WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Video and Photography (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=87667)
-   -   Lens upgrade question (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=786587)

dirwoody 03-24-2011 8:22 PM

Lens upgrade question
Canon guy looking to upgrade my glass. I shoot weddings, wakeboarding, landscapes, macro....pretty much anything I think looks cool, or will pay the bills
Current bag......
10-22 EFS
28-135 EF
17-85 EFS
and 70-200 2.8 is

Looking to sell the 28-135 and 17-85 and pick up some L glass.
Looking at the 17-40, 24-70, and the 24-105. I like the first two due to the 2.8 aperture, but I also like the range of the 24-105.

skull 03-24-2011 8:51 PM

The 17-40 is f4... if you want that range in f2.8 you need to go 16-35 for around $1700 whereas the 17-40 is less than half that much. Both are awesome and are roughly the same size/weight.

On your list I'd probably go 24-70 which is a lens I love. I used that one about 100% of the time in the studio. I have never owned the 24-105 but love IS. I think the 28-135 is actually a pretty nice lens. I used it a lot because it was so light. You need to decide if you want your main kit to be f2.8 or f4. I think 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 IS is a pretty awesome kit if you are working in low light with limited flash use. If you are going to use flash most of the time I'd probably go with f4 and save a little cash.

wakedad33 03-24-2011 10:34 PM

I really like my 17-50 2.8 Tamron, it,s very sharp, my 2nd favorite lens behind the 70-200 2.8. IS. Maybe I just got a good copy, but it's a lens I don't plan on selling anytime soon. Agree with Rob on the 28-135, pretty good glass, but I haven't seen mine in about 6 months since my daughter got her XTi :D

barry 03-24-2011 10:43 PM

What body?

skull 03-25-2011 6:25 AM

Bang for buck the 28-135 is probably one of the best deals in the Canon line. You can pay 3X as much and only get something very slightly sharper. You are paying a lot for weather resistance. Why not keep the 28-135, sell the 17-85 (never used one and don't know the value) and get a 50 f1.4 and maybe a 85 f1.8? Every wedding photog I know seems to use a 50 prime quite a bit.

dirwoody 03-25-2011 10:04 AM

Was planning on picking up the 50 1.4 regardless.....a must have lens that I don't have.
My bad on the 17-40 being f4 - overlooked that one, but you are absolutely correct.
As for bodies, I'm currently shooting a 40 and 20D, looking to upgrade soon, but know what glass prices have done in the last year, so will be doing that part first. The 20D really needs to go. I'm hoping to move to the 5D in the next 12 months, but a 7 might have to suffice (not that it's at all bad, just not full frame - either one will nice upgrades from my 40 which I'll keep as a back-up)
Randy - I'll look into the Tamron, hadn't even considered it, but will do some digging - Thanks!

So - At this point - keep the 28-135, pick up the 24-70 and the 50. That would free up some cash for the body upgrade and possibly the Tamron, or start saving for the 16-35.

dirwoody 03-25-2011 10:10 AM

Randy - I'm assuming you're talking about this tamron - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...0mm_f_2_8.html
The only concern I have with that lens is my wanting to move to full frame in the somewhat near future

skull 03-25-2011 10:12 AM

Also, don't overlook the great $100 50 f1.8. Granted it looks cheesy but that little sucker is SHARP. My wife uses it 100% of the time and her pics are pretty sick. It is debatable how much better the 50 f1.4 is but it is definitely not 3X better as the price reflects! The 50 f1.2L is definitely NOT worth the money IMO.

dirwoody 03-25-2011 10:23 AM

Interesting........I figured the 1.4 would be head and shoulders above the 1.8. Very interesting
The 1.2 - I'm with you, not worth it

barry 03-25-2011 11:14 AM

I think the 16-35 is a waste on a 1.6.. If you end up with a 5D, that lens is a must!

I'm with Rob on the 50mm 1.8 vs. 1.4.. I've had both and if I had been able to compare them side-by-side before purchase I wouldn't have wasted the money on the 1.4. An older metal mount 1.8 would be ideal.

Also, have a look at this gem. I purchased one a couple of years ago while I waited to find a 28-70 2.8L and it's a super rich, tack sharp lens! I found the 28-70L and gave the Tamron to my father.. what a mistake! I'm always trying to con into me giving it back to me. He ain't havin' any of it! he loves that lens.


skull 03-25-2011 12:51 PM

I agree... I use the 16-35 with my 5D MII and it is awesome. On a crop body I use a Tokina 11-16 which I also love. You already have the 10-22 to handle ultra-wide on a 1.6 crop body. I use the 50 f1.4 and don't think it is $200+ better than the 1.8. It should at least come with a damn lens hood!!!!

Walt 03-25-2011 7:41 PM

24-70 would be my pick.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:34 PM.