August 22, 2014, 10:13:54 AM

Author Topic: Which of these 2 lens combo (24-70L II & 17-40L) or (Zeiss 21/2.8 & 24-105L)?  (Read 2449 times)

The_Shadow_Knows

  • Guest
Hi, trying to decide which one of these combo of lenses would be better to complete my landscape set. I upgraded to a 5DII and a 70-300L so my full frame camera and telephoto portion is well covered. I sold my remaining gears and saved enough to buy either one of these 2 lens combo to complete my 3 lens landscape set.

I would love to have both the 24-70L II and the Zeiss but it is way over my budget.  I have to sub in a cheaper lens with either one of these 2 great lenses to fit within my $2800-$2900 budget.

If you were to choose between these 2 sets, which one would you choose and why?


canon rumors FORUM


wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4456
    • View Profile
landscapes is the one area where i find the 24-105 not as good primarily night long exposures and the sparkles off lights

first one is 24-105

second one is 16-35 II

excuse the overprocessed HDR on the second one i was going through a photomatix phase it still indicates the sparkles are nicer on the 16-35

also the posterisation was just because i resized it with a dodgy office picture program on this crappy windows pc to make it load onto the site
« Last Edit: June 26, 2012, 01:56:10 AM by wickidwombat »
APS-H Fanboy

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1398
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
I'll vote #1 for the Zeiss 21mm, it's on my long-term wishlist (along with a 5D mk5 by the time I can afford it).
As for the the 24-70 vs 24-105, firstly, i don't have either. But I'd probably be going for the 24-105 if its primary use is landscapes. The slower aperture really won't be noticeable because you'll probably be at f/8 and tripod anyway.
The IQ of the 24-70 f/2.8 II remains to be seen, at the same apertures it probably will be better than the 24-105 for sure. But for most (of my) landscapes, the wider the better, and the 17-40 doesn't come close to the ravings about the Zeiss 21 (for anything wider than 30mm, it's probably better to crop the 21mm Zeiss than use either zoom, i reckon). Also, presumably to take those landscapes you'll be hiking to them, so 24-105 + Zeiss 21mm probably comes in lighter than the 24-70 brick.
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3860
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/browse

About 24-70 II & rumor Canon 14-24 f2.8?  ;D
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

drjlo

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
    • View Profile
Well, in the near millenia, I believe Canon is going for the no-mm uncovered approach.  For those who (will be able to eventually maybe) afford them in the future, might as well have a long term plan to get there little by little.

Canon 14-24, 24-70 II, 70-200 f/2.8 II, Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x  :o

Jettatore

  • Guest
Neither, and I'd buy one lens at a time as well, not both together.  There is too much overlap between 24-70 and 17-40 for my tastes.  I have a 16-35 and 24-70 and the overlap just isn't great, it means in the uniqueness department only 16-23 is different from a focal length perspective, and that isn't so dramatic of a difference.  It is still very useful to have the zoom functionality that goes well beyond that, if you are walking about with just one lens, 16-35 makes a pretty good walk-around lens in many situations, etc. etc.  But for landscape shooting where you don't need this sort of convenience, likely you are carrying around a tri-pod and as well likely have time to set up your shot, fumble with changing lenses, etc. etc., I just don't see the point of having an overlap and if you are very serious about it you will likely end up frustrated with the additional distortion that comes from zoom lenses.

21mm vs. 24mm doesn't seem worth in practical terms doubling up on.  I'd rent a 17mm TS-E and if you like it and just go with that for a decent while, then later decide if you want more primes/TS-E's or if you want to get a standard zoom to cover the rest.  Rent to see what works best for you.

iMagic

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
For a little bit more why not EF 16-35mm and either Zeiss 21mm or Canon 24mm L prime?
« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 12:37:57 PM by iMagic »

canon rumors FORUM


IIIHobbs

  • Guest
After having the 5DIII a couple months now, I just recently replaced my 16-35 f2.8 II with the 24 f1.4 II. I loved the 16-35 on my Crop body, but on the full frame I just was not using it as much. I added the 135 f2 and the 50mm f1.2 initially and the 24mm f1.4 just last week. I think it is a perfect trio for the 5DIII.

Unrelated, I also purchased a used 300mm F4 and used it for Lacrosse this past spring, it worked very well, but I am strongly considering replacing it with the new 300mm f2.8 (maybe Santa will bring it).

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3354
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Hi, trying to decide which one of these combo of lenses would be better to complete my landscape set. I upgraded to a 5DII and a 70-300L so my full frame camera and telephoto portion is well covered. I sold my remaining gears and saved enough to buy either one of these 2 lens combo to complete my 3 lens landscape set.

I would love to have both the 24-70L II and the Zeiss but it is way over my budget.  I have to sub in a cheaper lens with either one of these 2 great lenses to fit within my $2800-$2900 budget.

If you were to choose between these 2 sets, which one would you choose and why?

You could buy

24mm 1.4L II
50mm 1.4
135 f/2L

for that kind of monies. Just a thought. ;D

canon rumors FORUM