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

[drmikeinpdx]

Tamron 28-75

I'm a big fan of the Tamron 28-75 2.8. I bought a well used copy for $260 about two years ago and it is still going strong.

It's $500 new, so you can have a good lens now and save up for the later purchase of a trophy lens that will make you feel good.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05

For landscape work you will presumably be using a tripod so you won't need stabilization and you will be stopped down to F8 or so. You don't need the latest and greatest lens. Why spend a lot of money for capabilities you won't use?

The really great thing about this Tamron 28-75 is the small size and light weight. After using this lens for a while, I find the Canon 24-70 mark I is annoyingly large and heavy. So was the new Tamron 24-70 stabilized lens that i rented. It's a nice lens if you need stabilization, but I felt that my old 28-75 did everything I need with substantially less bulk. Instead of buying the new Tamron, I bought a couple of the less expensive L primes and I'm very glad I did.

I got together with my local photo buddy today to help him confirm the MFA on his 7D with the Canon 50mm 1.4 (+5 MFA needed) I was surprised to learn that he has become very attached to his (much newer than mine) copy of the Tamron 28-75.

 

[robbymack]

the 24-105 is a good option, but you should have bought it in the kit, no worries as there are tons for sale used at or near the same price you'd pay in the kit. that's your choice if you want good reach and don't care if f4 is a little on the slow side. The canon 24-70 f4 is maybe a hair or two sharper, but not enough to justify the price difference IMHO. If on the other hand you need f2.8 and if you can afford it the canon 24-70ii is really peerless, however that comes at a insane (IMHO) cost. Having an extra $1000 in my pocket and IS is important to me, so the Tamron is the clear choice, at least for me, between those two lenses. Don't concern yourself with the internet babble about lens elements coming unglued, those things get blown way out of proportion by the gear patrol on the internet. Yes Roger at Lens rentals had a problem with 2 of his first 10 lenses, he has not had a problem with any of them since and Tamron quickly repaired the issue. Roger is also fond of saying Tamron has one of the best service departments in the photo business these days with three day turn arounds and rarely ever a hassle. He hasn't seen a problem since, nor have I seen anyone else complaining of that issue with that lens. My copy has worked flawlessly since day one (about 6 months now) and is noticeably sharper than the canon 24-70i it replaced and the IS really good. I can get a solid 2-3 stops when needed, I don't blink an eye now at 70mm and 1/15.

 

[smithy]

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.

+1. This is exactly what I was about to post. Although if you could find a 16-35mm for $1000 or less then that would also be worth considering if landscape is going to be your main interest.

 

[kentandersen]

one more vote for 24-105

I have a Sigma 12-24, a Samyang/ 35 1.4, 135L and the 24-105. I use them on a 5dMKII and an old 400D. I would buy all of them again. The only one of them I would have loved to change is the Samyang (Rokinon, Walimex) lens. Mainly becouse of the build quality. The Image quality is excelent for the price.

The Image quality of 24-105 is excelent. I rarely have the need of more. There is 3 thing I like about it. Its size is great. The image stabilizer is realy helpful, and the extra 105mm is used alot.

If you buy a used 24-105, you still have money left to buy a good prime.

 

[pwp]

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.
So what is the best choice for best quality at the short end?
1000 euro maximum.

You want the best quality standard zoom? A few posts have suggested a 24-70 f/2.8 series-1. Right zoom range....wrong lens. While good copies of this lens are known to exist, most of them are mongrels. I had five over a number of years. Avoid them. They highly likely to disappoint.

You've got yourself a great body, so back it up with a truly phenomenal lens, the new 24-70 f/2.8II. Everything positive you have read about this lens is true. As I mentioned on another thread, photographers including myself are disposing of L primes in the 24-70 zoom range...the new zoom makes them obsolete. It's just that good.

-PW

 

[rpt]

I have used the 24-105 on my 5D3 and I love it. I have no personal experience with third party lenses.

 

[RGF]

Go with the 24-105

 

[adhocphotographer]

Pick up a used 24-105 and keep the rest for a 17-40... I find the extra reach of the 24-105 very useful on my 5DIII... Enjoy it buddy!

 

[syder]

+1 for the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc

Better image quality than the 24-105L or the 24-70L mki

A damn sight cheaper than the mark ii and it has IS (which for video - where I make most my money - makes it a more useful lens)

 

[And-Rew]

with my 5D2's - i would choose between the 24-105 or the 17-40 - both F4 but with IS on the 24-105.

The differences, so far as i can tell - are pretty much about focal length. I've heard pluses and minuses for both lenses. The 17-40 is a more compact lens, and if honest, the 'sharper' of the 2 lenses.

For what you want, i suppose i would recommend the 17-40 (given your budget), and put the rest towards the savings towards your TSE lens.

Of course, you could always go mad and opt for a prime

 

[michi]

I bought a refurbished 24-70 2.8 L Mark 1 from Canon when they had a discount, it was under $1,000. I also have a 24-105. I prefer the 24-70, I feel it has nicer colors and feel of the resulting images. It is a heavy, bulky brick though.

 

[smithy]

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.
So what is the best choice for best quality at the short end?
1000 euro maximum.

You want the best quality standard zoom? A few posts have suggested a 24-70 f/2.8 series-1. Right zoom range....wrong lens. While good copies of this lens are known to exist, most of them are mongrels. I had five over a number of years. Avoid them. They highly likely to disappoint.

You've got yourself a great body, so back it up with a truly phenomenal lens, the new 24-70 f/2.8II. Everything positive you have read about this lens is true. As I mentioned on another thread, photographers including myself are disposing of L primes in the 24-70 zoom range...the new zoom makes them obsolete. It's just that good.

-PW

But where can you get one for less than 1000 Euros?

 

[RC]

Pick up a used 24-105 and keep the rest for a 17-40...

This is a good plan, 24-105 for your standard zoom (used or new) and a 17-40 (stopped down) for landscapes. You can probably get by just fine with 24mm for landscapes now and add a wider lens latter. Get a CPL, both lens take a 77mm filter which makes it nice.

 

[sdsr]

If you need wider than 24mm, get the 17-40 f/4. If you don't, but need faster than f/4, get the Tamron 24-70. Otherwise I would, like so many others have done, recommend the 24-105. User experience around here suggests there's some variation among them in terms of sharpness. I can't comment on that - all I can say is that the two I've tried (rented one, then bought one) are both sharp; both perform superbly even in very low light on FF (I have 5DII & 6D; at least with non-moving things, IS more than makes up for the difference between f/4 and f/2.8); 105 is much more useful than 70; so I think it's a bargain for what it is, even when not acquired as part of a kit.

(I've also tried two copies of the Tamron 24-70; I rented one, then bought one, but neither was any sharper than my 24-105, and the results I got in low light with it at f/2.8 or otherwise weren't any better than I get with my 24-105 at f/4 or otherwise. So although it's clearly a very good lens, I returned it because it added nothing useful to me.)

PS - it's not clear why you found Mt Spokane's comments unhelpful - seems to me they were spot on.

 

[transpo1]

24-105 all the way. It's a great lens.

 

[StepBack]

Well first congrats on the ff. Should be great for landscapes to capture the color and lighting nuances. I like taking close ups of flowers in gardens whether at conservatories or at home, a park whatever. Then there's landscape like the Grand Canyons or the Swiss Alps, beaches, wetlands and the ocean. So decide what it is you want to capture in landscape. Then match the lens to your needs. I use a 24-70L and sometimes the 70-200L. If I were doing it all over again I'd weigh well the weight of the lens I"m comfortable carrying. If I wanted an all around lens I guess the 70-200 is terrific. But instead of a 24-70 I would look for a wide angle with a large aperture. You may not have such a need right now. The 24-105 is also very good. Remember u have to carry these suckers around perhaps all day maybe on long hikes. Good luck.