New Canon Lenses

z.peletz · Sep 3, 2008

I don't follow all of the photography trade shows so I'm wondering if somebody could tell me what and when the major ones are.

I'm looking to buy a new lens but would like to see what Canon puts out next because I can't decide between the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L IS. What I really want is the 24-105 to drop to f/2.8. Anybody have any insight on what they think Canon might have up their sleeves in terms of new lenses.

Thanks.

-Zach

usayit · Sep 3, 2008

24-70 and the 24-105 comparisons come up very often here.... some to aid in your decision

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84510
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76828
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42694

In essence, my feeling is that the 24-105L is one of the best all around lenses you can get. Its sharp, has IS, good focal range, and easier to pack. The 24-70L is one of the best FAST zooms you can get. The fast f/2.8 aperture comes at a shorter focal length and heavier packaging. This comparison is very similar to that of the 70-200 f2.8 versus 70-200 f4 IS (speed versus packaging).

I've shot with all the lenses in question and ended up with the 24-105L + 100-400L for the sheer flexibility of focal range. That combination saw more use than the 24-70L + 70-200L f2.8L IS. For low-light, I still feel that a fast zoom is still a compromise over fast primes (at least for me).

You really can't go wrong with either.... the 24-70L is the bread and butter for many wedding shooters and with good reason.

Honestly... .I'd just make a choice rather than wait for Canon to release another... since by the time that one is released you'll be wondering if the next is even better.

oh yeh.. Canon is notoriously shut lip'd on the future pipeline. Most here wouldn't be privy and those that are privy to that type of info are probably legally bound.

z.peletz · Sep 3, 2008

Yeah it seems like the general thoughts are the two lenses are great but you just have to decide what is more important to you.

I'm really trying to start building my lens collection. Right now I have the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I am going to sell this and replace it with something in this range that is L series. My company owns (but it's always in my possession) the 17-40 f/4L USM. I would prefer the 16-35 f/2.8 because of the larger aperture. Finally I'd like to get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM.

That would leave me with a 16-35 and a 70-200. I just need to find that missing piece.

Edward Crim · Sep 3, 2008

I'd like to see your work, why don't you post a link to it?

Along the line of lenses, I see you already have the 28-135 IS. This is a great lens, why not use it? It was my primary lens (for its quality and versatility) until I wore it out (literally). I replaced it with the 24-105 not because I needed an extra f-stop at the long lens (though, since it's there, I use it) but because I needed a new lens. The 28-135 is built for light use and I punished it for 5 years as a wedding pro. Still, it's a great lens! I have quite a few 6 foot tall banners on display that I took with it.
But if you want low light capability, you can get a lot more bang for the buck with primes. You can pick up the 28 f1.8, 50 f1.4 and 100 f2 (all three Ultrasonic focus, real time manual override) for about the same price as either of the other lenses you mention (24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4).
When I shoot PJ events, I go with the 28 f1.8 on my full frame dslr and the 50 f1.4 on my apsc dslr. It makes me pdq as well as tro (totally rockin' out). They have the added advantage of being lighter, smaller and less obtrusive than their zoom cousins.

Iron Flatline · Sep 3, 2008

I've got the 24-70 f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/2.8.

I'm increasingly finding that the 24-70 has insufficient range, and is quite heavy.

I really never use the 70-200, and will probably sell it.

I will probably mirror Usayit, and get rid of the two lenses, and get the 24-105, and the 100-400.

Edward Crim · Sep 3, 2008

All the criticisms of it being soft at maximum aperture are on target (though some of the perceived softness is due to focusing issues inherent in an internal-focusing lens). I get great results with it at f8, though! All of the WA shots on my state capitols site are taken with it (I'd love to have the 14mm f2.8 for that slight extra wideness and superior wide-open sharpness, but it's too darned much).

take a look: http://www.edwardcrim.com/state_capitols.html

Also the interior of the Falcon 2000 jet on my site was shot with the 16-35 f2.8 (again at f8 and on a tripod, of course).

http://www.edwardcrim.com/falcon_2000/

If your money is burning a hole in your pocket, take a look at the 100-400 L IS, it will bring you right into where the action is! I use it day and night for photos such as the Indian on the Kansas State capitol,
http://web.mac.com/edwardcrim/Edward_Crim/Edwards_Blog/Entries/2008/8/24_Topeka.html
and close-ups of wildlife.
http://www.edwardcrim.com/fp_bird_fishing/

Happy shooting!

Edward

Iron Flatline · Sep 4, 2008

One upside of primes that doesn't get a lot of mention is that they're lighter! If you're shooting an event all day, it's easier on the arms

z.peletz · Sep 4, 2008

Here is some of my work:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zachpeletz/

This is definitely a big hobby of mine, I'm not professional. My profession is in the entertainment lighting industry so one big thing I need to take into consideration is the ability to stop video in my photos. I also travel extensively so the lenses I buy should ideally be dual purpose or I just need to slowly get a good collection of them.

Maybe eventually I'll try to push photography to something more than a hobby.