Good L series wide angle?

[t5Nitro]

Can anyone suggest a good wide angle L series lens? I checked BH out and they have too many for me to pick from ha ha. Something around 1K that would be a really nice lens? I don't own an L series lens, is it really a night and day difference?

Thanks for any info.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

There are only 2 zooms:16-35 f/2.8 (II) and the 17-40 f/4.

For primes there are 4: 14mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4, TS-E 24mm f/3.5 (that is a neat one), and 35mm f/2

 

[t5Nitro]

Primes? So which one is best? Or which out of those to keep it around 1K?

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

With your budget, I would go with the 17-40. You should be able can pick it up for about $650 with the $50 Canon Christmas Instant Rebate. The 16-35mm will run closer to $1,300. If you don't know the difference between a prime lens and a zoom lens, maybe you should do a (LOT) of reading before you buy a lens. There are many, many, many factors that play into DSLR lenses, prime or zoom is the most basic of these.

 

[BlueCorn]

Which body?

On a crop, neither is very wide. While not an "L" lens, on a crop body I love the Tokina 12-24. It's inexpensive, built like a tank, and really sharp. Before I went to a full frame camera it was my favorite lens.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Mmmm good point Doug, good point. He specificaly asked for "L" so that is what I gave him. If you are using a Rebel or a 30D and want a wide angle lens, I personally recommend the Canon 10-22.

 

[IPT]

Body is important. I personally have been astounded with my 24 F1.4 (prime), but both of my rigs are full sensor. What will the subject be (landscapes)? I always felt limited with a 24mm on my 10D.

Here is good blerb about the two lenses mentioned.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

 

[IPT]

OH, and "yes" for the most part I have found the "L" series lenses to be significantly sharper than the others I have owned (though they were usually Tamron or Sigma's - that my be better now though - it's been a long time since I bought anything but an "L" series lens).

 

[IPT]

Okay, I am just throwing it out there because it is wide, and right at your price range. The 24-105mm F4 L lens. I have been real happy with this lens even on a high resolution camera (actually I only use my 24mm F1.4 for the northern lights and that is just because I want the speed). It's a zoom, but pretty sharp. I am willing to lose a tad of shrpness for the convenience of having just one lens to tote around. Probably making it more confusing for you but read a lot of reviews and really try and decide what the purpose of the lens will be. When will it be used, where? Will you be going long distances having to carry your gear, or car shooting?

Here'e the 24-105mm in action.

 

[BlueCorn]

While I agree, with Louis, that the 24-105 is a nice lens, if you have the kit lens it's even longer than what you already have. Since Louis has a full frame camera that lens seems wider than it would on your crop body.


Here's an illustration of what the same image would look like using 24mm on a 1.6x crop:

If you want wide, you should be looking for the 10-12 range.

 

[IPT]

Agreed - 24mm on a body with a 1.6 crop factor ends up effectively being a 38mm lens ( I didn't see anywhere what body you use but maybe I just missed it). Maybe that is wide enough for you? I don't know what your intended purpose is.

I used a 28-135mm on a 10D for a long time (had a 1.6 crop factor). After a while I wanted more so I ended up buying a Sigma 18-35 (before I was willing to shell out for good glass - which BTW is a good idea on your part. Do it right the first time. Good quality lenses make a difference in image quality).

So if you truely want a "wide" angle view, and have a body with the crop factor, than you should check out the lens Doug mentioned. I am not familiar with it myself but he appears quite knowledgeable about gear. Do a Google search or look on www.photo.net which has some excellent forums and information.

 

[dendronepthya]

There is a new 24mm f/1.4L coming out that I am going to be taking a look at. They reworked all the optics to keep up with the 5D and 50D cameras. It may be a bit more than your $1000 price limit though.

 

[t5Nitro]

Well, just figure even a few hundred over 1k could be in my range. I want to buy a good lens to start out with. What I have now is a 100mm f/2.8 macro and then the lens that came on it (28-135mm). That lens is decent, but it sucks in the same respect? lol...

As for photos, even your "every day" shots I'd like to have even more clear than the 28-135 offers. I do have a macro, and the 28-135 if I need it, so the main thing I thought it would be cool to have a wide angle lens. Would I use it a lot? Probably not, we don't have anywhere around here that I could even use it much for. But for trips etc might be cool.

So, I have a 30D, I don't think that lens above would be a great choice. Possibly to go up top on the "mountain" or hill you may call it here which is our mountain (ha) and snap some shots over the city, or across the lake looking at the mountain. Being on trips shooting out over the ocean or coastline. You get the idea. So, with a 30D, what would be the BEST lens you could buy, say 1300-1400$. Either it be L series or another brand. I want the quality of L though.

Thanks again.

 

[BlueCorn]

What I did for a long time, with that same camera, was a 24-70L, (that I bought used) and the Tokina 12-24. That'd fit in that budget, especially if you sold the 28-135 (that was the happiest memory that I have of that lens) The 24-105 would be an even better choice in terms of range.

It really depends on what style of shooting you wind up gravitating to.

 

[t5Nitro]

beerguy, what you shoot is what I would like to do. To put that into perspective I guess. I like macro, but I already have a lens for it. Basically what you're doing with the nature shots is what I wanted to do. The 28-135 sucks for that ha ha. Is there a site you can list it for sale?

You would use the 24-105 though as a walk-around and obviously the 12-24 as a wide angle?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/360349-REG/Tokina_ATX124AFPROC_12_24mm_f_4_AT_X_124AF.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/264304-USA/Canon_8014A002_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_EF.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397662-USA/Canon_0344B002AA_24_105mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html

I guess I need some pointers here. Do you have any pictures of when you used the 12-24 tokina on the 30D? And the 24-70 is a 2.8 and the other a 4? Is it worth not getting extra zoom for the better aperture? I guess pick one for me ha. I know those L series lenses should be fine, I guess I'm game to buy either, so if you could pick one for me based on what I like shooting, go for it. The other lens, any pix you may have shooting with the 30D would be much appreciated. It just seems to cheap to work great, but I'm sure I'm wrong.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Mmmm I was just spending some quality time in the woods with my own 24-70L a few hours ago before the Florida/Florida State game. It isn't "wide angle", but it is amazing.

 

[BlueCorn]

Like everything, it depends.

When I'm shooting landscape stuff I rarely am anywhere near 2.8 so that's no big deal. It does come in handy sometimes but you pay for it in weight and bulk. I'd go with the 24-105; I've got a friend who does really well with it.

I've had good luck selling on Fredmiranda.com but you have to become a paying member to do so. I'll have to take a look at my images to give you examples.

 

[t5Nitro]

Ok, thanks. I'm just wanting lenses that in the long run will still be good lenses. Like the above picture still looks great. The 24-70 isn't going to "look" any better is it? Assuming the same person is behind both lenses.

Putting it in that perspective, say I'm using the 24-70 OR 24-105 as my walk-around lens, which would you buy, assuming I'd pick up the tokina for the wide angle? Again thanks for looking for some pics for me to see what it would look like. I'm sure yours would > by far over mine. Just the person behind the camera. :lol: At least I'd know the capabilities anyway.

 

[IPT]

Between the 24-70 and the 24-105, I'd go for the 24-105mm F4. I don't think the 24-70 F2.8 will have much more sharpness, if any (except maybe if you shot both at F4 - the F2.8 would be closed down one stop and may, possibly, have a slight, tad bit more shaprness. In this day and age with digital it is easy to bump up one stop of speed if you really need it. The 24-105 is longer if you need it (like to isolate a sunset), still has the same wide angle, and is lighter.

Like Doug said, usually with Landscape your not shooting wide open anyway so unless it's wildlife or people (action) I don't see how the F2.8 would be an advantage (on your camera at least. Some of the higher end cameras will enable extra focus points or use horizontal and vertical sensors on a F2.8 lens that are not activated with an F4 or slower lens).

 

[t5Nitro]

That's what Doug was pointing out I think. I wouldn't use the 24-70 or 105 for landscapes. That's why he pointed out the tonika 12-24mm. Which in that case, for an every day walk around lens, for shooting people even, a 2.8 would be cool. Just the fact that it's not a full frame camera sucks. :lol:

Looks like the 105 might be better off then because of that.