wallet will hate you.