This message comes following the comparison between 10-20mm lenses.
With the new job I just obtained, I'm going to be able to renew my photographic material. I would like to have your thoughts and comments about it.
I currently do landscape and animal mainly. I want to improve my landscape and I begin slowly macro.
Here is my current gear:
Canon Eos 400 D
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Filter holder Cokin P series (GND)
+ Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM macro I will keep.
Here is the material I'm thinking about purchasing:
Canon Eos 50D (priority 2)
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 DC EX HSM
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L (priority 1)
Filter holder Cokin Z-Pro series (GND and grey neutral ND8). I know it will not fit to 10-22, but X-pro is too much expensive. I will find another solution for the Sigma lens.
And finally, as I use all the range on my 70-300, I hesitate between:
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM
or
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM + Canon EF 300mm f/4 L USM (no more expensive if not IS, but the 300 f/4 will be secondhand). IS version would be too much expensive.
Of course, I will have to purchase these over several months, but I would like to have your thoughts on the global set.
Thanks for your comments.
David
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 19, 2009 at 12:24 PM
David, image quality should be your primary focus (no pun intended) if you were to upgrade. I would suggest the 70-200mm before the 100-400mm. The 70-200mm series by Canon is stupid sharp, and if you're leaning on landscape you'll be using a sturdy tripod anyway, so the IS isn't a necessity. I don't own any IS lenses and haven't regretted it, especially for landscape. there are situations where it's a great help. If you're a photojournalist I imagine IS would be a blessing.
So if you get the 70-200mm/4 you'll save $800USD over the 100-400mm, so my next suggestion is the 16-35mm/2.8 over the 17-40mm with the money you saved. I've owned both, and the 17-40mm was a great lens on my 5D, but when I got the 5D2 the lens fell flat. I upped to the 16-35mm and WOW, what a difference. But if you stay with a crop-sensor camera the 17-40mm will serve you very well.
Any chance you'd consider full frame? You already have a crop sensor camera, adding full frame would be great for landscapes. The bigger sensor is much better for low noise & higher ISO, I'm still blown away with the night images I can get. I know, the 5D2 is expensive, but I'd buy it again. One thing to consider maybe... you can get great deals on used 5Ds, and the 17-40 on the original 5D is a classic landscape camera, you wouldn't be disappointed. Look what the PNWNP guys/gals have done with that set-up in the last few years, incredible work.
OK, I've confused you enough, but there's some info to chew on. Bottom line: the 70-200mm is a great lens, any of the 4 versions (the MTF charts are a hair better for the non-IS versions, but it's small), and the 17-40mm is a fine choice for 15mp or less, it seems to struggle with 21MP sensors, although there has been some fine work posted with that combination.
BTW, if you are considering a 50D, for a few hundred more there's the new 18mp 7D with superior auto0focus and HD video, for $1699USD.
Lastly, here's my setup so you have a comparison list. We all have our needs, for me this covers it:
5D Mark II
16-35mm/2.8
70-200mm/2.8
100mm/2.8 Macro (sharp as a razor, should be called an L lens)
Just ordered a 24-70mm/2.8, more for video really.
The image quality out of those lenses is quite nuts, I couldn't be happier. I could use a "Composition" switch on each lens, but Canon engineers haven't figured that one out yet.
If I were to add anything, I think I'd be with you on that 300mm/4 (the dream lens is the 400mm/2.8 but not realistic). But to be honest, I can crop a 200mm shot to get a longer zoom effect, the 21mp sensor gives you a ton of room for hard editing.
Oh, I also use Singh-Ray ND Grads. Wouldn't trade them for any other brand.
For FF camera, I considered it. But I will not keep my 400D (I scheduled another future for it). Furthermore for hiking, one camera is really enough. So I have to deal with a new and lone camera. that's why I considered 50D (that's why I also am considering a super wide angle lens as 10-22). Furthermore, my new job will bring me money to upgrade my gear, but I have to keep some to fill up my bank account for future too ;) I want a good camera, but can not yet paying thousands euros for it.
As suggested, the sharpness is my primary focus. My new job will also give me some time to develop my photographic activity, and I really want to improve it (perhaps for contacting later agencies). So I agree with 70-200. I don't really think I need IS in my practice, and its sharpness is quite excellent. I need to have a look on 16-35mm/2.8. DOn't know that one.
thank you very much again ;)
Posted by John Mumaw on October 19, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 DC EX HSM
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L (priority 1)
Were I you, I would substitute the 17-40 lens for a 24-105IS 'L' lens, which is a great 'walkaround' lens.
With the addition of a 100-400IS lens, you would be covered with little gap anywhere in your future lineup.
Posted by Jason Taylor on November 15, 2009 at 7:55 AM
I'm in almost the same situation as you, upgrading from a Canon xti. The only thing i'll be keeping is my 10-20 Sigma, which I love. Here is my upgrade plan, it may change some, and keep in mind that while I shoot mostly wildlife and nature, I like shooting general travel stuff and an the occasional action/sports shots:
Canon 50D. I considered the 7d, but I don't need video and don't feel that the 3 extra mp will be worth the huge price jump....currently at adorama, there is over a $700 price diff. in the 50d and 7d.
Canon 100-400L (I love to shoot birds, and 400 is the minimum IMO, so the 70-200 is out, though I hear it is a legendary lens).
Sigma/Tamron/Tokina 100 2.8 Macro. To double as a macro/portrait lens. Not sure about the brand yet, but all three get similarly good reviews and are economical.
Tamron 28-75, for a "walkaround" lens and general landscapes. I've read nothing but good things about this lens. If budget allows, I may consider the 24-70L or the 24-105L. I also thought about skipping the Tamron, and getting some extenstion tubes and one of the L lenses. I could go either way there.
I am definitely considering the 24-105 lens (rather than 17-40) for its range and fitting well with the 10-20 to complete it. With the 300 f/4 + tc 1.4 (rather than 100-400) I think I would have a complete set of lenses with excellent quality to cover all my activities. And I will consider later a 70-200 to complete this set.
And I agree with jason. I considered also the 7D, but I am rejecting it for the same reasons than yours.
Thanks again
Discussion
5 repliesThis message comes following the comparison between 10-20mm lenses.
With the new job I just obtained, I'm going to be able to renew my photographic material. I would like to have your thoughts and comments about it.
I currently do landscape and animal mainly. I want to improve my landscape and I begin slowly macro.
Here is my current gear:
Canon Eos 400 D
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Filter holder Cokin P series (GND)
+ Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM macro I will keep.
Here is the material I'm thinking about purchasing:
Canon Eos 50D (priority 2)
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 DC EX HSM
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L (priority 1)
Filter holder Cokin Z-Pro series (GND and grey neutral ND8). I know it will not fit to 10-22, but X-pro is too much expensive. I will find another solution for the Sigma lens.
And finally, as I use all the range on my 70-300, I hesitate between:
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM
or
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM + Canon EF 300mm f/4 L USM (no more expensive if not IS, but the 300 f/4 will be secondhand). IS version would be too much expensive.
Of course, I will have to purchase these over several months, but I would like to have your thoughts on the global set.
Thanks for your comments.
David
So if you get the 70-200mm/4 you'll save $800USD over the 100-400mm, so my next suggestion is the 16-35mm/2.8 over the 17-40mm with the money you saved. I've owned both, and the 17-40mm was a great lens on my 5D, but when I got the 5D2 the lens fell flat. I upped to the 16-35mm and WOW, what a difference. But if you stay with a crop-sensor camera the 17-40mm will serve you very well.
Any chance you'd consider full frame? You already have a crop sensor camera, adding full frame would be great for landscapes. The bigger sensor is much better for low noise & higher ISO, I'm still blown away with the night images I can get. I know, the 5D2 is expensive, but I'd buy it again. One thing to consider maybe... you can get great deals on used 5Ds, and the 17-40 on the original 5D is a classic landscape camera, you wouldn't be disappointed. Look what the PNWNP guys/gals have done with that set-up in the last few years, incredible work.
OK, I've confused you enough, but there's some info to chew on. Bottom line: the 70-200mm is a great lens, any of the 4 versions (the MTF charts are a hair better for the non-IS versions, but it's small), and the 17-40mm is a fine choice for 15mp or less, it seems to struggle with 21MP sensors, although there has been some fine work posted with that combination.
BTW, if you are considering a 50D, for a few hundred more there's the new 18mp 7D with superior auto0focus and HD video, for $1699USD.
Lastly, here's my setup so you have a comparison list. We all have our needs, for me this covers it:
5D Mark II
16-35mm/2.8
70-200mm/2.8
100mm/2.8 Macro (sharp as a razor, should be called an L lens)
Just ordered a 24-70mm/2.8, more for video really.
The image quality out of those lenses is quite nuts, I couldn't be happier. I could use a "Composition" switch on each lens, but Canon engineers haven't figured that one out yet.
If I were to add anything, I think I'd be with you on that 300mm/4 (the dream lens is the 400mm/2.8 but not realistic). But to be honest, I can crop a 200mm shot to get a longer zoom effect, the 21mp sensor gives you a ton of room for hard editing.
Oh, I also use Singh-Ray ND Grads. Wouldn't trade them for any other brand.
For FF camera, I considered it. But I will not keep my 400D (I scheduled another future for it). Furthermore for hiking, one camera is really enough. So I have to deal with a new and lone camera. that's why I considered 50D (that's why I also am considering a super wide angle lens as 10-22). Furthermore, my new job will bring me money to upgrade my gear, but I have to keep some to fill up my bank account for future too ;) I want a good camera, but can not yet paying thousands euros for it.
As suggested, the sharpness is my primary focus. My new job will also give me some time to develop my photographic activity, and I really want to improve it (perhaps for contacting later agencies). So I agree with 70-200. I don't really think I need IS in my practice, and its sharpness is quite excellent. I need to have a look on 16-35mm/2.8. DOn't know that one.
thank you very much again ;)
Were I you, I would substitute the 17-40 lens for a 24-105IS 'L' lens, which is a great 'walkaround' lens.
With the addition of a 100-400IS lens, you would be covered with little gap anywhere in your future lineup.
Canon 50D. I considered the 7d, but I don't need video and don't feel that the 3 extra mp will be worth the huge price jump....currently at adorama, there is over a $700 price diff. in the 50d and 7d.
Canon 100-400L (I love to shoot birds, and 400 is the minimum IMO, so the 70-200 is out, though I hear it is a legendary lens).
Sigma/Tamron/Tokina 100 2.8 Macro. To double as a macro/portrait lens. Not sure about the brand yet, but all three get similarly good reviews and are economical.
Tamron 28-75, for a "walkaround" lens and general landscapes. I've read nothing but good things about this lens. If budget allows, I may consider the 24-70L or the 24-105L. I also thought about skipping the Tamron, and getting some extenstion tubes and one of the L lenses. I could go either way there.
Buying a new camera setup is like buying a boat.
I am definitely considering the 24-105 lens (rather than 17-40) for its range and fitting well with the 10-20 to complete it. With the 300 f/4 + tc 1.4 (rather than 100-400) I think I would have a complete set of lenses with excellent quality to cover all my activities. And I will consider later a 70-200 to complete this set.
And I agree with jason. I considered also the 7D, but I am rejecting it for the same reasons than yours.
Thanks again