This will be my first L lens. Currently have a 50D and nifty fifty and have been borrowing my friends 16-35L for way too long. I am an amateur and mostly shoot landscapes, portrait and some indoor events for fun. I'd like a nice walk around lens but I'm in love the contrast and sharpness of the 35L. I will end up getting both someday but I can't decide which to get first. It would probably be a year before I get the next one. Just looking for other opinions...thanks!
Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L
- Thread starter ambush
- Start date
- Status
If you have to wait a year, get the 24-105. Better for portraits and it goes a little wide. Borrow the 16-35L when you need to go wider/indoor 8)
Oh, and forget the 35mm - save up for a 16-35 cause you'll miss the 16-24 mm range for sure
Oh, and forget the 35mm - save up for a 16-35 cause you'll miss the 16-24 mm range for sure
Upvote
0
What you should consider is what your kit would be after getting 1 lens now and another next year. It looks like you favor the wider FLs. You could consider the following combinations:
1. 10-22 / 17-55 or 15-85/ nifty fifty
2. 10-22 / 35L / nifty fifty
The first option would give you the uwa range for landscapes and a good walk-around lens. The choice between the 17-55 and 15-85 comes down to trading focal length range for about a stop. Something like the second option would give you more low light/shallow DOF flexibility. I prefer having the wider side of the 17-55 and an extra stop compared to the longer side of the 24-105, but that decision is up to you. Having a 70-200 or 70-300 at the longer end makes the longer end of the 24-105 less critical.
1. 10-22 / 17-55 or 15-85/ nifty fifty
2. 10-22 / 35L / nifty fifty
The first option would give you the uwa range for landscapes and a good walk-around lens. The choice between the 17-55 and 15-85 comes down to trading focal length range for about a stop. Something like the second option would give you more low light/shallow DOF flexibility. I prefer having the wider side of the 17-55 and an extra stop compared to the longer side of the 24-105, but that decision is up to you. Having a 70-200 or 70-300 at the longer end makes the longer end of the 24-105 less critical.
Upvote
0
the 10-22 is a great lens.
But to get back to your question, I have both the 35L and the 50 1.4 on my 550D, and the 35L is pretty much my lens of choice. One caveat is that when I go shooting landscapes, I always use my 10-22 instead. The 35L is a great lens, but it feels meh on my 550D because like someone mentioned before, 56mm equival focal length is kinda limiting.
I actually just ordered a 24-105L myself, and have a suspicion that that will be my walk around lens with the 35L reserved for low light shots.
But to get back to your question, I have both the 35L and the 50 1.4 on my 550D, and the 35L is pretty much my lens of choice. One caveat is that when I go shooting landscapes, I always use my 10-22 instead. The 35L is a great lens, but it feels meh on my 550D because like someone mentioned before, 56mm equival focal length is kinda limiting.
I actually just ordered a 24-105L myself, and have a suspicion that that will be my walk around lens with the 35L reserved for low light shots.
Upvote
0
I
IIIHobbs
Guest
The 35 1.4 is very good, but may be limiting for landscapes on a crop sensor.
As you probably already know from using your friends 16-35, it is a wonderful focal range for the 50D. Look through the images taken with the 16-35 and determine what focal length you used most. I think you will find that the 24 1.4 might be a better choice for you.
I agree with the positive recommendations for the EFS 10-22, I had this lense and enjoyed using it for landscapes with my 40D. Ultimately it was too wide for most of my work and I sold it, keeping the 16-35 as my preferred lens.
ISO 400 22mm f/22 1/50
As you probably already know from using your friends 16-35, it is a wonderful focal range for the 50D. Look through the images taken with the 16-35 and determine what focal length you used most. I think you will find that the 24 1.4 might be a better choice for you.
I agree with the positive recommendations for the EFS 10-22, I had this lense and enjoyed using it for landscapes with my 40D. Ultimately it was too wide for most of my work and I sold it, keeping the 16-35 as my preferred lens.
ISO 400 22mm f/22 1/50
Upvote
0
It sounnds like you need the 17-55mm EF-s. Its great on a 50D. I preferred it to my 24-105mm L. The 35mm L is a wonderful lens, and near perfect for a 50D, but if you have the 17-55mm, you won't miss it.
Upvote
0
I think in your particular case the 24-105L is the clear winner. If you follow the suggestions of the other zoom lenses, you're stuck with APS-C and can't go FF.
Upvote
0
X
XFaktorPhoto
Guest
I just got my first L, the 24-105, which in my opinion, is the best first L lens to acquire. Heck, have fun and get yourself something real wide, like the Sigma 10-20 3.5, tack sharp, amazing $450 lens.
Here's some shots I took with it on my 7D: http://xfaktorphoto.smugmug.com/Other/UltraWide/24545851_6n3k5F
Granted, it's not compatible with full frames, just like the EF-S 10-22, but it's a hellofa lotta fun lens for a great price! Plus, my two cents on the best affordable nifty fifty, get the Sigma 50 1.4, $400ish.
I'm wondering what L lens is coming thru the door next, could be a TS-E 24 II or a 28-300, either way I'm stoked.
XFaktorPhoto.SmugMug.com
xfphotography.blogspot.com
Here's some shots I took with it on my 7D: http://xfaktorphoto.smugmug.com/Other/UltraWide/24545851_6n3k5F
Granted, it's not compatible with full frames, just like the EF-S 10-22, but it's a hellofa lotta fun lens for a great price! Plus, my two cents on the best affordable nifty fifty, get the Sigma 50 1.4, $400ish.
I'm wondering what L lens is coming thru the door next, could be a TS-E 24 II or a 28-300, either way I'm stoked.
XFaktorPhoto.SmugMug.com
xfphotography.blogspot.com
Upvote
0
As much as I love the 35, I don't think that lens would be the best bang for your buck right now.
And I don't know that the 24-105 should be on your short list, either. It's slow and it's long, especially on APS-C.
I think what you really want is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It'll be your perfect walkaround lens, it's stabilized, it's just as fast as the 16-35, and it's a much more useful range on APS-C than the 24-105. From everything I've heard about it, the only reason it doesn't have a red ring is because it's an EF-S lens.
You might also consider the Shorty McForty as an alternative to the 35L. It's a bit slower, yes, but it's an optically gorgeous lens, and it's cheap and small and lightweight (everything the 35 isn't).
I'm not trying to dissuade you from L glass, but merely suggesting that there are non-L alternatives that may actually be better for your circumstances. L lenses absolutely have their place, but that place generally doesn't include first / primary positions in small APS-C kits.
Cheers,
b&
And I don't know that the 24-105 should be on your short list, either. It's slow and it's long, especially on APS-C.
I think what you really want is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It'll be your perfect walkaround lens, it's stabilized, it's just as fast as the 16-35, and it's a much more useful range on APS-C than the 24-105. From everything I've heard about it, the only reason it doesn't have a red ring is because it's an EF-S lens.
You might also consider the Shorty McForty as an alternative to the 35L. It's a bit slower, yes, but it's an optically gorgeous lens, and it's cheap and small and lightweight (everything the 35 isn't).
I'm not trying to dissuade you from L glass, but merely suggesting that there are non-L alternatives that may actually be better for your circumstances. L lenses absolutely have their place, but that place generally doesn't include first / primary positions in small APS-C kits.
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
Except you can always sell the EF-S lens if you upgrade...and in the mean-time (which if he can't get another L lens for year, probably means at least a year if not longer), you've got a lens that is better suited for the body he has. 17-55 on APS-C covers landscape through the early end of portraits. The 15-85 would cover the full range he'd want, but, I'm not sure its worth the sacrifice of the extra stops of light.bdunbar79 said:
Get a used 17-55, they go for $750-800 on the used market, and if you switch bodies, sell it for about the exact same price. Or, just as likely, find someone with the 24-105 and trade with them.
The difference between 17mm and 24mm is pretty significant, especially for landscape work. And the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 can be significant in indoor lighting. So why pay as much, or more, for something that would limit most of your photography?
Upvote
0
If you are staying with APS-C for the foreseeable future keep in mind that the 24-105 becomes a 38-168mm zoom when you multiply by X1.6. The 24-105 is a great lens, but you'll appreciate its qualities more on a FF body.
If you have enjoyed your friend's 16-35, then really consider the equally brilliant EF-S 10-22 or the EF-S 17-55. These will re-sell easily if you move to FF eventually. Like other posters, I'd advise against the L35 simply because of it's limitations on an APS-C body.
PW
If you have enjoyed your friend's 16-35, then really consider the equally brilliant EF-S 10-22 or the EF-S 17-55. These will re-sell easily if you move to FF eventually. Like other posters, I'd advise against the L35 simply because of it's limitations on an APS-C body.
PW
Upvote
0
ambush said:
I recommend against buying lenses today that aren't ideal for you today that you think you'll like better with upgraded equipment in the future.
Buy for your needs today. If what you buy today turns out to be inadequate at some point in the future, sell and consider the minimal hit in sale price to be your rental fee for the period. In your case, either you'll still have your crop-sensor camera and appreciate the lenses you buy today, or you'll sell your crop-sensor camera and the lenses that go with it.
Otherwise, you're stuck with a lens today that isn't as useful (for example, in focal length range) as something else you could buy today...and, let's face it, it might be a long time or never before you get something that works the way you want it to.
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
If you are going to be moving up to FF in the next year or so, then I would get the 16-35L. It's a great zoom range on a crop and will be your landscape lens when you move to FF. The only thing i would do is just wait till the end of this month to see if the 14-24 get announced.
Upvote
0
He asks the question, should I get the 35L (which I LOVE!) or the 24-105L? Remember, he loves the 35L on his camera, which is APS-C. Did anyone catch that point?
So, even though we're asking an A or B question, nobody chooses A or B.
NNNNNKay, that aside, why not answer his question. For your camera, I'd get the 24-105L instead of the 35L. See, that was easy.
For a guy who is just beginning to build his lens kit up, no way I'd buy a 16-35L over the 24-105L. Too much money and too specific. You always go general first, then specific.
So, even though we're asking an A or B question, nobody chooses A or B.
NNNNNKay, that aside, why not answer his question. For your camera, I'd get the 24-105L instead of the 35L. See, that was easy.
For a guy who is just beginning to build his lens kit up, no way I'd buy a 16-35L over the 24-105L. Too much money and too specific. You always go general first, then specific.
Upvote
0
pwp said:
Yes to the 17-55 used. If you buy it used, you are basically using it for free until you sell it later for the same price (assuming you don't damage it). 17mm is pretty wide, and the range is useful, and the IQ is great. Wonderful lens.
Also, even if you go full-frame, you might keep a crop body too, just for the free 1.6x telephoto boost it gives you for sports or birds, or whatever.
If/when you go full-frame, buying back the lost 1.6x telephoto length with (good) long glass is insanely expensive.
If for example you have a 70-200 f/2.8, your crop body is giving you 320mm's AND it still at f/2.8. No teleconverter will do that. You lose 1 stop with the 1.4x TC (f/4) and you lose 2 stops (and significant IQ) with the 2x TC.
To get the latest 300mm lens at f/2.8 with a full-frame camera will cost you over $7,000.00, just to get back to (almost) the length you had before at f/2.8. Ouch.
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
Hmmm... if you read his second post, he's also considering moving FF. Why get the 24-105 outside of the kit? That's usually a poorer value proposition. The reason why you see so many recommendations is because you can't cover what he wants to do with one lens: landscape, portraits and indoor events. For indoor events, 24-105 may be too slow; for landscape 24-105 may be too long on a crop. The 35L would be a great solution for low light, but he also already has the nifty fifty, so neither of his choices would get him very far for all three goals.
Upvote
0
Of the two options noted by the OP I'd say the 24-105 is the better option for your current set up. Although I would also strongly urge you to consider the 17-55 2.8, or 15-85 instead of either option. Both cover the wide to short tele range nicely on aps c and hold their value well. I wouldn't be too concerned about FF compatibility as I suspect with upgraded glass you'll find a new appreciation for your current body and will be able to hold off making that purchase for a little longer.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
