October 23, 2014, 07:23:41 AM

Author Topic: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??  (Read 2627 times)

Ming-Tzu

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« on: April 02, 2012, 09:17:26 PM »
I currently own a t2i and use the following glass:

17-55 2.8
50 1.4
85 1.8
135 2.0

I mainly shoot concerts in pretty low light and the occasional travel photography.  Some portraits here and there too.  Many times, the portraits I take are at these low light and cramped shows so it's nice to have the flexibility of a zoom rather than a prime.

I am looking to purchase the Mark III soon and wondering if I should go with the kit or just the body.

My plan was to get just the body and use the 50 1.4 until the 24-70 II comes out.  However, with the rumored delay, it seems like it might be a while.

1) Should I go ahead and get the 24-105 and sell it when the 24-70 II comes out, after making sure the reviews are good?

2) Still torn between the 24-70 Mark I and the 24-105.  Numerous reviews and discussion boards go back and forth over which one's better.  Ultimately, I like the 24-70 Mark I because of the 2.8 aperture.  However, I also want to have the sharpest pictures so not sure which one would fall into that category.  Thoughts??

3) What's the likelihood that I am able to sell the 24-105 for the price I got it for (e.g. roughly $800 in the kit)?

4) I guess another option is for me to purchase the 24-70 Mark I and sell it when the Mark II comes out but that just seems like a waste of money when I have the primes to fall back on.

What does everyone think?

Thanks!!!

canon rumors FORUM

50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« on: April 02, 2012, 09:17:26 PM »

gerga

  • Guest
Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2012, 02:49:11 AM »
Looking at your current linup, the 5DIII kit w/24-105L might be a good option - getting this lens as a kit saves a fair bit of dough over its retail cost, and its reach on a FF body exceeds the 17-55 EF-S on a crop at both the wide and long ends.  It is a very nice lens ("kit" means something quite different at the xD level compared with the xxxD level!), and you could get it now as opposed to the possibly interminable wait in store for the mk II 24-70L f2.8.  It is slower at f4 than the f2.8, which may be a concern initially for you given your concert shooting, but you have fast primes, and the combination of the fantastic low-light performance of the 5d3 sensor + IS on the 24-105 should be a significant mitigating factor.

mgotcher

  • Guest
Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2012, 03:30:05 PM »
The AF and the great high ISO performance of the mark iii makes it a great low light camera. That said, I have the 5D3 but do not have either lens.  Wanting to wait for the 24-70 mark ii.   I know that my 70-200 f/4 IS works very well in low light with the new camera.  I have used it in low light concert situations with the 50D and it hunted for focus often.  Tried it outside at night with the 5D3 and it locked focus fast and consistent and was able to shoot at high shutter speeds without problems.  Now if you need a nice shallow DOF and don't have much room to shoot then the 24-70 mark I might fit the bill better.  Hope this helps.

Michael

P.s. again, the 5D3 is an incredible camera!  Night and day from the 50D

Ming-Tzu

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2012, 04:10:59 PM »
After some thought, I am going to keep both the t2i and the 5dm3 for my low-light events.  On the crop, I'll use the 17-55.  On the FF, I'll use one of my primes.

An alternative for me might be to get the 16-35L II for my FF and use one of my primes with the crop.

Who knows.

Thanks!

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1369
    • View Profile
Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2012, 04:26:27 PM »
The 5DIII would be much better than the t2i in low light.  Having moved from a crop body to a 5DII, I find that I have a 1-2 stop noise advantage with the 5DII (LightRoom processed RAWs), and the 5DIII is better than the 5DII.

If you can wait, don't buy the 5DIII until the after the 24-70II comes out.  If you're happy with the IQ and shutter speeds with your t2i, then wait for 24-70II.  If you find that you'd prefer faster shutter speeds then, I'd suggest looking at a 24 or 35mm f/1.4 prime if you can handle the thinner DOF.  I'd avoid getting the 24-70 I or 24-105 as stop gap measures.  Keep using your current setup for the meantime.

Ming-Tzu

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2012, 05:28:17 PM »
The 5DIII would be much better than the t2i in low light.  Having moved from a crop body to a 5DII, I find that I have a 1-2 stop noise advantage with the 5DII (LightRoom processed RAWs), and the 5DIII is better than the 5DII.

If you can wait, don't buy the 5DIII until the after the 24-70II comes out.  If you're happy with the IQ and shutter speeds with your t2i, then wait for 24-70II.  If you find that you'd prefer faster shutter speeds then, I'd suggest looking at a 24 or 35mm f/1.4 prime if you can handle the thinner DOF.  I'd avoid getting the 24-70 I or 24-105 as stop gap measures.  Keep using your current setup for the meantime.

My initial post was written with the assumption that I would sell the crop in favor of the FF.  However, I think I'm just going to keep both bodies so that changes my needs a bit.  I probably won't even get the 24-70L II since I already have the 17-55 for the crop, and there would too much FL overlap.

Since I'm keeping the 17-55 on the crop most of the time, the only decision is what to put on the FF.

1) 50 1.4 / 85 1.8 / 135L
I will probably use one of my existing primes (probably the 135) and see if the FL fits my needs.  If it doesn't, I can work my way down to the 85 if need be.

2) 16-35L II
I was thinking of getting this for the FF but that would be as pointless as getting the 24-70L II because there's too much FL overlap with the 17-55 on the crop.  The only way I would get this for the FF is to have that UWA and then put one of my primes on the crop body for the reach.  But I think the costs outweigh the benefit in this case.

3) 70-200L IS II
I was thinking of getting this for the FF but I'm wondering if it's too beastly to carry around with me along with another body.  Walking around a venue, bumping into people.  I would have the entire 27-200 FL covered though, which is nice.

I'm leaning towards keeping the 17-55 on the crop and using one of my primes on the FF.  The reason being is that I'm not quite sure what FL I would need on a second body as of yet.  Also, I only have one flash, the 580EX II.  I'm kind of wary on using the 70-200L IS II on my FF without a flash because I'm just not sure how 2.8 will do for low-light event type stuff.  That and the whole beastly nature thing lol

Ming-Tzu

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM »
Eventually, I may get the 16-35L II and the 70-200L IS II and the 24-70L II for general purpose type stuff haha

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2012, 05:41:24 PM »

KreutzerPhotography

  • Guest
Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2012, 05:54:57 PM »
I tend  to use my 70-200mm f/4L IS for most concert photography (granted Im shooting at 3200 ISO). I also use the 16-35mm 2.8L II (on a crop) occassionally for the wider shots. I like the lens combo but will be upgrading/changing the 70-200 VERY soon. Hopefully to replace with the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II...

Ming-Tzu

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2012, 05:59:43 PM »
I tend  to use my 70-200mm f/4L IS for most concert photography (granted Im shooting at 3200 ISO). I also use the 16-35mm 2.8L II (on a crop) occassionally for the wider shots. I like the lens combo but will be upgrading/changing the 70-200 VERY soon. Hopefully to replace with the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II...

Are you using the 70-200 on the same crop body?  That would be too long for my purposes I think.

If I didn't have the 17-55, I would've bought the 16-35 for my crop because the FL is perfect.

KreutzerPhotography

  • Guest
Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2012, 06:33:05 PM »
I tend  to use my 70-200mm f/4L IS for most concert photography (granted Im shooting at 3200 ISO). I also use the 16-35mm 2.8L II (on a crop) occassionally for the wider shots. I like the lens combo but will be upgrading/changing the 70-200 VERY soon. Hopefully to replace with the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II...

Are you using the 70-200 on the same crop body?  That would be too long for my purposes I think.

If I didn't have the 17-55, I would've bought the 16-35 for my crop because the FL is perfect.
Yeah I am... I tend to do some tight framed shots... I maily do weddings but have recently started doing more concerts and such. 70mm can be a little tight sometimes but it depends on the venue...

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1369
    • View Profile
Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2012, 07:09:31 PM »
After some thought, I am going to keep both the t2i and the 5dm3 for my low-light events.  On the crop, I'll use the 17-55.  On the FF, I'll use one of my primes.

An alternative for me might be to get the 16-35L II for my FF and use one of my primes with the crop.

Who knows.

Thanks!

If you get an ultrawide, it's cheaper to get it for the crop camera (i.e. Tokina 11-16 or Canon 10-22).  Use the primes and faster lenses on the FF. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 50 1.4 and 24-70 2.8 II later on versus 24-105??
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2012, 07:09:31 PM »