Photography Thailand Forum

[Philip Coggan]

I just bought a new Canon lens, 24-105 f4 (IS, L-series). This will replace my old 28-135 as my standard lens.  (The old lens has f values from 3.5 to 5.6, but the new lens is constant). I'm wondering about using the 28-135 as a trade-in to buy one extra lens - what should it be? In the near future I plan to be taking a lot of photos of puppets, so do I need a lens with a wider aperture to cope with the lighting, or a longer lens so as to be able to stand further off (with a tripod) and zoom in? Your thoughts please.  :-\

[nancyzarny]

I have a new Canon 20D. Bought through Amazon in the US in December. I love the camera generally but am having problems with the integrated flash jamming closed or worse open. Anyone else have this problem? Canon claims this is a first.
The best thing I got for the Canon was a 70-200 2.8 with IS. No tripod generally needed. Will post a night photo taken with it in Hanoi later. It's a good chunk of change but if you can afford it, worth the money.
Nancyz

[moonfruit]

Hey Philip,

As Nancy recommended, i would ad the 70-200 f/2.8 to your kit. It is generally accepted that canon has the finest glass, though the Sigma EX is around 40% of the price (of the non IS canon version) and about 95% of the optical qiality of the canon. obviously, there is no weather sealing though.

that 2.8 aparture, especially if you opt for the is version will give you lots of leeway in low light situations. depending on what camera body you are using, if you are using eos 1 series, or the 5d then you could shoot in the dark at high isos!!

[Marc Schultz]

The one thing worth noting here, and this is coming from someone who moved up to a full frame DSLR after using cameras with a 1.6 crop factor ever since the release of the first Canon DSLR, is that at the wider aperture settings (on full frame cameras) it is much easier to be a bit off on the focus.

I have found that I used to be able to shoot a head shot at F/5.6 and always never miss having sharp focus on the eyes. Now, even shooting at F/8 or F/10, I sometimes find that my focus is slightly off the precise point I wanted to focus on. Normally it is not off enough to have any effect on the usability of the image, but I must accept that I now have much less DOF to work with when I am zoomed in than what I had before when using crop factor DSLR cameras.

My advice would be to be more careful on your focusing points using F/2.8 lenses with full frame DSLR cameras, especially at close range.

In fact, I recently bought the 24-105mm F/4 lens newly released by Canon. A lot of people don't like it because it is and L lens, but not F/2.8

For me, I find it much lighter than my 24-70mm F/2.8 and the fact that it is only F/4 doesn't matter because most of the time I am shooting with more DOF than F/2.8 anyway.

Not only that, but for what it is worth, it the lens I use most often, more than the 3 other F/2.8 lenses in my bag.

[RimBlock]

As an enthusiastic hobbiest I would also recommend the 24-105mm IS L lens.

It can be had for around £650 in the UK so that probably translates to around £500 anywhere else  >.

Be sure to get a newer model (UT1000 or higher stamped on the inner camera end of the lens).  Older models suffered from flare in specific conditions.

I upgraded from the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the IS is noticably quieter and more stable.  The quality difference is what you would expect form an L series over a non L lens.  It is a 77mm screw fitting for filters so remember the filters will be quite costly.  Canon and Hoya now do clear multicoated filters or you could go for a UV or polarising filter.

Samples of both the 28-135mm and the 24-105mm lenses can be found in the link in my sig if you want to have a look.  There is a shot there which I am using scaled down as my avatar here which was taken with the L series lens at f4 105mm and gives a good indication of DOF along with bokeh the lens can produce.  The shot was taken on a 5D with sudio lighting.

Regards
RB

[kinginexile]

Hi, Phillip, the 70-200 is a superlative lens, but it may not solve problems of shooting low-light, quite expensive and heavy too. You should consider consider the affordable and good 50mm f/1.8, or even better, the 85mm f/1.8.  with the X1.6 crop factor, both lenses become apt mid-range telephotos.

[anna]

Hi, Marc, I'm set on buying the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for my 20D.  But after reading your comment, now I am having doubts.  I did notice the shallowness of the DOF on my 24-70 f/2.8.  Seems difficult to get more DOF even if I adjust the aperture.  Are you saying then that this would also be the case for the 70-200 f/2.8?  If, so, then I am better off buying the 24-105 f/4, especially with its lighter weight as bonus on the side.  BTW, this will be my first zoom.  thanks. anna

[David Salmanowitz]

Anna--They are both good lenses but it really comes down to what you will want to use them for. For an all around lens the 24-105mm would be fine for many things--people, landscapes, ...The 70-200mm would be good for people, landscapes,... as well as offering the advantages of a longer telephoto. If you put the Canon 1.4 teleconverter on the 70-200mm using your 20D, you have the equivalent of a 448mm (320mm w/o the converter) telephoto if my math is correct. But the 70-200mm is big and weighs a lot and not something you would want to walk around with over your shoulder for a long period of time. It is apples and oranges, but I would get the 24-105mm. I plan on getting one eventually myself, as the 24-70mm I have is heavy. Most times I do not shoot at f/2.8, but the nice things about fast lenses like f/2.8 and larger is that they let more light into the viewfinder, which is nice for my aging eyes--but I would rather squint a bit than have a sore shoulder from carrying a heavy lens all day.

[anna]

Thanks, Marc.  After shooting with a seasoned photographer in Kokret recently, I saw how heavy equipment has hurt her back badly over a period of time. We had to stop every now and then so she could rest her back which was hurting badly.  With this in mind and your advice, I definitely will consider weight as a big factor in my decision.  Thanks for affirming my thoughts.  Anna

[David Salmanowitz]

Anna--Here is part of a posting (the Namibia review of what worked and did not) that was just put up on www.luminous-landscape.com. With shoots in China, Antarctica, California, Namibia, and South Africa, all within a six month period, I have come to the conclusion that less is more. While I always wish that I had another lens, or some other piece of gear that got left behind, in the end one can make do with a fairly basic assortment of lenses as long as one uses zooms. If primes are used then more lenses are needed to cover a range of potential needs, and this increases weight and bulk. So long as top quality zooms are used, a basic two body, three lens system is usually sufficient

I found that for landscape shooting my Canon 70-200mm f.2.8L IS lens was the most used, accounting for probably 60% of all my work during these three weeks. Image quality with this lens is always first rate, and the relatively wide aperture always appreciated. The 24-105mm f/4L IS has become a new favorite, and has almost completely replaced the 24-70mm f/2.8L for much of my mid-range shooting because of its wider focal range and IS. But it does vignette badly much of the time, necessitating some additional post processing.

BTW, the site is great and full of information--and you can see the 70-200mm IS is a real fine lens.

[Marc Schultz]

Interesting what you say about the 24-105mm lens vignetting badly much of the time. I haven't seen any of that to be honest. Are you possibly referring to barrel distortion at the widest 24mm range when you are close up to something, or is it something else?

Maybe you can post a picture example of something you are referring to so I can get a better visual understanding of what the issue is. There were noted lens flaring issues with the first lot released by Canon on this new lens, but they have fixed those issues already and the problematic ones from the first lot were recalled and repaired by Canon.

Other than that, I have not had any issues with it myself or read anywhere about the a vignetting problem. Anyway, will be interesting to hear more from you about it.

It is also worth noting that on the 24-105mm lens that the extra focal range is very helpful on full frame sensors if you normally shoot with the 24-70mm as the zooming capability on the 24-70mm lens does not take you very far. But on any of the other Canon DSLR bodies that have the typical 1.6 focal crop factor, and assuming one already has the older 28-135mm IS lens, then I would say it does not add as much value. Only in that it will allow you to zoom a bit further than you could with the 24-70mm lens before you would have to change to the heavier 70-200 lens.