Lens upgrade advice.

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
One note on upgrading the 24-105 to the 24-70 2.8 II. You will be giving up the IS that you have in the current lens. I only mention this because it seemed to be a concern with the other lenses mentioned.
I don’t think that will be a problem because I used to have the EF 28-80 f/2.8-4 L lens and that lens was rather heavy but never had a problem using it on my EOS-1 and 40D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dantana

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
Also thinking to the future when I will upgrade my 6D. Unfortunately the R6 has the same megapixel count as my 6D but the majority of my lenses aren’t supported by the R5 if I want to get the most resolving power.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,733
975
Also thinking to the future when I will upgrade my 6D. Unfortunately the R6 has the same megapixel count as my 6D but the majority of my lenses aren’t supported by the R5 if I want to get the most resolving power.
In that case a 16-35 4L IS will hold as well as 70-200L IS III and 24-70 2.8 II. But beware that in that case you will be probably tempted by the native RF lenses and a second upgrade will be costly since you will be giving up some serious glass bought new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pulseimages

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
318
164
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
I don’t think that will be a problem because I used to have the EF 28-80 f/2.8-4 L lens and that lens was rather heavy but never had a problem using it on my EOS-1 and 40D.
Got it. And you have AMFAed your 24-105 to your 6D? I know that that lens seems to be one where people get mixed results. I had the same setup you do, 6D and 24-105L v1, and I always liked my results from it.

I will say that after switching to the R and the RF 24-105L, I am even happier with my images. But, I'm not a portrait photographer, so maybe I'm not noticing it as much as you would.
 

Bdbtoys

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
184
128
Personally, with what you said I would go with the RF pair of 28-70 F2 + 70-200 F2.8 if you want to switch to RF. Unless weight is the issue, than sub the 24-70 F2.8. The thing is you mentioned dark shooting, otherwise I would give a plus to the 24-105 F4 (and you have one that size anyways).
 

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
In that case a 16-35 4L IS will hold as well as 70-200L IS III and 24-70 2.8 II. But beware that in that case you will be probably tempted by the native RF lenses and a second upgrade will be costly since you will be giving up some serious glass bought new.
Someday I’ll switch to the new R system but won’t all those EF lenses you mentioned perform well with the EF-EOS R adapter?
 

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
Hi pulseimages!


I would second that. Depending on your overal budget the Canon T&S are maybe out of reach if you don't get a great catch used.
But a Samyang could be within reach and the IQ is very good AFAIK (disclaimer: I don't own one).

Something maybe a little bit more versatile could be one of the WA/UWA EF primes with IS, depending on the focal length you prefer.
AF and IS are their main advantages over a T&S and so you could use them for night photography or classic cars e.g. when they drive by.
I own the EF 35/2 IS and 28/2.8 IS and love both of them.


This is something I would recommend only if you feel that the IS is missing.
Even though you can see some advantages for the new one at the TDP lens comparison esp. at the long end (200 mm) my guess would be that in daily shooting this will be not visible.


If you use your macro a lot in the field, handheld, then this could be a really good idea.
That's what I do shooting insects.
But you would gain the HIS only, as the IQ is on paar.
I can tell you from personal experience with both macros.

Hope that helps.

Enjoy you GAS ;)
Your 35 f/2 IS, is that lens nearly as good optically as the 35mm f/1.4 L II? I remember reading that one portrait photographer only carried 3 focal lengths in his bag. The 35, 85 and 135 primes.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,459
1,434
I look at my usage in Lightroom to see which focal lengths and apertures get the usage. If I can see that I'm limited in a high usage area, that's where I'd upgrade. If your 100 Macro gets lots of use, you will love the 100mm L. If you see a need for 24-70 f/2.8, go for it. Don't get a lens for someone else, get one that your actual usage proves you can benefit by upgrading.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
3,106
1,214
Germany
Your 35 f/2 IS, is that lens nearly as good optically as the 35mm f/1.4 L II? ...
For about 1/3 of the price of the 35/1.4L II the IQ (see TDP) is not as good as that one. Though TDP makes it look worse as it really is.
But not only the price but also beeing much smaller it is more than good enough for me.
Just take a look in the dedicated lens gallery here.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,733
975
Someday I’ll switch to the new R system but won’t all those EF lenses you mentioned perform well with the EF-EOS R adapter?
They will perform just fine. I am talking about the possible temptation to get native RF lenses to make the most of IS and get rid of adapters.
 

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
They will perform just fine. I am talking about the possible temptation to get native RF lenses to make the most of IS and get rid of adapters.
When will the prices of the RF lenses come down? They are all ridiculously high. I appreciated Nikon’s approach to their Z system, make optics people can actually afford.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,733
975
When will the prices of the RF lenses come down? They are all ridiculously high. I appreciated Nikon’s approach to their Z system, make optics people can actually afford.
I have no idea but possibly not anytime soon. They are new and top of the line.
 

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
1) In the previous post the first image was made with the 17-40 L at 17mm, f/13 at ISO 100. The bricks on the very left side coming at the viewer are soft, would the 16-35 f/4 L IS be noticeably sharper? I placed the camera on the ground for this image.

2) 2nd image is with the 24-105 f/4 L IS at 24mm, 30 seconds, f/11 at ISO 400. The bricks on the left are so soft that they almost look like a painting. I used a tripod, cable release and mirror lock. The 24-70 2.8 L II must be sharper than this?

3) Again taken with the 24-105 f/4 L IS at 70mm, 1/200sec, f/8 at ISO 200. I aimed the center point at the M black/chrome symbol because I wanted it to pop and it just doesn't. I took multiple shots in hoping to nail this and when I got home I noticed it wasn't as sharp as it could be. It's not out of focus but not razor sharp. These are the kind of shots I would like to nail and this lens just keeps letting me down.

4) Taken with the 70-200 2.8 L at 73mm, f/5.6, 1/1600sec, at ISO 400. Took multiple shots of this car and it's not razor sharp. Camera shake?

5) 70-200 2.8 L at 155mm, f/8, 1/3200sec at IS0 400. This one looks pretty good but I feel that I need to keep my shutter speeds up really high even standing still to counteract camera shake.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,733
975
1,2) 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-7 f2.8 II are better at the edges than the lenses you mention but are you sure your issues are not DOF related? Probably they are not but just play with focusing (closer) a little to make sure and find the sharpness limits of your lenses at the corners. But again yes the 2 mentioned lenses are better (especially the 16-35) you can check and make comparisons at www.the-digital-picture.com



3,4,5) Have you have microadjusted the focus? You can try 3,4,5 cases using LiveView and compare the results
The speeds you use are high so it must not be camera shake especially since your camera is a FF 20mpixel one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,676
585
S Florida
The 17-40 is a great little lens, but the 16-35 leaves it in the dirt. Vastly better corners. I would also propose the 70-200 f/4L IS II over any 2.8 out there unless you really need the speed. During as GAS attack I bought a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II when I already had the f/4L IS. I never bring the 2.8 unless I have a specific purpose for it. The f/4 is just as sharp and so much lighter. Of coarse you realize that asking people for lens recommendations who don't know your shooting habits is just silly...
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
The 17-40 is a great little lens, but the 16-35 leaves it in the dirt. Vastly better corners. I would also propose the 70-200 f/4L IS II over any 2.8 out there unless you really need the speed. During as GAS attack I bought a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II when I already had the f/4L IS. I never bring the 2.8 unless I have a specific purpose for it. The f/4 is just as sharp and so much lighter. Of coarse you realize that asking people for lens recommendations who don't know your shooting habits is just silly...
I did rent the70-200 f/4L IS but found the lens way too light to hold steady. It just didn’t balance well on my 6D but it is a very sharp lens.
 

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
1,2) 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-7 f2.8 II are better at the edges than the lenses you mention but are you sure your issues are not DOF related? Probably they are not but just play with focusing (closer) a little to make sure and find the sharpness limits of your lenses at the corners. But again yes the 2 mentioned lenses are better (especially the 16-35) you can check and make comparisons at www.the-digital-picture.com



3,4,5) Have you have microadjusted the focus? You can try 3,4,5 cases using LiveView and compare the results
The speeds you use are high so it must not be camera shake especially since your camera is a FF 20mpixel one.
I have used Reikan FoCal on all my lenses and even sent my 6D and 24-105 L back to Canon to calibrate together because I’ve never been thrilled with the sharpness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
132
7
1,2) 16-35 f/4 L IS and 24-7 f2.8 II are better at the edges than the lenses you mention but are you sure your issues are not DOF related? Probably they are not but just play with focusing (closer) a little to make sure and find the sharpness limits of your lenses at the corners. But again yes the 2 mentioned lenses are better (especially the 16-35) you can check and make comparisons at www.the-digital-picture.com



3,4,5) Have you have microadjusted the focus? You can try 3,4,5 cases using LiveView and compare the results
The speeds you use are high so it must not be camera shake especially since your camera is a FF 20mpixel one.
When I compare the 24-105 L vs the 24-70 2.8 L II the 24-70 trumps the 24-105 at all the focal lengths and apertures except at 70mm where it's not really a big difference to my eyes. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=4
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,733
975
In that case I would suggest that an upgrade path would be 16-35 4L IS 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8L IS III and at the same time parting with 17-40 24-105 and 70-200 non-IS.

But don't do it at the same time. Make it piece by piece to verify that your results are on par with the suggestions.

FYI I have 16-35 4L IS 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8L IS II.

But I have not used all the same. I can say that definitely 16-35 is excellent at the edges but - shame on me - due to carrying restrictions I haven't used 24-70 as much as I should to know/remember about the edges and the cases where I used my 70-200 was in portraits a few years ago and at night events at low light so I cannot help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pulseimages