MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photography Equipment => Cameras / Lenses => Topic started by: stockphoto-images.com on January 05, 2014, 07:40
-
I'm planning on getting the Mark III soon but I'm torn about which first lens to get.
I was thinking about the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. to cover most shooting scenarios.
Is anyone using this lens or would you recommend another lens?
Thanks in advance and happy New Year!
-
I have used my 24 70L the most! so yes I would say that lens, I also use the 50 1.4 and I just got the 100mm 2.8L macro this Christmas, great lens as well. But all around as a first lens my vote is the 24 70L
-
24-70L II - make sure its the II
-
Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM is a must-have lens.
Take a look!
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews?sort=rating (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews?sort=rating)
-
Thanks for all your responses! I greatly appreciate it.
Can't wait to get macro gear at some point but I have to get something more versatile for the start.
-
How is the sharpness on that 24-70mm ? Is it still miles away from the sharpness of a prime or do these pro zoom lenses come pretty close to a prime?
-
I use my 24-70 canon lens about 80% of the time! Sharpness is spot on! Super piece of glass!
-
Yes, I agree with you all...the 24-70 f/2.8L II is a great lens. Very sharp, very fast. Others lenses I use about as much are the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. If you plan to only have one lens, then the 24-70 is really the only choice in my opinion.
You will love the 5D Mark III, it's worth every penny!
-Mat
-
I totally agree with Mat! Also I don't use any protective glass over my lens just a hood- I figure why would I put a $20 piece of glass over a very expensive glass? The hood protects it from light and dropping it...
-
The L zooms are very sharp and you can also use Canon's own custom correction filter in DPP to remove what little distortion or CA there may be, if the camera doesn't have automatic correction for different lenses built into it.
-
I have the 24-70mm v1 and it's a nice very sharp lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8 goes great with it.
-
Wow, great feedback! Sounds like this lens is worth the money.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
-
I totally agree with Mat! Also I don't use any protective glass over my lens just a hood- I figure why would I put a $20 piece of glass over a very expensive glass? The hood protects it from light and dropping it...
I have a friend who subscribes to this way of thinking - me on the other hand, I always put a clear glass filter on all of my lenses, I want nothing, nada, zero chance of scratching or dirtying my glass. I only use Hoya or B&W clear glass filters, so no $20 filter for me. I think the impact of this filter in front of the lens produces negligible negative results.
BTW the 24-70 II is an unbeatable piece of glass. Superb.
-
24-70 for me too. I use that lens the most I'd say. Second in line is the 70-200 which is perhaps my favorite lens. I would almost recommend that as the first lens but the 24-70 is a bit more versatile. Start with the 24-70 then start saving right away for the 70-200 :)
In regards to a filter on the front. I just use the lens hood. If you are paying that much for a lens, why wreck it with a cheap (or expensive) filter. If the front piece of glass ever does get a very nasty scratch in it, you can always send it away for repair and get the front glass replaced - it's not like you need an entire new lens. You need some pretty bad scratching before it will affect the photo as well. Stick a small piece from a post it note on your lens and see how much you notice it? Now do you think you'll see the effects of a tiny scratch?
I had my 70-200 fall out of my bag once when switching lenses. It felt from backpack height onto concrete (It didn't have the lens hood on). It dented the rear metal a bit and damaged the IS but it kept on working. I ended up having to send it for repair.. but they were able to repair it... an expensive fall but cheaper than replacing the entire lens - they are built very very well.
-
28-75mm 2.8 Tamron much lighter much cheaper but optically superb. I prefer it over my 24-70 L v1 most of the time.
-
if you do decide on the 70-200 make sure you have a gym membership to get your arms, shoulders and back in shape because you will need it lol!
-
I agree with the 40mm 2.8 STM pancake being surprisingly useful. Also, I think the kit 24-105 f/4 USM is pretty good, especially since it has IS.
-
In regards to a filter on the front. I just use the lens hood. If you are paying that much for a lens, why wreck it with a cheap (or expensive) filter. [...] You need some pretty bad scratching before it will affect the photo as well. Stick a small piece from a post it note on your lens and see how much you notice it? Now do you think you'll see the effects of a tiny scratch?
Is it just me or are those 2 statements kind of contradictory? :D
-
I like the 24-105 f/4 IS too. I find I rarely have to change a lens when I have this on my camera. For close in work I use the 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens and for long reaches I use the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS.
-
In regards to a filter on the front. I just use the lens hood. If you are paying that much for a lens, why wreck it with a cheap (or expensive) filter. [...] You need some pretty bad scratching before it will affect the photo as well. Stick a small piece from a post it note on your lens and see how much you notice it? Now do you think you'll see the effects of a tiny scratch?
Is it just me or are those 2 statements kind of contradictory? :D
how are they contradictory? Maybe I am blind to my own statement.
-
In my experience the protection a filter offers is more about the shape of the filter thread than the state of the glass. A sideways knock on a wall or dropping the camera is unlikely to harm the glass but is very likely to bend the front rim. I've got a wrecked 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 with a bent rim. In both cases, the glass is still perfect. The 70-200 would still be unharmed if it had had a filter on it at the time it hit the floor.
-
I was considering getting the B+W UV-Filter F-Pro MRC 010M SH to protect the front glass.
So far I was lucky never dropping any of my gear or bumping into things but I do want to take some precautions when I spend that kind of $$$ for a lens.
Obviously a lens hood should also do the trick but then the front glass is "exposed" to all kinds of conditions.
Are the B+W Pro series filters degrading the light in an obvious visible way or are they not really noticeable in the images later?
-
I hate the 24/70. Sold mine. Too much CA and S-U-C-K-S (leaf really?) in dust. And no Image Stabilization. Get the 24/105 which has IS and less CA. Only goes to f/4 but I use the 50mm f/1.8 if I need smaller DOF.
Gonna buy a 17-40mm since I just got a home interior shoot
-
Canon 50mm f1.4 or 1.2!
-
Canon 50mm f1.4 or 1.2!
They are on the list later down the road but I'm looking for one lens that helps me cover a common focal range.
-
Sigma 35 and 85 1.4...... had them both for a month and havent shot with anything else since i got them...all my 2.8 L zooms are collecting dust..
-
Sigma 35 and 85 1.4...... had them both for a month and havent shot with anything else since i got them...all my 2.8 L zooms are collecting dust..
Sell them to the OP stockphoto-images.com :)
-
I hate the 24/70. Sold mine. Too much CA and S-U-C-K-S (leaf really?) in dust. And no Image Stabilization. Get the 24/105 which has IS and less CA. Only goes to f/4 but I use the 50mm f/1.8 if I need smaller DOF.
Gonna buy a 17-40mm since I just got a home interior shoot
The 17-40 has the worst CA of all by a country mile - but the software can fix it.
-
I hate the 24/70. Sold mine. Too much CA and S-U-C-K-S (leaf really?) in dust. And no Image Stabilization. Get the 24/105 which has IS and less CA. Only goes to f/4 but I use the 50mm f/1.8 if I need smaller DOF.
Gonna buy a 17-40mm since I just got a home interior shoot
If you hate CA than you will not like the 17-40mm. It also has a super sharp center but really soft corners. CA really doesn't bother me because Lightroom easily gets rid of it. I really like the 17-40mm.
I never really liked the 24-105. It has a soft zone between about 60-90mm where it's not sharp at even f/8. But it seems like the agencies are dropping standards so maybe it's not as much of a problem now.
-
Sigma 35 and 85 1.4...... had them both for a month and havent shot with anything else since i got them...all my 2.8 L zooms are collecting dust..
Sell them to the OP stockphoto-images.com :)
Excellent suggestion Ron ;D
Check dxo mark what glass performs best with your body, was the sigmas for my 6D.
-
Sigma 35 and 85 1.4...... had them both for a month and havent shot with anything else since i got them...all my 2.8 L zooms are collecting dust..
Sell them to the OP stockphoto-images.com :)
Ha, for the right price this might be something to consider ;)
-
There is a good reason Canon chose 24-105 L as a kit lens for 5D line. First one I bought was very soft and I returned it. A year later I bought another one and kept it. It is the most versatile walk around lens. Add 50/1.4 for low light and texture/background/product shots since it is very sharp corner to corner. Tamron 90/2.8 VC 1:1 macro is just as good as Canon but cheaper. You will need true macro lens that doubles as a portrait lens sooner or later.
-
Hello,
Another vote for the 24-105.
I've got the 24-105 kit lens and I've got to say - between the Mark III's low-light capability and the image stabilization, it's a great combination as an all-around lens that lets you shoot hand-held in a wide variety of lighting situations.
I've also got the 16-35mm and I've had a number of other quality Canon and Nikon lenses over the years, but I've been really impressed with the combination. I originally dismissed the lens as a cheap add-on, but I've become really fond of it.
Best,
Scott
-
Hello,
Another vote for the 24-105.
I've got the 24-105 kit lens and I've got to say - between the Mark III's low-light capability and the image stabilization, it's a great combination as an all-around lens that lets you shoot hand-held in a wide variety of lighting situations.
...
Best,
Scott
Sure the focal range is better than the 24-70 and therefore has more "benefits" as a walk-around-lens but I'm wondering whether the the 24-105mm produces shallow "enough" depth of field?
I have gotten used to shooting in the 1.8 to 2.8 range with my 50mm prime and love it. Additionally the 24-70 will make life a little bit easier in the lower ISOs I would think. Although I've heard about the great low light performance of the Mark III, I still prefer shooting with ISO as low as possible (as long as I can fully open the lens of course).
Hope this makes sense.
-
Hello,
Another vote for the 24-105.
I've got the 24-105 kit lens and I've got to say - between the Mark III's low-light capability and the image stabilization, it's a great combination as an all-around lens that lets you shoot hand-held in a wide variety of lighting situations.
...
Best,
Scott
Sure the focal range is better than the 24-70 and therefore has more "benefits" as a walk-around-lens but I'm wondering whether the the 24-105mm produces shallow "enough" depth of field?
I have gotten used to shooting in the 1.8 to 2.8 range with my 50mm prime and love it. Additionally the 24-70 will make life a little bit easier in the lower ISOs I would think. Although I've heard about the great low light performance of the Mark III, I still prefer shooting with ISO as low as possible (as long as I can fully open the lens of course).
Hope this makes sense.
It's all a matter of how you work. We shoot 90% of our outdoor work with the 24-105 at f/11, or maybe f/8 once in a while. Most of the rest is with the 16-35 II. We had the 17-40 when we had the original 5D, but as soon as we got the 5D2 we had to upgrade.
-
I also think the Canon 24-105mm f/4L is a better choice. It's more versatile, especially if it's the only lens in your bag. Personally, I don't find the f/4 speed particularly limiting since I shoot mostly at f/8 to f/16. The IS is good when hand-holding but remember to turn it off when using a tripod or you will get softer (blurry) pictures.
The lens I use the most, probably about 80% of the time, is the Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS. It's smaller and lighter than it's f/2.8 big brother and I have no particular need for IS since I shoot off a tripod almost 100% of the time.
Those two lenses are always in my bag. I sometimes also use the 16-35, 24mm TS and the 100mm macro - all Canon - which I rent or borrow depending on need.
The only filters I use are polarizers and neutral density. I use the CPOLs a lot especially outdoors.
To protect the front of the lens (without using a filter) try a screw in METAL lens hood which won't pop off when you bump something.
-
Thanks for the great feedback!
I probably would shoot many subjects at apertures between f8 - f11 (not sure what the sweet spot of this lens is...? - not yet...).
My most specific "requirements" would be shallow depth of field of the 24-70mm @ f2.8 for portraits.
I have to google some sample portrait shots from each lens at f4 and f2.8 to get an idea of the depth of field performance.
Besides the speed of the lens I'm also wondering about the sharpness they can produce.
The 24-70 comes at twice the price of the 24-105 (roughly). Do these lenses produce similar sharpness?
Again, thanks for taking the time to respond!
-
70-200 (read below) Sold the f/2.8 IS/USM version and bought this. Every bit as sharp and nice little lens. I think people overlook this lens because it's not the Big f/2.8 version. I don't need the IS, why pay for something that's not much use?
Every lens I have has a filter on it from the day I get it, until I sell them. Old school, fine. If I have $1000 - $2000 lens and it gets a chip or scratch, whether it's correctable on images or not, the value of the lens just went down about half.
Imagine yourself in the real world, buying a used lens. Do you buy the one with the scratch in the front element or not? ???
In any case, it's a personal decision, risk vs rewards, and I'm not going to change, the people who don't aren't changing either. We're just hashing over the same endless debate. Personal choice. (http://s5.postimg.org/964khsz8j/beatdeadhorse.gif)
I will testify that the last three UV filters that are cracked, chipped and dented, which I took off and replaced. No one plans on accidents. The filter is insurance against them. Like a wind blowing a tripod over. A car throwing up stones or banging a lens by accident any other way. And I consider myself careful and easy on equipment.
Back OT - I'm with Les on this, if it's someone who doesn't need the wider lens for their main lens, or if someone wants a second REALLY SHARP second lens. Any of the 70-200's from Canon are it. The f/4 is a wonderful lens, just as sharp as the big and heavy f/2.8 and costs much less.
The lens I use the most, probably about 80% of the time, is the Canon 70-200 f/4L non-IS. It's smaller and lighter than it's f/2.8 big brother and I have no particular need for IS since I shoot off a tripod almost 100% of the time.
-
I'd recommend that you read the reviews on Fred Miranda for the lenses that you are considering. They tend to be very comprehensive and knowledgeable;
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php/cat/45 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php/cat/45)
-
My most specific "requirements" would be shallow depth of field of the 24-70mm @ f2.8 for portraits.
24-70 is not considered portrait lens on a full size sensor camera. Conservatively, portrait lens is in a range of 80-135mm.
-
My wife uses a 24-105 on her 5Dmk2 and she gets super sharp results. I tried two copies of the 24-105 on my own 5Dmk2 and both copies were soft.
The original 24-70 is a fine lens, lots available second-hand. Produces first class sharp results. It has CA problems easily corrected with Canon's DPP. Buy a good used copy from a reputable dealer - you won't regret the money saved compared to buying the latest Mk2 version brand new.
The 70-200 F4 is excellent. However mine has sat in the cupboard after I bought the even more excellent 70-300 F4/5.6 L IS. This is an often overlooked lens that equalls the 70-200 in sharpness and has an extra 100mm reach - something that is useful when used with FF cameras.
A used 24-70 Mk1 plus a 70-300 F4/5.6 (L version) make a fine combination.
-
My most specific "requirements" would be shallow depth of field of the 24-70mm @ f2.8 for portraits.
24-70 is not considered portrait lens on a full size sensor camera. Conservatively, portrait lens is in a range of 80-135mm.
I think you are right. With the crop factor of my Nikon I end up at 75mm already with the 50mm f1.8.
Stupid me, looks like I "have" to get the 24-105...
-
My most specific "requirements" would be shallow depth of field of the 24-70mm @ f2.8 for portraits.
24-70 is not considered portrait lens on a full size sensor camera. Conservatively, portrait lens is in a range of 80-135mm.
I think you are right. With the crop factor of my Nikon I end up at 75mm already with the 50mm f1.8.
Stupid me, looks like I "have" to get the 24-105...
Well, you could always stand a bit further back with the 24-70 to get the same perspective as with a 90mm lens and then crop the edges off. It really depends on whether you need all 22 million pixels, or would 15 million be enough? It may seem odd to use a 5D as a cropping camera but if portraits are just one part of your work and the rest of it needs the 24-70 range then it's a reasonable alternative to having to buy two expensive lenses in order to get portraits which probably have far more MP than you really need.
-
My wife uses a 24-105 on her 5Dmk2 and she gets super sharp results. I tried two copies of the 24-105 on my own 5Dmk2 and both copies were soft.
The original 24-70 is a fine lens, lots available second-hand. Produces first class sharp results. It has CA problems easily corrected with Canon's DPP. Buy a good used copy from a reputable dealer - you won't regret the money saved compared to buying the latest Mk2 version brand new.
The 70-200 F4 is excellent. However mine has sat in the cupboard after I bought the even more excellent 70-300 F4/5.6 L IS. This is an often overlooked lens that equalls the 70-200 in sharpness and has an extra 100mm reach - something that is useful when used with FF cameras.
A used 24-70 Mk1 plus a 70-300 F4/5.6 (L version) make a fine combination.
I hear you and there is not much I can say against your arguments.
I have to admit that I will be doing footage as well (I haven't mentioned that yet...) and for a bunch of topics I do need a wide angle. Therefore I wanted to start off with a wide angle zoom lens. I'm well aware that I need to cover the longer focal range with the FF. But I have to take things (financially) "slow", otherwise I would buy the combo you mentioned in your last sentence.
Hmm, just checking the price tags now...
-
Well, you could always stand a bit further back with the 24-70 to get the same perspective as with a 90mm lens and then crop the edges off. It really depends on whether you need all 22 million pixels, or would 15 million be enough? It may seem odd to use a 5D as a cropping camera but if portraits are just one part of your work and the rest of it needs the 24-70 range then it's a reasonable alternative to having to buy two expensive lenses in order to get portraits which probably have far more MP than you really need.
Yes, of course, it's not a huge issue cropping it down.
I still need to check examples of the f2.8 vs. f4 fully open to get an idea of the DOF.
Financially, the 24-105 would fit much better into my budget... if I can save some extra $$$ I might be able to add the 70-300 L as well. Then I'd be set for a while.
However, if someone (of you stock shooters) told me that the performance of the 24-105 is not comparable to the 24-70 I might rather get the f2.8 as a long term investment.
Apparently the 24-105 is sharp enough to make a lot of people happy. If I can get a hand on it to test it, I'll know for sure.
-
The tools on Cambridgeincolour's website will tell you the depth of field for different apertures at different focal lengths and shooting distances.
Obviously, you need to know what sort of distance you intend to shoot from, which depends on what sort of perspective you want. And any sample shots showing perspective at different apertures would only be useful if they were taken at the same distance that you intend to use.
-
The tools on Cambridgeincolour's website will tell you the depth of field for different apertures at different focal lengths and shooting distances.
Obviously, you need to know what sort of distance you intend to shoot from, which depends on what sort of perspective you want. And any sample shots showing perspective at different apertures would only be useful if they were taken at the same distance that you intend to use.
Thanks for the link!
Agree with everything else you said!
-
Well, you could always stand a bit further back with the 24-70 to get the same perspective as with a 90mm lens and then crop the edges off. It really depends on whether you need all 22 million pixels, or would 15 million be enough? It may seem odd to use a 5D as a cropping camera but if portraits are just one part of your work and the rest of it needs the 24-70 range then it's a reasonable alternative to having to buy two expensive lenses in order to get portraits which probably have far more MP than you really need.
Yes, of course, it's not a huge issue cropping it down.
I still need to check examples of the f2.8 vs. f4 fully open to get an idea of the DOF.
Financially, the 24-105 would fit much better into my budget... if I can save some extra $$$ I might be able to add the 70-300 L as well. Then I'd be set for a while.
However, if someone (of you stock shooters) told me that the performance of the 24-105 is not comparable to the 24-70 I might rather get the f2.8 as a long term investment.
Apparently the 24-105 is sharp enough to make a lot of people happy. If I can get a hand on it to test it, I'll know for sure.
Not just for us, happy users, but for picky inspectors is OK as well.
-
Not just for us, happy users, but for picky inspectors is OK as well.
Ha, an important point well made. ;)
-
I haven't shopped around on this but I would imagine you can get the 24-70 f/2.8 L version 1 for a much better price now. Check ebay for sellers that are upgrading to version II.
Good luck!
-Mat
-
I'm planning on getting the Mark III soon but I'm torn about which first lens to get.
I was thinking about the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. to cover most shooting scenarios.
Is anyone using this lens or would you recommend another lens?
Thanks in advance and happy New Year!
At the very least this should be your first lens. Your second lens should be a 70-200 f/2.8L II
You won't need anything else for a very long time.
I have owned and sold two copies of the 24-105L. That lens sucks. It sucks light out of things. I've been walking through Downtown Denver at 10am in the Spring and have had to up iso to 400 because the lens just sucks light. Get fast glass - you won't regret it. I have not had ANY problem with chromatic aberration with the 24-70.
If you feel like spending more money, then a 50mm f/1.4 and an 85 f/1.8 should go into your bag as well for those extremely low light conditions
-
I have owned and sold two copies of the 24-105L. That lens sucks. It sucks light out of things. I've been walking through Downtown Denver at 10am in the Spring and have had to up iso to 400 because the lens just sucks light.
Laugh? I thought I'd never get my trousers dry!