ok so i did it and bought into FF... now i need a good standard zoom

[hamada]

i thought about buying a kit but i got a very good deal for a 2 month old 6D body.

but now i need a good standard zoom for my new FF camera.

main use will be landscape photography.
ultimately i will buy a 24mm TS or 14mm one day for landscape work.
but right now i don´t have the money.
and i need a standard zoom anyway, so buying a used 24mm TS yet is not an option.

so what is the best choice for best quality at the short end?

as im not bound to a kit anymore i have more choices then the 24-70mm tamron or 24-105mm canon.

1000 euro maximum.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Any lens stopped down to f/16 for landscape use will be essentially the same. So, pick your lens for other.

The TS lenses are the exception, since you can tilt to improve depth of field without stopping down to the point where diffraction far overpowers the lens sharpness.

Until you decide to purchase a TS, pick a lens for all around use, like a 24-105mmL or 24-70mm.

 

[hamada]

until you decide to purchase a TS, pick a lens for all around use, like a 24-105mmL or 24-70mm.

well that´s what i wrote.

i like to know which standard zoom you guys recommend, as freelancer wrote.
don´t know why his postings were deleted, at least his post was a bit helpfull.

 

[darrellrhodesmiller]

if you do mainly landscapes.. the 16-35L is one heck of a lens.. but i wouldnt call it a standard zoom. the 17-40mm F4 zoom is another great lens and is about 600.00

for a standard zoom.. and a standard lens you cant get better than the 24-105mm F4.. its a great every day lens.. does great at landscapes .. and everything else.

 

[LostArk]

The Samyang 24mm tilt shift is coming out soon for $999, so you might want to hold off till the reviews hit and see if it'd be worth it for you.

In the meantime, I find a nice 35mm or 50mm prime to be generally much more versatile than a 24-70. At 70mm you're really not into telephoto range yet, and 24mm is only 1-3 steps back from normal. So I would get a 50mm and a 70-200 f/4, and the samyang tilt shift, all for less than the 24-70 f/2.8L

 

[hamada]

In the meantime, I find a nice 35mm or 50mm prime to be generally much more versatile than a 24-70. At 70mm you're really not into telephoto range yet, and 24mm is only 1-3 steps back from normal. So I would get a 50mm and a 70-200 f/4, and the samyang tilt shift, all for less than the 24-70 f/2.8L

as i wrote i need it for landscape work for a period, until i buy a 24mm TS or 14mm.
a 35mm or 50 mm are not wide enough for my needs.

and i don´t want to carry two or even three lenses and change lenses constantly when i travel.
a zoom is a way better travel companion.

all for less than the 24-70 f/2.8L

i would not buy the 24-70 f2.8 II from canon.
as i wrote my budget for the standard zoom is around 1000 euro.
the tamron 24-70 f2.8 would be my choice then.


ps: i have the 70-200mm f4 IS, a 50mm f1.4 and a 100mm f2.0

 

[wayno]

I have found from experience that the 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms all have a practical place in my kit for landscape work. I don't understand how people preclude the longer zooms - you can't always trek that extra three kilometres to capture the scene you really want...

 

[hamada]

I have found from experience that the 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms all have a practical place in my kit for landscape work. I don't understand how people preclude the longer zooms

who does that?

 

[RMC33]

I have found from experience that the 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms all have a practical place in my kit for landscape work. I don't understand how people preclude the longer zooms

who does that?

I do on a regular basis. I shoot landscapes with a 500 f/4 II~ http://rmc33.com/YEU9kc

 

[Hannes]

The 24-105 is a very good lens but do bear in mind the distortion at 24mm is noticeable but that applies to the tamron as well. I suspect the canon might be better sealed which is always a plus when out in the hills and filter size is a little smaller. Not to mention the canon is a little cheaper usually and since you didn't mention a flash that might be a good purchase.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

until you decide to purchase a TS, pick a lens for all around use, like a 24-105mmL or 24-70mm.

well that´s what i wrote.

i like to know which standard zoom you guys recommend, as freelancer wrote.
don´t know why his postings were deleted, at least his post was a bit helpfull.

There are four standard EF Zooms that Canon makes. The best is clearly the 24-70mm f/2.8 MK II.
The 24-70mm f/4L and the 24-105mm f/4 L are pretty much equal. The EF 28-135 brings up the rear, only use it if thats all you can afford.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup


You have to decide which suits your budget. I can recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8 MK II its the best, but its also expensive.
The Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 has lots of fans and a history of failures, if you are careful with it and don't treat it roughly, it should be fine. Its resale value in the future is still unknown, and probably depends a lot on its long term reliability, and whether Tamron fixes the flaws.

There is a very good article here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx

 

[rich_h]

I have the 17-40L and the Tamron 24-70 (bought last week).

I was using the 17-40 as a walkaround, but now, personally, if 24mm is wide enough, I can't see a reason to get any zoom in this range other than the Tamron. I've been very happily surprised with just how sharp and contrasty it is. It gets close to the 70-200 f2.8 II (not quite as sharp but good enough for me not to worry too much which I use at 70mm). Feels really solidly put together too.

On a tripod, stopped down to f8 or more, the 17-40 is great, but the Tamron is sharper with better contrast and clarity wider open, has better corners, has really good VC and opens to 2.8 of course. Build seems at least as good. I wont be using the 17-40 anymore except on the rare occasions I need UWA. The Tamron does have a little more distortion at 24mm, but DXO (or I would assume Lightroom) corrects this automatically and I have not found it an issue so far.

I have not used the 24-105L much but a friend has it and somehow her shots seem slightly more 'muddy' (less sharp, lower contrast, images don't quite pop the same somehow) - both using the 5D3. Not saying it's a bad lens, but it did not excite me particularly, and f2.8 swung it for me.

Tripod, small apertures and UWA get the Canon.
Anything else, I can recommend the Tamron. I think I'm going to turn into a Tamron fanboy pretty quickly!

 

[scottkinfw]

24-15 is my vote. Small, light, excellent quality, take it anywhere.

sek

 

[brad-man]

until you decide to purchase a TS, pick a lens for all around use, like a 24-105mmL or 24-70mm.

well that´s what i wrote.

i like to know which standard zoom you guys recommend, as freelancer wrote.
don´t know why his postings were deleted, at least his post was a bit helpfull.

There are four standard EF Zooms that Canon makes. The best is clearly the 24-70mm f/2.8 MK II.
The 24-70mm f/4L and the 24-105mm f/4 L are pretty much equal. The EF 28-135 brings up the rear, only use it if thats all you can afford.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup


You have to decide which suits your budget. I can recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8 MK II its the best, but its also expensive.
The Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 has lots of fans and a history of failures, if you are careful with it and don't treat it roughly, it should be fine. Its resale value in the future is still unknown, and probably depends a lot on its long term reliability, and whether Tamron fixes the flaws.

There is a very good article here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx

Would you mind pointing me to where you got this info? The only negative I have ever seen was by Roger @ LR mentioning a weak glue connection of the front element on the first batch of lenses.

 

[RC]

24-15 is my vote. Small, light, excellent quality, take it anywhere.

sek

+1 (24-105) definitely a highly versatile lens. If you suddenly run into some extra cash, get the 24-70 II.

 

[RLPhoto]

17-40L is the best deal for a landscape lens that is kinda GP. Just buy a 70-200 F4L + 50mm and your done.

 

[TexasBadger]

I would consider the 24-70 2.8L. You should be able to find one for ~ $1000. If I could only have one lens and could not afford the II, this is the one I would get. It may not be quite as sharp as the new version, but it is a great lens. I use mine all of the time and get fantastic results.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Would you mind pointing me to where you got this info? The only negative I have ever seen was by Roger @ LR mentioning a weak glue connection of the front element on the first batch of lenses.

Yes, thats a big flaw, you just don't glue a large lens element in ploace and expect it to stay there. Tamron needs to fix this. There is no indication that the issue was a batch issue, if they did not provide some positive support, there is cause for concern.

My local dealer, suggested I pass it up. This is a dealer who only hires photographers for employees. He would sell me one if I demanded it, just suggested to pass it by.

Other reports are sporadic. As I noted, some users love it, and time will tell as to whether Tamron has fixed any of the reported issues. So far, they have not commented. As far as service is concerned, they are famous for claiming user abuse when a product fails. This means that when your lens comes unglued, you may have to pay, warranty or not.

I'm taking a wait and see approach. Certainly, for the price, its a deal, as long as it can standup to pro level use.

 

[bycostello]

tamron make a good affordable lenses

 

[corey.kaye]

I've got the 24-70 v.1 and I gotta say the 24-105 F4 is just as sharp or more so. The extra 2 stops are not very often missed and the IS is AWESOME for video shooting. If you're into landscape (as am I) we don't often shoot at 2.8.....

$0.02

EDIT: You don't have the 16-35 F2.8? This is the lens you want!!