Wake 101
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Video and Photography

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (helix_rider)      Join Date: Mar 2003       04-17-2009, 12:31 PM Reply   
I've read many (and there are many more) reviews of Canon's L-lenses, as well as the input from other discussion boards like FM and PBase, etc. However, I trust you guys alot more than the professional (or photogs) on the other sites.

I have only the 70-200L f/4 non IS for wake shots. I now have a 3 month old little girl and want to have a better lens for getting pics of her (I'm using the nifty 50 for most stuff right now).

The options:

17-40 (Love the wide end of things, and it is less expensive). Used on a 30D, will it satisfy my needs for portraits and such? I figure the 50 and 70-200 will appropriately cover the rest of the ranges.

24-70 My heart says get this, just because I don't have a 2.8 lens. But will it be wide enough for close quarters work on the 1.6 sensor?

24-105 If I go 24 on the wide end, why not make it more versatile up to 105. I obviously have that range in my 70-200, so it would just help with 'switching' lenses.

Big picture, if you could get one of the 3 lenses in the next 2 years...which one would it be (keeping in mind this is for photographing my family primarily).
Old     (dakid)      Join Date: Feb 2001       04-17-2009, 12:36 PM Reply   
this might help.

shot w/ a 24-70mm2.8

Old     (bradlovellphotography)      Join Date: Mar 2009       04-17-2009, 1:38 PM Reply   
Hands down I say the 24-70!! You won't be disappointed!!

btw, nice shot Joe
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       04-17-2009, 3:06 PM Reply   
If you have the 70-200 then I'd seriously consider the 17-40. 24mm isn't wide enough on a 1.6X crop body IMHO, you'll end up wanting a 3rd lens.

I personally like the 24-105 over the 24-70 for a walk around type setup, a little lighter, more compact, better range and the IS is great for low light handheld stuff.

Shot handheld at 1/4 second shutter 5D & 24-105 @ 24mm
Old     (scott_a)      Join Date: Dec 2002       04-17-2009, 3:23 PM Reply   
"I personally like the 24-105 over the 24-70 for a walk around type setup, a little lighter, more compact, better range and the IS is great for low light handheld stuff."

I agree. The 24-70 f2.8 is absolutely top notch in many aspects, but I like the 24-105 f4 IS. The extra reach and IS is soooo nice.
Old     (dhorton)      Join Date: Apr 2002       04-17-2009, 4:37 PM Reply   
I was set on a 24-70 f2.8 L until I happened upon a used 28-70 f2.8 L for half the price. All I can say is wow, this thing great especially for half the price of its newer replacement the 24-70L. Here is a shot of my daughter shot at 50mm f2.8, I'm still blown away at how sharp it is at 2.8 and it gets even sharper as you stop it down. This shot is straight out of the camera, no adjustments, just converted RAW to jpg and uploaded.
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       04-17-2009, 7:57 PM Reply   
The older 28-70 f2.8Ls are generally considered sharper overall then the 24-70 but you don't see too many for sale anymore.
Old     (clubmyke)      Join Date: Aug 2004       04-17-2009, 10:26 PM Reply   
i love my 24-70 f2.8 L. it is my favorite lens and on my 40d 80% of the time..

my other lens are 70-200 f4 IS and the infamous 50mm cheapie..

(Message edited by clubmyke on April 17, 2009)
Old     (clubmyke)      Join Date: Aug 2004       04-17-2009, 11:04 PM Reply   
btw, the 17-40 is NOT a great portrait lens...there is no DOF with that lens and very limited reach..
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       04-18-2009, 7:47 AM Reply   
I think you mean not enough blur/bokeh which is narrow DOF.

DOF is defined as the distance from the foreground of a subject to it's background that is in focus.

Having a small amount of DOF gives you more blur.
Old     (clubmyke)      Join Date: Aug 2004       04-18-2009, 9:41 PM Reply   
yep rich- you are right
Old     (1boarder_kevin)      Join Date: Mar 2007       04-19-2009, 7:25 AM Reply   
Good thread. I have been looking at these lenses as well.

I am also looking at these lenses. I currently have the 40d with the kit 28-135 lens. How much wider is 24 mm as compared to 28 mm? Would I need to go to 17 mm to perceive the difference? It seems like both the 24-105 and 24-70 would give more flexibility, but what do you loose from 17-24?
Old     (caskimmer)      Join Date: Apr 2006       04-19-2009, 9:37 AM Reply   
I'd get a super wide lens opposed to the 24-70. Granted it's not a portrait lens but with a small baby the majority of your shots are going to be taken within a 5 ft distance of her limiting the effectiveness of a mid-range zoom.
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       04-19-2009, 7:46 PM Reply   
I don't think you need a wide angle for good baby shots, get a 35f1.4L or a 35 f2. The 35 f1.4L is money for that kind of shooting.
Old     (helix_rider)      Join Date: Mar 2003       04-21-2009, 11:00 AM Reply   
Thanks for all the tips guys. I have the Sigma 10-20 for wide angle landscape etc., and have used it for some baby shots...but I need/want something in between that and the 50. It will probably come down to what I feel like on the day the money 'comes in'...when getting an L-lens you're bound to end up happy either way. I'm leaning towards the 24-105 for its flexibility (and less obtrusive characteristic...that is, my little 3 month old already turns away when she see the camera coming, no need to have a larger than necessary hood (although I think it looks great) :-))
Old     (garrett_cortese)      Join Date: Mar 2003       04-22-2009, 9:34 PM Reply   
If you want to save some serious $ and still take great shots of your baby look into the 50mm f1.4. It's not L, but it's a great lens. You won't get the autofocus speed of the 28-70 or 24-105, but you'll get the sharpness of a great prime lens. If you want a tighter shot, just walk closer... want a wider shot, just scoot back... It's 1/3 of the cost of the L zoom lenses that have been mentioned here.

I shoot with the 50 f1.2 L for most of my portraits these days and I love it, but I don't think you need that type of glass for what you're looking to do. If portraits are what you're after with a great shallow DOF, then the 50 1.4 should treat you just right.
Old     (caskimmer)      Join Date: Apr 2006       04-23-2009, 8:16 AM Reply   
baby shots= a zoom lens of some type. (at least with most babies) you don't have the luxury of spending time to walk around and compose the shot. After 4 years in a studio I learned that with small children the decisive moment trumps good bokeh every time.

(Message edited by CAskimmer on April 23, 2009)
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       04-23-2009, 8:38 AM Reply   
I'll defer to your studio experience Sean, I think I shot all my kids back then with a Brownie!Upload
Old     (caskimmer)      Join Date: Apr 2006       04-23-2009, 9:01 AM Reply   
Actually thinking about it a little more my situation was all about getting the best picture possible in a 10-30min period and didn't have the luxury of being able to keep trying to get the best of both worlds.
Old     (helix_rider)      Join Date: Mar 2003       05-12-2009, 12:04 PM Reply   
Just wanted to update you...I followed the majority of your advice and chose the 24-70. I still question what the IS would do for me, as I've never had an IS lens before...and I still get ~15% blurry shots when trying to handhold indoors...but this morning I took some pics of a friends child and used well as some of my girl and nephew over the weekend and got great results. Here are a couple of pics I used the 24-70 for...the DOF is going to be fun getting used to. Anyway, thanks for all the advice.
Old     (dhorton)      Join Date: Apr 2002       05-13-2009, 11:28 PM Reply   
Nice choice Loren, congrats on the purchase you will enjoy this lens for years. I personally love the shallow DOF the 2.8 offers and 24-70 is a great walk around range. I shot my 28-70 2.8 almost exclusively at a boxing event several nights last week and got some great keepers with it. Loaned it to a friend that shots sports professionally for the final round that I could not attend and he attached it to his 1d mk2 an loved it too. Now if canon would just make a 24-105 2.8 IS that would be the end all walk around lens.

(Message edited by dhorton on May 13, 2009)
Old     (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       05-14-2009, 7:34 PM Reply   
I'd bet a 24-105 2.8 IS would weight about as much as a 70-200 f2.8 IS which would be a load to walk around with.... I brought my 70-200 2.8 IS to my daughters play tonight and got some good pics but man, that sucker is HEAVY.

I am going to buy a new L series lens this weekend. A 17-40, 28-70 2.8 or maybe the 24-105? I need a flash too. I am thinking I'll get the 430 and save a little cash over the 580 which is pretty pricey for a flash.
Old     (evil0ne)      Join Date: Sep 2006       05-15-2009, 7:47 AM Reply   
Even with the new rebates? I've only borrowed the 580 and it was an amazing night and day difference. For $375 I was going to pick it up.
Old     (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       05-15-2009, 8:00 AM Reply   
I don't the know, the pros I talked to at Competitive Camera in Dallas all pretty much agreed to get the 430 as your first flash and then the 580 once you needed to use two flashes and wanted the 430 as a slave. Most said the 580 wasn't worth the $. I will call and check on the rebate. Thanks for the heads up.
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       05-15-2009, 8:04 PM Reply   
I have a 430 and am happy with it but I'm not a big flash guy. I think the main advantage with the 580 is power and if you're using a multi flash system.

Same thing I've always said: when it comes to photography, if you don't know why you need something then you probably don't.
Old     (wakedad33)      Join Date: Oct 2005       05-15-2009, 10:37 PM Reply   
^^^ ha-ha, from the ultimate gear head
Old     (clubmyke)      Join Date: Aug 2004       05-16-2009, 12:43 AM Reply   
congrats on the 24-70... it is a great lens.

when shooting at f2.8 and a slow shutter (25) make sure you have your points locked on what you want in focus and a steady hand. it takes awhile to get used to it, but once you do - really amazing pics.
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       05-16-2009, 8:30 AM Reply   
Yep, I buy it, figure out I don't need it, sell it and buy something else!Upload

"make sure you have your points locked on what you want in focus and a steady hand. it takes awhile to get used to it"

that's why they invented IS!Upload
Old     (clubmyke)      Join Date: Aug 2004       05-18-2009, 9:57 AM Reply   
i agree but there isnt a mid-wide angle 2.8IS :-(
Old     (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       05-18-2009, 10:04 AM Reply   
I got the 24-70 and am really digging it! I have a feeling it will stay on my 50D most of the time.
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       05-18-2009, 5:29 PM Reply   
Actually there is: 17-55 f2.8 IS (efs of course but that's what most posting here have now).

Sharper then the 24-70, 17-40 & 24-105 from what I hear and on a 1.6 crop body pretty much the focal length equivalent of the 24-70 on a full frame body. Not an L lens but priced and built like one.

It will be interesting to see if Canon ever releases an efs lens with an L designation.
Old     (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       05-18-2009, 6:43 PM Reply   
Yes, i have heard that 17-55 is a bad boy. I should have asked to see one but everyone in the shop pretty much thought the 24-70 was top dog.
Old     (drottie)      Join Date: Feb 2009       06-01-2009, 9:12 PM Reply   
Toss this out and see what you guys think..... One of the guys at the last K9 certification I was at was shooting with a 35-350 f/3.5-5.6 L and was bragging it up. Has anyone used/own this lens? I know you can only get them used and they go for about $1000 on Ebay. I want a good in boat L lens, this seems like it would have great range. I shoot a Canon 50D and have the 17-85EFS 4-5.6 IS , and a 16-35 2.8L, oh and of course the nifty 50, what do ya this would this be a good boat lens or would you guys go a different route?...
Old     (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       06-02-2009, 6:34 AM Reply   
The original "white" superzoom, built like a tank and very heavy. Well it scored an 8.4 on FM reviews which usually means some really like it and some don't. I've never seen any spectacular shots from one and there's a reason when an L lens sells for half of it's original retail.

I'd be careful on a 50D where the sensor pixel density requires the best if you want your images to "sing".

If you're going to spend a $1000 I'd stick with one of the 70-200s as it doesn't appear that lens is in the same class as those or the 100-400 image wise.
Old     (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       06-03-2009, 8:24 AM Reply   
I use a 50D with a 70-200 2.8IS and love it for boat use.
Old     (drottie)      Join Date: Feb 2009       09-08-2009, 9:11 PM Reply   
Just got a 70-200 2.8IS on rent from I've got a boat trip planned for this weekend with a bunch of the guys. We'll be shooting out of the tow boat and chase boats. Any tips would be appreciated. I played around with the lens yesterday just shooting some pics of the kids and was very impressed. Can't wait to post some shots, and would look forward to any word of wisdom...Thanks


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:56 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home


© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us