Another I need advise on a lens thread......

[Gino]

I'm sorry, I know there are a ton of threads on lens recommendations, and I've read a lot of them, but I am looking for advice on my specific situation.

I'm a new hobby photographer, and I am lucky to make a good income at my day job, so I can afford the high camera equipment.

Here is what I currently own:
5D Mark III
24-105L f/4
70-200L f/2.8 IS II
50 f/1.4
Speedlite 220 EX
Speedlite 600 EX (I just order it)

Ideally, I'd like my next lens purchase to be flexible for a variety of situations, including low light, but still provide excellent image quality.

I shot mostly family photos, and also landscapes during vacations. From time to time, I take photos at sport events, such as baseball, hockey, and football. I'd also like to start shooting the nighttime sky, so a lens that is good in low light would be a plus.

Here are the lenses I am considering to compliment what I already own.

24L f/1.4 II - I've read nothing but good things about this lens, and it sounds like this lens would be good for low light sports, nighttime sky, low light indoors, plus excellent for landscapes. This focal length is wide enough for me 90% of the time, but it would be nice to have a wider lens for shooting the inside of a sports stadium or for tight spaces. Also, my thought is the IQ the 24L lens delivers would allow me to crop, therefore act as a zoom lens, if I need a tighter shot.

16-35L f/2.8 II - Obviously, based on what lenses I already own, this lens appears to make the most sense for the focal range that would be the best compliment to my current lenses. I've read mixed reviews about this lens, and 24mm is wide enough for most of my needs. Maybe I would be happy with getting a 17-40L later down the road, if I find I need it for those situations when the 24L f/1.4 II is not wide enough??? The only problem is the 17-40L is probably not that great for outdoor low light, but I could use the Speedlite 600 with it for indoor shots.

24-70L f/2.8 II - This lens isn't out yet, so I don't know how good the IQ will be, but assuming the IQ is much better than the 24-105L, it might make sense and it would be better in low light situations. The IQ of the II model would have to be significantly better than the current 24-105 for me to justify spending $2,300, otherwise I might as well get the prior 24-70L f/2.8 for half the price!

14-24L f2.8 - I'm in no hurry to purchase my next lens. Based on the rumor that this lens could be announced by year end, maybe I should wait to see what this lens has to offer. My guess is this lens will cost around $2,500, and I don't know if I want to spend that much on one lens, when I could get two quality lenses for the same price. Plus, I don't know if the focal length would fit my needs on a regular basis.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you need a faster lens, you should determine the focal length that is missing.
One way I've determined this is to look at my images in Lightroom according to the quantities taken at various focal lengths, apertures, and ISO settings. If I see a high quantity taken at say 24mm with a high ISO, then I might benefit from a faster lens.
I think that you have a good selection, but if you are taking a lot of images at 24mm but a normal ISO range, perhaps a wider lens would be a benefit. A 16-35mm L would be a nice adition. Never base your purchases on a rumor, some new lenses have been rumored for 6 or 7 years.
Canon just started a lens rebate, so take a look at your focal lengths and pick one that you need.
Using the metadata tools in Lightroom might pay for it by saving you money on a correct lens selection.

 

[RC]

Sounds like you need the 16-35 II, that's what I'd get if I were in your shoes. That can be your exclusive landscape lens and you will be shooting stopped down anyway so any wide open issues won't be issues. If/when a 14-24 comes about, you can then sell your 16-35 and maybe a kidney or two.

I'm looking forward getting a FF body for my 16-35--that will be my landscape lens.

 

[Random Orbits]

+1 for the 16-35. It is more versatile than the 17-40 and complements the rest of your kit better. If you find yourself using the 50 f/1.4 a lot in low light situations and to achieve shallow DOF, then the 24 f/1.4 might make more sense if you would like something wider.

 

[Gino]

Thanks for the feedback...please keep it coming.

Next question, assuming I go with the 16-35L f/2.8 II, is there any advantage to buying it brand new for $1,529 with the current rebate offer, or do I save $200 by purchasing a refurbished lens directly from Canon for $1,359?

I'm leaning toward buying refurbished, since I can use the difference in price toward a B+W 82mm MRC Slim UV Filter ($130), and I would still come out ahead compared to buying new.

 

[koolman]

Gino: you have a mighty collection indeed. Like previous posts suggested, the 16-35 will give you superb UW you are missing somewhat.

UW is fun, and if money is not an objective, check out the 14mm L .

 

[Random Orbits]

Thanks for the feedback...please keep it coming.

Next question, assuming I go with the 16-35L f/2.8 II, is there any advantage to buying it brand new for $1,529 with the current rebate offer, or do I save $200 by purchasing a refurbished lens directly from Canon for $1,359?

I'm leaning toward buying refurbished, since I can use the difference in price toward a B+W 82mm MRC Slim UV Filter ($130), and I would still come out ahead compared to buying new.

New: 1 year warranty
Refurbished: 90 day warranty

You have to compare the total cost (including shipping) to see if it's worth it. That said, I've been happy with the refurbished products (10-22 and 5DII). If you do go for the refurb, check it out thoroughly quickly to make sure you're happy with the product because the warranty period is significantly shorter. Both my refurbed purchases were like new. The 5DII has less than 20 clicks on it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thanks for the feedback...please keep it coming.

Next question, assuming I go with the 16-35L f/2.8 II, is there any advantage to buying it brand new for $1,529 with the current rebate offer, or do I save $200 by purchasing a refurbished lens directly from Canon for $1,359?

I'm leaning toward buying refurbished, since I can use the difference in price toward a B+W 82mm MRC Slim UV Filter ($130), and I would still come out ahead compared to buying new.

Gino, I just bought a new 16-35mm L for less than the refurb price. Newegg had a 15% discount on top of the Canon rebate that ended in July. Chances are someone will have a deal.

 

[zrz2005101]

If you do landscape, then I assure you that you will find the corner IQ of the 16-35L II disappointing as I use it for my landscape shots. It's center is pretty sharp but other than that, it really doesn't quite meet the standard of an all time wide angle lens. so I would suggest you go for the 24L II as you said you find it satisfying 90% of your usage and you have an extra stop of advantage too. If you are decided on a zoom, I would say wait for the 14-24 as I am pretty tempted to sell my 16-35 L II and buy a 14-24 G from Nikon to use for my landscape shots.

Another note, you will find the distortion in 16-35 below the 20mm focal length pretty uhmm bad.

and I don't recommend the 16-35L for sports, 24L II is more appropriate

 

[myocyte]

I have had a similar negative opinion of the 16-35 f/2.8L II. I've sold the lens once, bought it again, and sold it again because I wanted a wide angle option but was ultimately disappointed in the corner quality @ 16mm. I don't have a wide angle option yet since I'm waiting to see how the 24-70 II compares against a 24L II.

 

[M.ST]

Hi,

here my advice:

24L f/1.4 II - great lens, if you need the best image quality buy it

16-35L f/2.8 II - better than the 17-40 but I want besser optical quality

24-70L f/2.8 II - I am under NDA, but I can say: Forget the 24-105 IS and buy this lens, no visible CA, superfast AF. A perfect lens for all who need the best image quality. Only primes perform better.

14-24L f2.8 - If this lens came out, I sell my 16-35L f/2.8 II and go for it. It´s one of the most wanted lenses.

 

[Gino]

Hi,

here my advice:

24L f/1.4 II - great lens, if you need the best image quality buy it

16-35L f/2.8 II - better than the 17-40 but I want besser optical quality

24-70L f/2.8 II - I am under NDA, but I can say: Forget the 24-105 IS and buy this lens, no visible CA, superfast AF. A perfect lens for all who need the best image quality. Only primes perform better.

14-24L f2.8 - If this lens came out, I sell my 16-35L f/2.8 II and go for it. It´s one of the most wanted lenses.

What does "I am under NDA" mean??? thanks

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

What does "I am under NDA" mean??? thanks

NDA means Non Disclosure Agreement. Canon requires anyone who receives advanced information about a upcoming product to sign the agreement. If you violate it, you will never receive advance information again.
Even admitting you are under a NDA is a violation, so those who are in the know will never say that.

 

[Gino]

I'm new to the Canon brand....is there a certain time of the year that offers the best prices on their lenses/gear? I'm in no hurry to purchase my next lens, so would I probably see better prices around Thanksgiving, or Christmas time?

thanks

P.S. I got a pretty sweet deal last month on my current gear through a bundle at Adorama, and with the double up Canon rebate:

$4,350 - 5D Mark III with 24-105L, 50 f/1.4, and 32GB Sandisk Extreme memory card
$2,099 - 70-200L f/2.8 IS II

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It really depends on the market for high end gear more than anything else. Right now, the Global economy is pretty shakey, so everyone has discounts and sales.
If it gets worse, prices will drop more.
Canon's 4th FY quarter ends December 31, so if inventory is high, they will drop prices to be able to move inventory as well as boost the bottom line for the year. Its often a safe bet to look for good prices in December

 

[Joes Dad]

The 16-35 f/2.8 II is a good lens, but not truly great as previously posted. The 24 f/1.4 II is phenomenal. I think only my 200 f/2.0 is sharper of all of the lenses I have below. You mentioned nighttime sky photography - the 24 f/1.4 is the leader of the field in that regard. You can also create some pretty special shallow depth of field shots of your family with it. If I was faced with your decisions, I would get the 24 now, the 24-70 f/2.8 II when released and then the 14-28 f/2.8 when released (depending upon reviews).

 

[Gino]

I had a few general questions based on the gear I currently own:
5D Mark III
24-105L f/4
70-200L f/2.8 IS II
50 f/1.4

• I've read several posts in this forum, which mention having your lenses and camera body calibrated to each other. How important is it to have this done? I'm not exactly a "do it yourself" person, so is calibration something that I could have done at my local Canon dealer here in Minneapolis?

• Should the in camera Noise Reduction in my 5d Mark III be turned off, or on? If it should be on, what NR setting is recommended?

thanks

 

[RLPhoto]

I'm sorry, I know there are a ton of threads on lens recommendations, and I've read a lot of them, but I am looking for advice on my specific situation.

I'm a new hobby photographer, and I am lucky to make a good income at my day job, so I can afford the high camera equipment.

Here is what I currently own:
5D Mark III
24-105L f/4
70-200L f/2.8 IS II
50 f/1.4
Speedlite 220 EX
Speedlite 600 EX (I just order it)

Ideally, I'd like my next lens purchase to be flexible for a variety of situations, including low light, but still provide excellent image quality.

I shot mostly family photos, and also landscapes during vacations. From time to time, I take photos at sport events, such as baseball, hockey, and football. I'd also like to start shooting the nighttime sky, so a lens that is good in low light would be a plus.

Here are the lenses I am considering to compliment what I already own.

24L f/1.4 II - I've read nothing but good things about this lens, and it sounds like this lens would be good for low light sports, nighttime sky, low light indoors, plus excellent for landscapes. This focal length is wide enough for me 90% of the time, but it would be nice to have a wider lens for shooting the inside of a sports stadium or for tight spaces. Also, my thought is the IQ the 24L lens delivers would allow me to crop, therefore act as a zoom lens, if I need a tighter shot.

16-35L f/2.8 II - Obviously, based on what lenses I already own, this lens appears to make the most sense for the focal range that would be the best compliment to my current lenses. I've read mixed reviews about this lens, and 24mm is wide enough for most of my needs. Maybe I would be happy with getting a 17-40L later down the road, if I find I need it for those situations when the 24L f/1.4 II is not wide enough??? The only problem is the 17-40L is probably not that great for outdoor low light, but I could use the Speedlite 600 with it for indoor shots.

24-70L f/2.8 II - This lens isn't out yet, so I don't know how good the IQ will be, but assuming the IQ is much better than the 24-105L, it might make sense and it would be better in low light situations. The IQ of the II model would have to be significantly better than the current 24-105 for me to justify spending $2,300, otherwise I might as well get the prior 24-70L f/2.8 for half the price!

14-24L f2.8 - I'm in no hurry to purchase my next lens. Based on the rumor that this lens could be announced by year end, maybe I should wait to see what this lens has to offer. My guess is this lens will cost around $2,500, and I don't know if I want to spend that much on one lens, when I could get two quality lenses for the same price. Plus, I don't know if the focal length would fit my needs on a regular basis.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

sell the 24-105 and Buy a 24-70 2.8L.

The 24L is a great lens if you use that FL alot. I don't care for the 35L's IQ, and its too similar to the 50mm FL.

Ultra-wides are fun but getting good compositions with them is tougher.

Really then you've got everything you need.

 

[Random Orbits]

I had a few general questions based on the gear I currently own:
5D Mark III
24-105L f/4
70-200L f/2.8 IS II
50 f/1.4

• I've read several posts in this forum, which mention having your lenses and camera body calibrated to each other. How important is it to have this done? I'm not exactly a "do it yourself" person, so is calibration something that I could have done at my local Canon dealer here in Minneapolis?

• Should the in camera Noise Reduction in my 5d Mark III be turned off, or on? If it should be on, what NR setting is recommended?

thanks

You should try AFMA first. If the performance of your lenses are similar in AF and in liveview, then there is no need to have it calibrated.

 

[Dylan777]

I'm sorry, I know there are a ton of threads on lens recommendations, and I've read a lot of them, but I am looking for advice on my specific situation.

I'm a new hobby photographer, and I am lucky to make a good income at my day job, so I can afford the high camera equipment.
Here is what I currently own:
5D Mark III
24-105L f/4
70-200L f/2.8 IS II
50 f/1.4
Speedlite 220 EX
Speedlite 600 EX (I just order it)

Ideally, I'd like my next lens purchase to be flexible for a variety of situations, including low light, but still provide excellent image quality.

I shot mostly family photos, and also landscapes during vacations. From time to time, I take photos at sport events, such as baseball, hockey, and football. I'd also like to start shooting the nighttime sky, so a lens that is good in low light would be a plus.

Here are the lenses I am considering to compliment what I already own.

24L f/1.4 II - I've read nothing but good things about this lens, and it sounds like this lens would be good for low light sports, nighttime sky, low light indoors, plus excellent for landscapes. This focal length is wide enough for me 90% of the time, but it would be nice to have a wider lens for shooting the inside of a sports stadium or for tight spaces. Also, my thought is the IQ the 24L lens delivers would allow me to crop, therefore act as a zoom lens, if I need a tighter shot.

16-35L f/2.8 II - Obviously, based on what lenses I already own, this lens appears to make the most sense for the focal range that would be the best compliment to my current lenses. I've read mixed reviews about this lens, and 24mm is wide enough for most of my needs. Maybe I would be happy with getting a 17-40L later down the road, if I find I need it for those situations when the 24L f/1.4 II is not wide enough??? The only problem is the 17-40L is probably not that great for outdoor low light, but I could use the Speedlite 600 with it for indoor shots.

24-70L f/2.8 II - This lens isn't out yet, so I don't know how good the IQ will be, but assuming the IQ is much better than the 24-105L, it might make sense and it would be better in low light situations. The IQ of the II model would have to be significantly better than the current 24-105 for me to justify spending $2,300, otherwise I might as well get the prior 24-70L f/2.8 for half the price!

14-24L f2.8 - I'm in no hurry to purchase my next lens. Based on the rumor that this lens could be announced by year end, maybe I should wait to see what this lens has to offer. My guess is this lens will cost around $2,500, and I don't know if I want to spend that much on one lens, when I could get two quality lenses for the same price. Plus, I don't know if the focal length would fit my needs on a regular basis.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

+1 in red...your gear and mine are very similar.

My current gear 5D III + 16-35 II, 50mm f1.4, 70-200 f2.8 IS II

My future gear:
1. 5D III
2. 16-35 II or 14-24 - landscape. wider better for me
3. 24-70 mrk II on pre-order - general lens(sold my 24-105 and used that money for 24-70 II)
4. 70-200 f2.8 IS II - extra reach
5. 35mm L -- low light & walk around lens at night time. I'm not in the hurry for this lens.