Need help choosing lenses

[tiagoj.nunes]

Hi everyone,

in a previous thread I had some questions about upgrading my photo gear. Since I'd love to have a full frame body and my budget is not that high, I accepted the suggestion of the user Rawlings and decided to get a used 5D MkI to save some money for lenses. Now I need to decide an strategy for choosing the lenses. I am more into travel photography, urban photos, and land/cityscapes. My 500px has some typical examples of what kind of pictures I like to take ( 500px / Tiago Nunes / Photos ).

I was offered an EF 25-105mm f/4 L IS USM for 600 euros. I could get this lens now and then I'd have to wait a couple months to get something else. I'm just not sure if this is the right lens for me. My doubts concern mostly how to cover all the distance ranges. Since I like landscape, I'll probably want something wider in the future. I then see the EF 17-40mm f4 L USM as an option. But then I'd have this overlap in the range 24-40mm between the two lenses, and I'd be paying 500 euros for a 7mm range. Is there a big difference in IQ in this 24-40mm range favoring the 17-40mm that would justify the investment? Or is there a smarter option to cover this ranges? The same applies for a telezoom: if I get the 70-200mm I'd again have a overlap in the 70-105mm range. So, could anyone give their thoughts on that?

 

[Overread19 7]

At the wide end small differences in focal length give quite a big difference to the angle of view that you get, so having some overlap isn't a bad thing in the least. In fact a little overlap helps sometimes since it means you don't always have to be switching over lenses.

I would say that a 24-105mm IS f4 would be a good starting point zoom; good optical quality combined with a general good range for most of the typical shooting that you'll be doing. Remember if you want to go wider you can always pan and then stitch the shots together to get a wider angle of view.

Other options to consider would be the 24-70mm f2.8 which lacks the IS, but has a wider max aperture; however it is a much heavier lens and the shorter longer end tends to mean its slightly less favoured as a generalist lens and more favoured for its specialist option of an f2.8 aperture and a good focal range coverage.
You can also consider prime lenses as well; these would give you generally the best optical performance, and the widest apertures; but mean you might end up switching lenses more.

The option of zoom or prime really is a personal taste thing and also somewhat dependant on what you shoot (if you do lots of indoor, no flash low light stuff primes would be superior tools generally over zooms).


Personally I would say the 24-105mm would be a great starting option; get your feet wet with it and see how things go; see how you're shooting and what you find are the weaknesses and then build from there.

 

[tiagoj.nunes]

Hey Overread, thanks for the reply.

I spent the weekend doing some search, and I could find both the 24-105mm f4 L IS and the 28-70mm f2.8 L for 600 euros. Now I have to choose between these two. At the moment I am inclined to the 24-105mm.

My plan now is to further (before July) get a Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM and a Sigma 12-24 mm f4.5 EX DG HSM. I think with these lenses I'll cover the ranges I need for urban and landscape photography.

 

[Jacobwilson]

The 24-70 2.8 I think will suit you better for traveling. Especially a you go in and outdoors, the 2.8 will be more capable and versatile that the f/4. I have the 24-70 and a 70-200. I've always been satisfied with the focal length of the 24-70, as I take landscape or urban style shots on vacations, missions trips in Africa, cities etc.
However, if you decide for the 105mm, I definitely understand the desire for extra focal length. In my own shots, I've desired more on the wide end than telephoto end.