June 18, 2018, 01:47:36 PM

Author Topic: 24, 35 or 70-200  (Read 7269 times)

l0pht

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 19
24, 35 or 70-200
« on: January 31, 2012, 02:25:56 PM »
I currently have a XSI and am still debating on the 5D II or waiting on the III but I'll figure that out :)

Either way I'm looking to buy an additional lens.  I currently have a Sigma 50mm that pretty much lives on my camera now since I can't stand the kit lenses that came with my XSI after shooting with a prime.  I've read about the 24, 35 and 70-200 and they all seem to be really good lenses.  I don't make money taking photos (not yet anyways) but want a versatile lens that will last me a really long time.  I'm basically looking for opinions on what lenses typically live on your cameras and what you mostly shoot?

I know I visited Rome and was disappointed I couldn't get good pictures with my 50mm on the crop body of a lot of the architecture but enjoy shooting portraits and like the 70-200 for the range it has but it doesn't seem like the kind of lens you can throw on a camera and over your shoulders for an afternoon.

I will shoot some video too, not sure if that matter much but figured I'd throw it out there.


canon rumors FORUM

24, 35 or 70-200
« on: January 31, 2012, 02:25:56 PM »

00Q

  • Guest
Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2012, 03:15:49 PM »
24-70mm f/2.8

That is THE lens you put on your camera at all times. Covers all the range you need. Well, get a wide angle on its own, and later a 70-200.

thepancakeman

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
  • If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2012, 03:28:44 PM »
When wandering Rome, you are correct the 70-200 isn't going to cut it.   :-\

Personally I almost never take that lens off (and yes, I'm using a crop body, not FF), but I neither could I shoot a landscape or architecture to save my life so I don't usally even try.  But even with my strict focus on people and sports there have been a few instances that I couldn't back far enough away to get the shot with the 70mm minimum.  I love the lens and use it 95% of the time, but it is not going to have a ton of flexibility if you want to move beyond head-shot portraits and sports (and maybe street?  Dunno, never tried...)

When I need to go shorter, the 24-105L produces great images, so if you don't need the speed or short DOF, I can easily recommend it.  For my uses either I or my target seem to always be on the move, so a zoom is almost indespensible for me and as much as I love the IQ of primes they rarely make it onto my camera. 

Look at the EXIF of the photos you've shot and figure out if you zoom a lot or kinda keep it at one spot, and shop accordingly.

jwong

  • Guest
Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2012, 03:53:28 PM »
I currently have a XSI and am still debating on the 5D II or waiting on the III but I'll figure that out :)

Either way I'm looking to buy an additional lens.  I currently have a Sigma 50mm that pretty much lives on my camera now since I can't stand the kit lenses that came with my XSI after shooting with a prime.  I've read about the 24, 35 and 70-200 and they all seem to be really good lenses.  I don't make money taking photos (not yet anyways) but want a versatile lens that will last me a really long time.  I'm basically looking for opinions on what lenses typically live on your cameras and what you mostly shoot?

I know I visited Rome and was disappointed I couldn't get good pictures with my 50mm on the crop body of a lot of the architecture but enjoy shooting portraits and like the 70-200 for the range it has but it doesn't seem like the kind of lens you can throw on a camera and over your shoulders for an afternoon.

I will shoot some video too, not sure if that matter much but figured I'd throw it out there.

Really depends on whether or not you plan on moving full frame.  If you stay with the crop sensor, then the mix of ef-s 10-22, ef-s 17-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 works really well.  If you get a 70-200, a shoulder strap system like the BlackRapid is almost a necessity.

It gets complicated when planning to go full frame in the future.  You could go 24-105 to cover the mid-range (instead of the 17-55) and get a used 10-22.

The 10-22 is great for indoor architecture (houses, churches, etc.), and the 70-200 is awesome for sports and shows.  I tend to use primes more for indoor use, but zooms are more versatile when travelling especially outdoors.  The 35L is a great lens (close enough to 50mm on a crop body), but I don't think that lens should be your next purchase.  It does not give a focal length difference large enough from the 50.  I think that you'd be better served getting either a 70-200 or an ultrawide zoom next.

elflord

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 693
Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2012, 06:09:37 PM »
I currently have a XSI and am still debating on the 5D II or waiting on the III but I'll figure that out :)

Either way I'm looking to buy an additional lens.  I currently have a Sigma 50mm that pretty much lives on my camera now since I can't stand the kit lenses that came with my XSI after shooting with a prime.  I've read about the 24, 35 and 70-200 and they all seem to be really good lenses.  I don't make money taking photos (not yet anyways) but want a versatile lens that will last me a really long time.  I'm basically looking for opinions on what lenses typically live on your cameras and what you mostly shoot?

I know I visited Rome and was disappointed I couldn't get good pictures with my 50mm on the crop body of a lot of the architecture but enjoy shooting portraits and like the 70-200 for the range it has but it doesn't seem like the kind of lens you can throw on a camera and over your shoulders for an afternoon.

I will shoot some video too, not sure if that matter much but figured I'd throw it out there.

70-200 isn't a good range for architecture either. You should be looking into wide angle lenses.

If you're looking for a prime, the 24mm is the obvious choice if you really are going to buy a full frame camera. But that's not optimal on a crop -- on a crop, you're better off with any of the wide angle zooms (like the Canon 10-22) or the 17-55.

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4544
Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2012, 11:53:15 PM »
have you considered the 16-35 f2.8? this will cover everyling wider than your 50 is quite compact and will be fine when you get full frame however the caveat to this is on a full frame is is very wide so you change the way you use it. you could also get the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS and get image stabiliser, the 17-55 hold value very well so you could just sell it when you move to full frame on the long end you might want to consider the 100 f2.8L macro it will give you 160 for the long end and is awesome for portraits and an exceptionally sharp lens and of course it can take pictures of really small stuff too, its light and more stealth than the 70-200.
you can get the 16-35 f2.8 and the 100 f2.8L together for less than the 70-200 f2.8L IS2

just a few things to ponder :)
APS-H Fanboy

dunkers

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 76
Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2012, 03:14:43 AM »
24-70mm f/2.8

That is THE lens you put on your camera at all times. Covers all the range you need. Well, get a wide angle on its own, and later a 70-200.

I second that. Only problem is that a new one may be coming out pretty soon.

Another alternative would be the Tamron 18-270 lol. Covers every possible range you could need on a day to day basis. The quality is really good as well.
5D3 | 60D | 100L IS | 70-200L II IS | 24-105L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2012, 03:14:43 AM »

mulo

  • Guest
Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2012, 06:17:31 AM »

I second that. Only problem is that a new one may be coming out pretty soon.

Another alternative would be the Tamron 18-270 lol. Covers every possible range you could need on a day to day basis. The quality is really good as well.

A new one coming out should only mean that it will get cheaper, especially second hand.

remember with the tamron, he won't be able to auto focus above 100mm as his camera only autofocuses up to f/5.6

oh and first post here :)

TexPhoto

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1221
Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2012, 08:15:05 AM »
The 24-70 and the 24-105 are fantastic lenses, and one should be in your collection.  In my opinion if shooting FF, one should be the base of your collection and every other lens, an addition to that.

I prefer the 24-105, and would suggest buying the "kit lens" with your 5D II, III, IX, whatever.

RC

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 607
Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2012, 08:35:18 AM »
Crop only:  10-22 plus 24-105 (sell the 10-22 when you go FF or keep it if you are keeping your crop body)

FF:  16-35 and if you have the funds add the 24-105

FF prime option:   24L over 35 for architecture
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 08:36:59 AM by RC »

jasonsim

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
  • Hobbyist
Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2012, 09:30:56 AM »
Hi, Depends on what you want to shoot and what camera you will be using it on.  My recommendations for a general purpose:

XSi and other crop: 
Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-56 IS USM - will give you great range and image quality.  Good for when traveling to say Rome.

5D II or other FF:
Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - great walkaround general purpose lens with IS and weather sealing.  Great for video too...IS is a must for hand held video...unless you have one of those shoulder contraptions or a SteadyCam Merlin.

Once you have a general purpose...or if you don't care to have one...it then depends on what you will be shooting. 

Wide angle on Crop:  Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 - the best ultra wide for a crop.
Wide angle for FF:  Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II  though 24mm might already be wide enough for your needs.

Telephoto on crop: 
Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS USM - if you don't need low light indoor sport or dance capability
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II - if you do need to capture fast moving indoor sports.
FF:  same

Wildlife:
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM - if you want to do birding.

Hope this helps.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 11:40:55 AM by jasonsim »
Cams: Canon 5D3, EOS M
Zooms: 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L II, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II; Primes: 22mm f/2, 40mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L IS, 135mm f/2L, 600mm f/4L IS II
Support: Gitzo GT4542LS/G2258, RRS BH-55, Wimberley WH-200

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2012, 09:30:56 AM »