Counting down my five favorite Canon digital cameras ever. Coming in at #5…..

Tremotino

EOS T7i
Jan 23, 2018
57
29
Munich
Unless price is a super critical factor, I would highly highly recommend the EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM. It is a bit larger and a bit heavier, but it's IQ is much better and it's 1mm wider and it has IS. It is one of the finest lenses Canon has ever produced.
My first SLR was the Canon EOS 550D at the age of 14. I bought it with my first money I earned at a summer job as a waiter in a small hut in the mountains.

Since then, I have always dreamed of the L-lenses and full frame, but could never afford them. I always wanted to buy an ef-s wide angle lens, but never did, because I knew that one day I would buy a full frame camera and then I could not use the ef-s lenses anymore. (I have regretted that I don't have a wide-angle zoom on too many occasions :/ ) Now, 10 years later, I have bought a used 5D mark IV (I will enjoy it for many more years before I buy a used R5 mark II or III, at least that is my plan)

Here is my question: I would like to buy one of the L wide angle lenses, for landscape photography, architecture and occasional travel and rarely for events. Which ones offer the best value for money? Is the 3rd generation of the 16-35 2.8 worth it? It still costs twice as much as the II or the 4.0 versions in the used market. Which would you recommend the 2.8 or 4.0 version in terms of image quality? Is the 11-24mm an option for the above mentioned applications? I would also be interested in the EF 24mm TSE lens for architectural photography and depth-of-field games. Is the version II worth the extra price? Can any of you share any experiences with that lenses?

Thank you
 

meckley

EOS 5D Mk IV & M5
Aug 6, 2014
18
9
I had a AE-1 since 1980. By 2000, it had developed a light leak and I wanted to go digital. I opted for a cheap Panasonic point-and-shoot, but I was not happy with it. After two years, I got the Digital Rebel. We gave it to my daughter and she still uses it!! I was very happy with my AE-1 and it kept me in the Canon family. I now have the 5D mark IV.
 

lo lite

EOS T7i
Apr 29, 2014
98
0
48
Hamburg
My first Canon was a Canovision EX2Hi. Anyone here still knows what this was? Well, years later I bought my first Canon SLR, an EOS 33, after having shot with my old trusty Pentacon Praktica MTL 5B since I was 14. Again, years later I went digital at first with a tiny Digital IXUS 50 (also known as PowerShot Digital ELPH SD400) to test the digital waters. Again years later I bought my first DSLR, an EOS 5D Mk II after realizing I wasn't using my EOS 33 anymore but the IXUS was to toyish.
 

jvillain

EOS 80D
Sep 29, 2018
144
100
I have a shelf full of high end glass but when shooting video I still reach for the kit lenses from time to time when the weight of the good glass prevents me from doing what I need to do. Added bonus image stabalization. If you don't tell the customer they would rarely know. Tell them it's your Black Pro Mist filter.
 

Berowne

... they sparkle still the right Promethean fire.
Jun 7, 2014
281
131
My first digital Canon was a 550D, bought in 2010.

My first SLR was a Pentacon Praktika L, sold as export-model with the designation "Porst reflex CX3", with a Meyer Domiplan 2,8/50 mm lens. A birthday present from my father in 1973.
 
Dec 15, 2019
1
0
I started with my first SLR with the incedible Canon shown in the attachment (Canon EOS Elan II e), i also had a pocket digital camera,Olympus, that had 0.8M sensor. Then i had the EOS Kiss, EOS Rebel XTi and my current one, EOS 7D. Waiting for the R5....
 

Attachments

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
795
822
Unless price is a super critical factor, I would highly highly recommend the EF 16-35 f/4L IS USM. It is a bit larger and a bit heavier, but it's IQ is much better and it's 1mm wider and it has IS. It is one of the finest lenses Canon has ever produced.
EF 16-35 f4 ?
I bought mine for a trip to Utah and Arizona.The results were an absolute disaster....unsharp in every corner. So, I gave it back.
But: having read so many raving comments on Canonrumors, I decided, reluctantly, to give it another try.
The new lens is wonderful, from 16 to 35, from f4 to f11.
Thanks for a great lens, Canonrumors!
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
795
822
My first SLR was the Canon EOS 550D at the age of 14. I bought it with my first money I earned at a summer job as a waiter in a small hut in the mountains.

Since then, I have always dreamed of the L-lenses and full frame, but could never afford them. I always wanted to buy an ef-s wide angle lens, but never did, because I knew that one day I would buy a full frame camera and then I could not use the ef-s lenses anymore. (I have regretted that I don't have a wide-angle zoom on too many occasions :/ ) Now, 10 years later, I have bought a used 5D mark IV (I will enjoy it for many more years before I buy a used R5 mark II or III, at least that is my plan)

Here is my question: I would like to buy one of the L wide angle lenses, for landscape photography, architecture and occasional travel and rarely for events. Which ones offer the best value for money? Is the 3rd generation of the 16-35 2.8 worth it? It still costs twice as much as the II or the 4.0 versions in the used market. Which would you recommend the 2.8 or 4.0 version in terms of image quality? Is the 11-24mm an option for the above mentioned applications? I would also be interested in the EF 24mm TSE lens for architectural photography and depth-of-field games. Is the version II worth the extra price? Can any of you share any experiences with that lenses?

Thank you
Hi Tremotino !
If you are interested in a 24mm TSE, DO NOT buy version 1, no matter how cheap you'd get it.
Version 2 is one of the best Canon lenses ever. But don't drop it (I stupidly did), expensive to get repaired. The 24 TSE II is a great lens for landscapes too, it can also be used handheld for less demanding architectural photography (trips to cities, with light equipment). Buy it, you'll never regret it !
 

StoicalEtcher

EOS RP
Jan 3, 2018
280
191
Yorkshire
My first foray into Canon Digital SLRs was the old 10D - I'd seen some reviews suggesting it could almost replace film (I think some of those reviews must have been written by Canon - but that's another story) - and it was affordable enough to tempt me to give this 'digital thing' a try out :) . I was mostly shooting Hasselblad 503 & Bronica SQAs at the time, but as the ergonomics also semi-matched my personal use EoS 5 (film), it was worth the try, and very enjoyable too. (Not sure the output really matched film, but it was a step on the path there).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bennymiata

jedy

EOS 80D
Feb 14, 2014
139
55
My Dad had a 300D. My first digital camera was a 600D. I used the kit lens for a few months before buying a Sigma 30mm 1.4 (had to send it + camera off to be calibrated). That combo served me well and helped me relearn how to manually expose, having stopped (film) photography for a good number of years. The main issue that eventually lead me to purchase a 6D was the lowlight capability. My Dad inherited and still has the 600D. I also ended up purchasing a 24-105mm f4 L and 70-200mm f4 L, mainly to shoot video with the 6D. Going from 12mins video to 29.59mins was a massive deal back then.
 

Tremotino

EOS T7i
Jan 23, 2018
57
29
Munich
Hi Tremotino !
If you are interested in a 24mm TSE, DO NOT buy version 1, no matter how cheap you'd get it.
Version 2 is one of the best Canon lenses ever. But don't drop it (I stupidly did), expensive to get repaired. The 24 TSE II is a great lens for landscapes too, it can also be used handheld for less demanding architectural photography (trips to cities, with light equipment). Buy it, you'll never regret it !
Thanks for the valuable recommendation!
24mm TSE would be a dream lense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy Hunte

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
380
163
My favorite Canon camera is still the A1 - light, sturdy, high quality images and a wide range of lenses that you could manually control. Too bad Canon can't make a digital version.
The Canon EF-M might actually be pretty similar. It takes all EF lenses, but has no autofocus, and simply has two dials for aperture and shutter respectively.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
380
163
Canon QL-17 or QL-14: a 50mm 1.7 or 1.4 rangefinder. If there's a cheaper and more portable way to get 50mm f/1.4 I don't know it.

EOS-1: This is the camera that took Canon from 25% to 90% of the pro market. (Yeah, arguably the lenses or more specifically the mount was the star, but this was the pro camera with the mount.) It also really nailed down the exact camera shape Canon would use for the top of the line for 30 years and I hope to god they keep using it.

EOS-1v: if you absolutely positively have to shoot film, Canon's made nothing better. Pick one up under $500.

EOS-1Ds: the first digital that a high-end amateur could use whose results were at least as good as film. Before this, you used digital for the workflow, not the finished image. Or you accepted tiny sensors, etc.

EOS R: To be clear I don't even "like" this camera, even though I loved my EOS-1N, 1v, and all three 1Ds's. I know it's about to be superseded but it takes the best pictures of any Canon camera ever. I realize it has lots of other shortcomings but I shouldn't need to defend putting the best IQ on the list. Just as with the EOS-1, it sort of lucked into this role, being the highest-MP camera with the RF mount and its astonishing lenses. Similarly, it's AF is only best, especially with human subjects and ridiculously low f-stops, until the next high-end RF body comes out. But as of today it's top. Just one example: trying to take portraits with the EF85/1.2 at 1.2 on the 1DsMkIII is nearly impossible to focus; even a subject standing still is swaying back and forth enough that you can take ten shots and only have the eyelashes sharp in one of them. With the R it's 10 for 10... even if the subject is walking around. Then try a 50/1.2 and the RF has 10x the resolution of any EF body, so I'm sorry, the EF bodies are simply no comparison. Despite being an unlikable camera, you have to admit it's the go-to if you want the sharpest possible photo from a Canon..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
795
822
I feel ashamed....
And must confess that I didn't like Canon for a very long time, the exception was the Canon F1.
Started with Minolta SRT 101, the Leicaflex SLs, M Leicas and Nikon F2.
To be honest, I bought my EOS 5 DIII only to use the Leica R lenses, and the TSE 24 II...
But this was the beginning of a love affair with Canon (5 D III, 5 D IV, R ,14 EF lenses & 1 RF lens ).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon

kiwiengr

EOS M50
Feb 14, 2015
41
8
1st got an AE1 in '79 followed by a T70 about '85.... went out of photography to a great extent during the '90's but a couple of Sony's (a Mavica about '97 and then a F505 circa 2000) got me back into it. 1sr DLSR was the 300D (aka Rebel) in Nov. '03, followed by a 1D Mkii (Nov 04), then 5D Mkii (when the 5D Mkiii was due to appear), and about 4 years ago the 5D Mkiv.

1st lens was the kit lens, followed by the 28-135. Since then it has all been L series apart from the two most recent, 85 & 135 Art lenses.

Looking forward to trying the R5 when it appears.
 

Fran Decatta

EOS R
Mar 6, 2019
47
43
My first one was the 450D back to 2009. I'll never forget the day that I purchased the 50 1.8. His bokeh, IQ and, over all, low light capabilities in comparison with the 18-55. The next step was the 24-70 2.8 L and, two years later, 5D mkIII, the first day that I saw how technical limitations was running away. I owned other lenses, and, in all my professional carreer, main primes (24, 35, 50 and 85, all of them 1.4) Finally, the evolution send me back to a zoom lens, now with f2 aperture.

And by the way: the 450D+18-55 still working, now in hands of my young cousin :)
 
Why is it always so fun to reminisce about a first camera?

Mine was a hand-me-down from my younger brother (does that make it a hand-me-up?) who decided to upgrade from a 400D to a 7D, and so I traded him my old iPod for the 400D. Used it with the crummy 75-300 non-IS non-USM, and a nifty fifty, until it had an unfortunate accident on a whitewater kayaking trip that resulted in my entire pelican box getting dumped in a river. It was enough camera to get me the bug, though, and led to buying a refurbed 7D and 70-200 2.8 , which has led to me having an entire shelf of bodies and lenses...

<snip>
Here is my question: I would like to buy one of the L wide angle lenses, for landscape photography, architecture and occasional travel and rarely for events. Which ones offer the best value for money? Is the 3rd generation of the 16-35 2.8 worth it? It still costs twice as much as the II or the 4.0 versions in the used market. Which would you recommend the 2.8 or 4.0 version in terms of image quality? Is the 11-24mm an option for the above mentioned applications? I would also be interested in the EF 24mm TSE lens for architectural photography and depth-of-field games. Is the version II worth the extra price? Can any of you share any experiences with that lenses?
Disclaimer: I've never actually used any of the above lenses. I did just decide to upgrade from the 17-40 to the 16-35 f/4 IS, so I've read a LOT of reviews and comparisons the past few weeks.

"Is it worth it" is always a personal decision, so it's not our place to say whether the more expensive lenses are or are not worth the extra cost, for you. I will say, for non-professional use, I can't imagine the 16-35 f/2.8 being worth the price premium. There are professional landscape and travel photographers who rave about the f/4 IS lens. For that type of photography, you rarely, if ever, really need the f/2.8 aperture, and the IS is often more beneficial. Sharpness, color, contrast, distortion, flare... according to everything I've read the past few weeks, the f/4 IS is as good as it gets. IQ on the older versions of the 16-35 f/2.8 (v1 or v2) is definitely not as good, but v3 stepped up to pretty much match the f/4 IS.

The TS-E lenses and the 11-24 are somewhat their own leagues. 11mm is WAY wider than 16. I kind of see it being most suited to people who are used to ultra wide angles, and looking for that next step. I find that the EF-S 10-22 and 17-40 on FF still feel dramatically wide to me, which has kept me from spending a ton of money to go wider. The TS-E lens lineup is certainly intriguing, but they're pretty specialist lenses. If you're interested in "depth of field games" as just some fun and not too serious, the lensbaby lineup might be worth considering... they don't shift, but they do tilt, and you can have some fun for a lot less money (I got a whole kit for $80).

Also worth considering: Filters. Do you use them? The 11-24 doesn't take screw-in filters, although I believe someone has come up with a filter holder solution if you use square filters. The TS-E and 16-35 f/2.8 use 82mm filters. One of the selling points for me on the f/4 IS was that it's 77mm filters, so I can use the ND filters I already have for my other 77mm lenses (70-200, 24-105, etc). Again, I don't know if this matters to you at all, or if you already have 82mm filters, but it's something to think about.

Final thought: If you want wide angles, but don't know what lens to start with, I wouldn't start by buying a new 11-24 or TS-E. A used 17-40 can be had in good shape for $400, and I just bought my 16-35 f/4 IS for $630. At those prices, you can re-sell them for the same price you paid if you end up wanting the pricier lenses for whatever reason, and it ends up being a free test rental. But there's much more of a market for the less expensive options, so it'll be easier to resell them than it would be to resell an 11-24 if you start there and then decide it's wider than you need...

hope that helps!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tremotino

Roy Hunte

EOS R
Aug 30, 2018
41
27
EOS R: I know it's about to be superceded but it takes the best pictures of any Canon camera ever. I realize it has lots of other shortcomings but I shouldn't need to defend putting the best IQ on the list. Just as with the EOS-1, it sort of lucked into this role, being the highest-MP camera with the RF mount and its astonishing lenses. Similary, it's AF is only best, especially with human subjects and ridiculously low f-stops, until the next high-end RF body comes out. But as of today it's top.
I agree with this statement; the R is the best Canon Camera I have owned.
I'm looking forward to the R6 when it comes out.
 

picperfect

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2020
112
91
I agree with this statement; the R is the best Canon Camera I have owned.
I'm looking forward to the R6 when it comes out.
sorry, out of sheer curiosity may I ask what you would find attractive about R6 (not R5) - based on currently rumored specs? Would you see it as a replacement for your R or as an additional body? thx.