hi guys! I own an eos 350D. I currently use a 28-135mm IS Canon lens. I'm thinking of selling this one for a 24-105L lens. and in the future, i plan to buy the 16-35L lens and 100-400L lens. What would you guys say would be the perfect combination of lenses for all occasions? (Wide, Medium, and Telephoto) Would you say that these three lenses would serve all photographic purposes? (Except Macro) Your opinions would be highly appreciated.

what about triyng to have an ultra wide like EFS 10-22 to cover all focal lengths.:) goodluck!

but i think youre on your way to the L lenses.

24-70mm L IS and 70-200mm L IS is all you need bro. depending on your needs, but if your a wild life shooter, go for longer telephoto

you shouldn't base your lens purchases on what you want (L addiction for many many people)..but with what you need. what do you love to shoot?

what is YOUR photographic style?

i am into portraits,events and stock... so my current gear is "complete" even if i dont have a wide angle. i never really liked shooting wide landscapes, anyway.

id say tamron 17-50 2.8, tamron 28-75 2.8, canon 70-200 f4L IS, and canon 24-105 f45L IS and if possible EFS 10-22.

then the 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and if you can hack it the 135 f2

and maybe the sigma 30 1.4.

oh and a fish eye!

16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8

There is no substitute for a big aperture.

Mike

how much is the 24-105 f/4L in hidalgo, really can't decide if i want to buy a 28-135 is or 24-105 f/4L, i can stretch my budget for the l lens but really don't know if it's worth it:(
thanks in advance:)

16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8

There is no substitute for a big aperture.

Mike

amen. you're all set when you have these babies! :)

Depends on what you want to shoot the most, that would be the most ideal focal length for you. IMHO, it may seem unconventional but investing in prime lenses instead of covering the focal length is more valuable if image quality is more important than flexibility.

I may have missed several shots with a prime but I've missed even more by not changing lenses. HTH

16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8

There is no substitute for a big aperture.

Mike

i agree... there were times i just had to keep shooting untli my flash batteries ran out... that's when i was glad i could use f/2.8... ambient light only.. whew... that fact saved my neck

how much is the 24-105 f/4L in hidalgo, really can't decide if i want to buy a 28-135 is or 24-105 f/4L, i can stretch my budget for the l lens but really don't know if it's worth it:(
thanks in advance:)

i have the same dilemma too. :Scared: i'm a 30D user with kit lens. i'm planning to get a zoom lens this weekend for portrait and wedding photography. should i consider 17-85mm as my choice?

thanks! :)

@ darryl

anyway, for the prices...

--the 24-105 f/4 L IS >> 58K at henrys
--the 28-135 IS USM >> 23k if you get it from ramon (mayer photo)

Thanks for all the help guys! I really appreciate it! Now all i have to do is to save up some money. (Which is the hardest part!!!)

16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8

There is no substitute for a big aperture.

Mike

How much are these lenses? What about depth of field? Wider aperture means narrower depth of field right? Do you encounter problems with that? What would be the difference between an f2.8 and f3.5-5.6 with IS? I don't have much experience with lenses. So please bear with all my questions. :Grin:

hi guys! I own an eos 350D. I currently use a 28-135mm IS Canon lens. I'm thinking of selling this one for a 24-105L lens. and in the future, i plan to buy the 16-35L lens and 100-400L lens. What would you guys say would be the perfect combination of lenses for all occasions? (Wide, Medium, and Telephoto) Would you say that these three lenses would serve all photographic purposes? (Except Macro) Your opinions would be highly appreciated.

As usual, posters don't tell us what type of photography they intend to pursue. In any case, let's see what we can do, shall we?

The list is based on good optical qualities and history of good performance overall. So, don't expect to find the 28-105 there or some other lenses. Because you didn't specify what type of photography, then I will list down possible candidates based on lens ranges. I leave it up to you to mix and match.

wide:
- ef-s 10-22
- 17-40 f4.0L
- 16-35 f2.8L
- tokina 12-24

medium:
- 24-70 f2.8L
- 24-105 f4.0L IS
- ef-s 17-55 f2.8 IS
- Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di
- Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di-2


medium-to-med-long:
- 70-300 f4-5.6 IS
- 70-200 f4L (with or withou IS)
- 70-200 f2.8L (with or without IS)

Long lenses:
- 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS
- 400 f5.6L
- sigma 50-500 ex dg

all around lenses:
- 28-300 f3.5-5.6L IS
- tamron 28-200 f3.5-6.3 Di
- tamron 17-200 f3.5-6.3 Di-2

I did not include sigma lenses except the 50-500, because they are too problematic overall with canon bodies, if not now, then later. If there are others who would recommend a sigma, I'll let them do the convincing.

What you do, is pick one from each group. Of course, you have to be able to afford those lenses, especially the L ones. If not a Tamron Di is just as good.

I have the 10-22, 24-105, and my temporary 50-200 f3.5-4.5L. It's a 3 lens combo that does well for events, and almost everything else. I used to have the tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 Di, and the tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. It's optically very good, but the range is limited and the cut-off/overlap at 28mm is not very good.

Some prefer the 17-40L, 24-70L and 70-200 f2.8L IS combo. This is very popular with most wedding photographers. Others change the 17-40L with the heavier 16-35 f2.8L. In fact, this is what canon recommends in their Lenswork III book.

What you trade with the Ls is weight and price. That 16-35L, 24-70L, and 70-200 f2.8L IS is going to set you back around P250k!

Or you can go modest but optically good. Go for a 10-22, tamron 28-75 Di or 17-50 f2.8 Di, a 70-200 f4L. These 3 will set you back less than P100k. Optically, you are in there with it's more expensive brothers. But you trade lens speed. And maybe IS on the long end. You can go for the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS, but you lose speed. Well, you have IS, if that is worth to your type of photoraphy. And you have 300mm.

Now, the long end is a different matter. Basically we are talking 400mm or higher here. Unfortunately, there are only 2 zooms that go this far and that is more or less affordable. That's the 100-400L IS, and the bigma or the 50-500. There is also the 400mmL prime. No IS, but very, very sharp even wide open. Most 100-400L need to be stopped down to f7.1-8.0 to compete with the prime, and it's only real advantage is IS.

Mind you, the long lenses are basically outdoor lenses. This is why you have to tell us what type of photography you do. If you say sports, you have to say what type. Your fantastic 70-200 f2.8L IS is going to be short for soccer, baseball and T&F. That same lens is going to be too slow even with IS for indoor basketball, volleball, badminton, etc.

So, that's the run down. Not complete or comprehensive, but gives you some starting point. I may have forgotten something here and there, but I'm sure your smart enough to fill in the gaps.

How much are these lenses? What about depth of field? Wider aperture means narrower depth of field right? Do you encounter problems with that? What would be the difference between an f2.8 and f3.5-5.6 with IS? I don't have much experience with lenses. So please bear with all my questions. :Grin:

I don't know the exact prices but you will be looking at over 60k each for the first two and depending if you want IS or not on the 70-200 you are looking at 60-85k approx.

Expensive but good glass always is! Once you have invested in good lenses then you will be able to use them on all future bodies. Avoid EF-S lenses (my opinion) as eventually Canon will have an affordable full frame camera.

As for aperture, the bigger the aperture the more light is directed onto the sensor. From f2.8 to f4 there is half the light directed onto the sensor so the shutter speed for the same ISO would be halved.

Wide apertures also give you much narrower depth of field; this is a big advantage over IS. I prefer to control my depth of field for given situations. For me f2.8 is not that big an aperture. I normally use lenses with f1.4 to f2.0. At f1.4 you can have problems miss focusing (operator error, not camera) and loose the shot but f2.8 (if you know what you are doing) should not pose the same problems to the operator. f2.8 is actually quite small in my opinion.


Mike

how much is the 24-105 f/4L in hidalgo, really can't decide if i want to buy a 28-135 is or 24-105 f/4L, i can stretch my budget for the l lens but really don't know if it's worth it:(
thanks in advance:)

"L" lenses are worth the money!

The difference is in the build quality, contrast, colour and resolving power of the glass.

The 24-105L IS is a fantastic lens if you don't need an f2.8 aperture.

Mike

thanks mike and sheryll

haha sorry jay, i used your thread to ask my own questions :)

here's a link comparing your lens to a "L" lens

hope this helps

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml

Large aperture portraits......

http://www.mgdphotography.com/index.php?showimage=265

shot at f2.2

http://www.mgdphotography.com/index.php?showimage=180

shot at f2.0

http://www.mgdphotography.com/index.php?showimage=182

shot at f2.0

http://www.mgdphotography.com/index.php?showimage=40

shot at f2.5

I've posted links as the images are large..ish......

Mike

well, if you want most bang for the buck then id rather get the tamron 17-50 and 28-75. Both 2.8 for 1/3 the price of the canon. Performance wise though they are very comparable.

oh forgot to answer sir daryl.

If youre oing to use the lens outside only during the daytime with good light then the 28-135 should suffice. Just stop it down to f8 and go.

But if you plan to use it indoors and in low light then the 24-105L is much much better.

i have the same dilemma too. :Scared: i'm a 30D user with kit lens. i'm planning to get a zoom lens this weekend for portrait and wedding photography. should i consider 17-85mm as my choice?

thanks! :)

@ darryl

anyway, for the prices...

--the 24-105 f/4 L IS >> 58K at henrys
--the 28-135 IS USM >> 23k if you get it from ramon (mayer photo)

58K for 24-105? weeeeeeee i should buy my stuffs at hidalgo.. comparing the price at canon center 24-105 is leik 70-75K... btw how much is 24-70L in hidalgo?

i think henry's price just went up again.....not sure though i think i read something at another forum....better call them and check

oh forgot to answer sir daryl.

If youre oing to use the lens outside only during the daytime with good light then the 28-135 should suffice. Just stop it down to f8 and go.

But if you plan to use it indoors and in low light then the 24-105L is much much better.

thanks christopher for the info,,

just have a question,, isn't the IS of the 28-135 enough for low light conditions? can you elaborate the advantages of the 24-105 L on these conditions,,

thanks in advance:Grin:

btw, don't call me sir,,

thanks christopher for the info,,

just have a question,, isn't the IS of the 28-135 enough for low light conditions? can you elaborate the advantages of the 24-105 L on these conditions,,

thanks in advance:Grin:

btw, don't call me sir,,

This maybe of help to you......

How I Decided to Up-Grade From a Canon 28~135 IS to a Canon 24~105 F/4L IS (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml)

From the Luminous Landscape

Mike

Sorry, I see you have posted that link already.

So here's another one comparing the 24-70L to the 24-105L

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

Mike

this is a very informative thread.
thanks guys.
and i agree...need to save up for these Ls..

right Ann Margarette? =)

this is a very informative thread.
thanks guys.
and i agree...need to save up for these Ls..

right Ann Margarette? =)


Yes, Dwighty...

I know you just can't stop thinking about those L lenses... :) hahahaha...

thanks mike for the site,,, :) but i guess i have to give in with the 28-135 IS,, hehehe if only money was not an issue,,

Hi again Darryl,
From what i remember reading on the internet about 28 to 135 and 24 to 105, I think the IS of the 24 to 105 is newer or better than the IS in 28 to 135. The IS in 28 to 135 is equivalent to 2f stops, and in the 24 to 105, the IS is equivalent to 3 f stops. I'm not really sure about this but this is what I remember reading about this. :D

thanks christopher for the info,,

just have a question,, isn't the IS of the 28-135 enough for low light conditions? can you elaborate the advantages of the 24-105 L on these conditions,,

thanks in advance:Grin:

btw, don't call me sir,,

Thank you all for your inputs!!!
As for the people asking about my photographic style... Hmmmm...... I think I'm more of a general photography guy. : ) I like to shoot landscapes, parties/events, portrait, and if possible, wildlife. oh, I'm not into sports photography: )

Another thing about "L" (lust) lens, hehehe, I think they're weather resistant right? they have seals and everything to protect it against moisture and dust. is it really effective?

Not all 'L' lenses have weather seal's.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A6tp

I can't comment on effective they are but only the Canon 1 series body's have weather seal's.

Mike

Another thing about "L" (lust) lens, hehehe, I think they're weather resistant right? they have seals and everything to protect it against moisture and dust. is it really effective?

effective if you have 1d bodies since they are weather resistant.

use a lens with a non weather resistant body, water will just seep through it and possibly into the lens.

also, there are reports that 100-400 L's can have dusts inside because of its pumping action.

it's up to you. find out what you want. there is nothing wrong to choose.