Help me with an evil canon lens dilema

[Avotius]

Howdy all. I confess, I use a dslr. Ok now then, I need something to replace my canon 17-40 lens! I am looking for opinions of people who shoot with these lenses in the real world, not pictures of newspapers stuck to walls at GPS coordinated locations. I am getting rid of said lens because I find I dont care for the way it renders or the fact that its a f4 and it pushes me to shoot high iso all too often.

Anyway the obvious choices up for grabs are the 16-35 2.8 II, the 35 1.4, or the 24 1.4

Since I used the 17-40 for so long I will know the handling on the 16-35 II for the most part. Besides the 2.8 (which is just about enough to sell me on this one) how does in compare in the edge performance and out of focus areas? These are the two points that bothered me most about the 17-40. Of course on my 20D is wont show up much, but in the near future I will be upgrading to whatever comes out to replace the 5D so assume that I need it.

Also the two primes. I like primes a lot. The 35 1.4 is a lens I have always wanted. I love the way it renders and it seems like a great piece of kit. The effective 56mm focal length is will give me on my 20D does not appeal to me much but it could be interesting when I upgrade. Also the 24 1.4 would be a nice lens for my 20D but would I like it on a 5D? I dont know really, never shot a 24mm prime before.

Im sure the classic argument is that the 16-35 covers the 35mm prime's spot and for the two stops of light you loose you get all those other mm's to work with. I duno, wish I could test drive.

I also plan to add a 70-200 2.8 IS to my kit so I can stop borrowing it. Great lens, love it to bits.


Oh...I was also thinking about maybe the 24-70, another great lens, but its awfully big and with all that size you dont get IS, which is a downer for me, but its a thought....


Finally, where can I get good insurance for my neck and back for all this heavy stuff I will have to carry around? (maybe I should get an m8 after all )


ps. this is where nikon chimes in and says tehy are putting out a fm3 style body camera with a d# sensor in it thusly forcing me to jump off the canon ship and slim for nikkor's made in china and thailand.

 

[M. Valdemar]

Forget the 24-70mm lens.

It's monstrously huge and heavy. It's hot amongst the wide-eyed teen set but I can't see lugging the thing anywhere all day. And I find it pretty soft in real world use.

The 70-200mm f2.8 IS is razor sharp and focusses instantly. Again, I'm not a fan of big, heavy lenses. I have one because I got it at a steal but I almost never use it and will probably sell it one of these days.

Having said that I really like the Canon 5D, even though it's a Sherman tank.

 

[Avotius]

I agree, they are both huge lenses, but the 70-200....I have taken so many good keeper photos with them and it would be such a pity not to own one of my own. At the end of the day its a great lens that helps me get photos that I couldnt otherwise with short primes. For instance all of these:

This guy was on stage, the 200mm end really helped get a neat moment.

Small details are great sometimes, this lens is great at getting them, I need one of these lenses....

Im big on portraits.



ehem....anyway...back to the choices at hand....

 

[Avotius]

I miss the 35 f/1.4 dearly. That and the 135L are some magic, magic glass.

Thats what I want to hear. My 17-40 lacks magic, oh how tempted I am by the 35 1.4....

 

[Avotius]

I will be going full frame down the line here. I am waiting to see what happens when canon announces the 5D replacement. I also thought briefly about the full frame sony and the 24-70 but I dont care for the other lenses. That first shot of yours seems to show so much magic. I like edge shading, I like the rendering, I like the colors and tones....it almost has a zeiss quality to it. I think im sold...thanks!

by the way, did you sell all your canon gear to go for the m8?

 

[Avotius]

I sold it all about a year after I moved to NYC because I had grown so accustomed to the smaller form factor of RFs shooting here in the city and just couldn't get back into using big cameras again. I picked up an M8 and a WATE w/ the money. My wife is currently doing the same thing with her 5D and lenses and wants an M8.

I know the feeling, the bessa you were so kind to sell to me for such a deal has been around a lot and I can genuinely carry it in the smallest of spaces so for the most part it stays out of the way. That was the idea with the m8 for me but I guess im still not convinced for where I go and places I shoot that an m8 let alone a rangefinder would survive the long haul. My old mamiya 6 went on a nice week long trip through the sichuan mountains without a hitch and it was a poorly made camera, my yashica gsn has seen a lot of action to and is very fine, I guess I should have higher expectations of an m8. I duno though....something there just hasnt convinced me yet...

Regardless a rangefinder is not a total substitute for me, maybe I will first worry about my slr kit then deal with the rangefinder when things develop more.

Choices suck. O to be in a time when the choice was a M leica or a nikon f3 and thats it.

 

[Toby]

I've got the 17-40 and I've also got both the 20D and a 5D. I much prefer the 17-40 on the 5d. On the 20D the 17-40 is a bit of a nothingy lens it doesn't go wide enough or long enough and the 20D' comparative lack of high iso performance makes f4 an issue. On the 5d you get the full benefit of a super wide zoom and you can use 800 iso with hardly any penalty so 2.8 is not so important. Also bear in mind super wide zooms are comparatively soft compared to primes or tele zooms, both of which are far easier to make. The 17-40 was certainly as good as the 16-35 L Mark 1. I suspect you may have a bad copy - do you know somone with same lens so you test one against the other?

 

[Avotius]

I've got the 17-40 and I've also got both the 20D and a 5D. I much prefer the 17-40 on the 5d. On the 20D the 17-40 is a bit of a nothingy lens it doesn't go wide enough or long enough and the 20D' comparative lack of high iso performance makes f4 an issue. On the 5d you get the full benefit of a super wide zoom and you can use 800 iso with hardly any penalty so 2.8 is not so important. Also bear in mind super wide zooms are comparatively soft compared to primes or tele zooms, both of which are far easier to make. The 17-40 was certainly as good as the 16-35 L Mark 1. I suspect you may have a bad copy - do you know somone with same lens so you test one against the other?

I do know someone who has the same lens, by far he has the bad copy. Both sides of his frames are not the same. One side seems ok sharp like mine, the other side progressively gets less sharp to absolutely off on the other. I have a feeling he has a decentering problem, an element that is not in straight or something! There are also many other people in my photography class who have a similar set up (canon 20-30D with 17-40) and they all seem to get about the same results as I do. Maybe my expectations are too high as I am used to rangefinder optics and their hardcore performance.

 

[Avotius]

By the way, if anyone hasnt figured it out yet, im trying to talk myself out of spending so much money on an M8 here.

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

 

[Quinn Porter]

My advice would be to buy lenses for the camera you have, not the camera you might have one day. There's no telling how long it will be before you have a full frame camera, so buy what's best for your 20D. When you do get a full frame camera you can sell any lenses that you no longer need. With this in mind, I'd recommend the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS or, if you want something smaller, lighter, and less expensive, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

 

[Quinn Porter]

I'd agree if Avotius had a 30D or something newer but the 20D is pretty old in the tooth. I'm not suggesting it isn't a very capable camera and I'm not advocating on behalf of the endless upgrade path but it's a grandpa in the dSLR arena.

There's no question that digital cameras continue to improve, but I believe the 20D was a milestone camera for Canon. It was so much better than the 10D, while the 30D showed very little improvement. I think the 20D was the first mid-tier DSLR that could be a 5 to 10 year camera for the advanced amateur.

 

[Avotius]

Thanks for the suggestion Quinn, I have thought about that too, which is one of the reasons I checked out the 24 1.4 but my canon 20D has seen a lot of action. The shutter is passed 80,000 shots, the black paint on the body is well worn away showing a nice silver on many patches, the shutter button doesnt always respond anymore, and now there seems to be a problem with the focusing, probably needs a alignment or something. I agree, the 20D was a milestone and thats why I bought one, its been a hell of a camera but it might be time to send it out to stud as a backup, I will get it repaired if the cost is not too much then I will use it the way Erik up there is, as a camera to use when focal lengths need to be longer.


Endustry, you said you had three meltdowns? My 20D in the beginning had a few of the error 99 things going on but after the first 6 months or so they never came back, I hope the M8 works out its bugs too! To say that I am tempted is an understatement. I already have lenses for both canon and leica systems so its a real head buster which to get. It all comes down to what happens in the next few weeks with a job im going to do. if it all works out I will have about 6000 dollars extra burning a hole in my pocket, then I will be in real trouble....because I also got a 3500 dollar scholarship on the way, and living here in china is really really cheap....like when your rent on a two bedroom apartment is a mere 40 some dollars a month...

oh the shame of it all!!!!

 

[biomed]

16~35/2.8

16~35/2.8

This was shot some time ago on a 10D.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I have the 35L, and love it, even though i barely use it.... I'm not really comfortable with lenses wider than 50mm, but because i love the images i've seen from the 35/1.4, i'm committed to it.

It's very sharp, even wide open, and has beautiful bokeh. From what i've seen of it on an APS sensored camera, it's better than my 50/1.4 on my 5D. My only dislike: the size. But, as you're used to that zoom, it should pose no problem for you.

If the focal length works out for you, i highly recommend it.

 

[sienarot]

The 35mm is my most used focal length on my 5D. I don't own the 35L but that will likely be my next big purchase. Until then, I am using the 35mm f/2 quite happily. In fact, I like the 35mm focal length so much, I'll probably still keep the 35/2 as a back up lens. I find zooms very boring -- I just can't get creative with them no matter how hard I try.

If you are looking for something on the wide side, have you considered the Sigma 20mm f/1.8? It's very cheap considering how wide and fast it is.

 

[Avotius]

Thanks for the suggestion Derrick, I dont care for sigma lenses. They never floated my boat. How is the 35 f2 treating you? I also considered it for a moment as it is more compact but wonder about its focus mechanism. I guess its similar to the one in my girlfriends canon 15 fisheye and as competent as that is does it work well in fast situations?

 

[sienarot]

I don't have any experience with the 15mm fisheye, but if you have played with the 50mm f/1.8, the focus mechanism is very similar, if not identical.

It works decent enough in fast situations, though it does hunt a bit in very poor lighting (but MUCH better than the 17-40L) but isn't impossible to use. The focusing noise very buzzy, so if you're shooting in quiet situations, it might be an issue, but I wonder if it only seems that loud because I am so close to it. I've never had anyone give me funny looks or comments about the focus.

In fact, my only complaint about the 35/2 is I have is there is no full time manual focus like with the USM lenses, which would've been very helpful in a few situations I've been in. If there was, I'd have no reason to upgrade to the 35L except for the added stop. I have to flip the switch back and forth to go from AF to MF.


Here are some examples of the 5D and 35/2...

Fast paced salsa dancing in low light:

Catching mid-air movment:

More low light photography:

Works well with models too

Sigma lenses aren't that bad if you stick with the EX models. In fact, my 20mm f/1.8 is my next most used DSLR lens after the 35mm f/2.

 

[Avotius]

Im doing the same as you. Im gonna have the new 5D as main DSLR camera and im gonna buy primes for it. One zoom lens. Probably 24-105 for use on the 40D. I will also have my 40D cropped camera so I will basically have twice the focal lengths. The crap thing about FF is that you have to be more picky cause some lenses is really bad on them compared to crop cameras.

One more thing while im thinking about it. I know you have a M8, do you ever think you will miss it? Hard to not miss that lack of weight it would seem, not to mention the rangefinder focusing....got to love that.

 

[gavinlg]

Going back to the 17-40 f4L Colin, my old copy (I now shoot with a nikon d300) was excellent - surely one of the best all round landscape and wide angle general purpose lenses around.

The canon 35 1.4L is also another beauty - I know a few people with them and they are capable of making beautiful photos.

 

[trev2401]

got to agree, it took a while before i found a "good" copy of my 17-40. The 16-35 i had, both I and II, were just terribly on the wide ends in terms of distortion.

If you're really looking for the 16-35 range, and don't mind giving up a bit on the far end & AF, try the 14-24 nikon. =)