Time for a new lens - advice/opinions please

[Scuba]

So I am looking for some advice and or opinions. First I currently shoot with a Canon 5D mkII, and my lenses are Canon 17-40 f/4L, Canon 50mm 1.4, Canon 70-200 f/4L IS. I am selling the Canon 50mm 1.4 because I don't like it. In short it focuses slow and I don't like the sharpness. I currently for the most part do landscape and outdoor, however I would like to more work with people such as high school seniors and families. Also in the next year we are planning to have a baby so I would like the lens to be favorable for the obligatory millions of photo's of my own kid. This will always be a weekend thing for me.

My budget is around $900-1000. The lenses I have been considering are:
Canon 24-70 f/2.8L I
Canon 24-105 f/4L IS
Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC (a little out of my specified range)

I know these are all good lenses, but please give some advice for my situation. I feel I need something faster then a f/4 in my kit and something to give some excellent bokeh. The 70-200 does a decent job at f/4 but would like the option to go a little shallower. I enjoyed the DOF I was able to get with the 50 but need a better quality lens then the Canon 1.4.

So my questions are:
For what I want to do which of the lenses I listed would you suggest? or is there another lens I should look at?
Any other suggestions?
Should I consider a 85mm prime even though I have the 70-200?

 

[weepete]

Canon 24-70 F2.8L because it's a very useful range and you seem to be missing it from your current setup.

 

[beagle100]

hard to beat the longer primes if you a lot of portraits. I would vote for the 85mm 1.8 and it's only around $250 - $300 used.

 

[Scuba]

Canon 24-70 F2.8L because it's a very useful range and you seem to be missing it from your current setup.

Just trying to understand you completely. The 24-70 will gain me 30mm of focal length (40-70mm) which is a lot more then I thought when I started typing this I haven't ever missed those focal lengths much. The 50mm I liked to use as my walk around I just am not a fan of the Canon 1.4. Do you think filling those focal lengths with a zoom is worth the difference in image quality and speed a prime such as the 50mm art would give?

hard to beat the longer primes if you a lot of portraits. I would vote for the 85mm 1.8 and it's only around $250 - $300 used.

I have considered this lens but wasn't a fan of the sharpness and focus speed of the lens. Maybe I am just picky or stuck up at this point but I want a high quality fast focusing system and the non L lenses just haven't done it for me. I have only used it a few times though so I could be wrong.

Do you think the 85 1.8 would take a better portrait then my 70-200 f/4 @ 85mm?

 

[Derrel]

The 50/1.4 ART is a huge lens for a 50...have you seen how BIG it is? There's no doubt that the Sigma 50/ART is a significantly better lens than the Canon 50/1.4, and also the Sony Zeiss 50/1.4; I saw a very in-depth Zeiss/Canon/Sigma ART 3-lens test, day as well as night-time with point light source test on a South Korean blog via the Lensrentals site: the 50 ART is extremely well-corrected against coma, so at night, point light sources against a dark field look nice and round, no elongated like footballs, or worse. In Lensrentals' own tests 7 vs 7 vs 7 lens examples, the ART was better than the Canon 50mm f/1.2-L, but a bit below the $3,999 Aptus, which makes it a very high-performance 50mm indeed.

I'm in the 24-105-4 L IS USM camp...I owned one for over half a decade, thought it was a pretty good lens for what it was. Those are available used all over the USA for $300 less than new cost, since they were 'kitted' with 5D,5D-II cameras in a single box kit (that's what I bought with my 5D for $3895 camera + lens), and it served pretty well as a generalist lens.

You might really like a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens!

Would an 85/1.8 take a better portrait than the 70-200 f/4 at 85mm? Only if you need apertures of f/1.8 to f/4. I really doubt at f/4.5 if you could tell the two apart easily. But the Canon 85/1.8 did seem to me to be a better optic than my Canon 50./1.4 which had more CA than the 85. The 85/1.8 is a tremendous lens value. It's small, light, fast-aperture, sharp, balances great on a 5D weight camera, and it's got a nice angle of view. For its price, the value/performance proposition is excellent.

 

[weepete]

Just trying to understand you completely. The 24-70 will gain me 30mm of focal length (40-70mm) which is a lot more then I thought when I started typing this I haven't ever missed those focal lengths much. The 50mm I liked to use as my walk around I just am not a fan of the Canon 1.4. Do you think filling those focal lengths with a zoom is worth the difference in image quality and speed a prime such as the 50mm art would give?

In a word, yes.

At least for me it is. You may have to give it a bit more consideration as your style of shooting may well be different to mine though, especially if you are used to using a 50mm as a walk around lens. But from what I can see from your description of what you want the 24-70 f2.8 fits the bill. The extra flexibility provided by a zoom in walk around situations is really useful and when you are talking of a lens as sharp as the L series there's little compromise needed.

Why not rent one for a few days and see how you like it?

 

[Scuba]

The 50/1.4 ART is a huge lens for a 50...have you seen how BIG it is? There's no doubt that the Sigma 50/ART is a significantly better lens than the Canon 50/1.4, and also the Sony Zeiss 50/1.4; I saw a very in-depth Zeiss/Canon/Sigma ART 3-lens test, day as well as night-time with point light source test on a South Korean blog via the Lensrentals site: the 50 ART is extremely well-corrected against coma, so at night, point light sources against a dark field look nice and round, no elongated like footballs, or worse. In Lensrentals' own tests 7 vs 7 vs 7 lens examples, the ART was better than the Canon 50mm f/1.2-L, but a bit below the $3,999 Aptus, which makes it a very high-performance 50mm indeed.

I'm in the 24-105-4 L IS USM camp...I owned one for over half a decade, thought it was a pretty good lens for what it was. Those are available used all over the USA for $300 less than new cost, since they were 'kitted' with 5D,5D-II cameras in a single box kit (that's what I bought with my 5D for $3895 camera + lens), and it served pretty well as a generalist lens.

You might really like a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens!

Would an 85/1.8 take a better portrait than the 70-200 f/4 at 85mm? Only if you need apertures of f/1.8 to f/4. I really doubt at f/4.5 if you could tell the two apart easily. But the Canon 85/1.8 did seem to me to be a better optic than my Canon 50./1.4 which had more CA than the 85. The 85/1.8 is a tremendous lens value. It's small, light, fast-aperture, sharp, balances great on a 5D weight camera, and it's got a nice angle of view. For its price, the value/performance proposition is excellent.

Darrel, thank you for your response, I am not quite sure what your vote ended up being though. I can't figure out if you recommendation would be for the 24-70 or the 24-105. I realized I didn't put the 24-70 f/4L IS on the list. Would that change your recommendation?

Just trying to understand you completely. The 24-70 will gain me 30mm of focal length (40-70mm) which is a lot more then I thought when I started typing this I haven't ever missed those focal lengths much. The 50mm I liked to use as my walk around I just am not a fan of the Canon 1.4. Do you think filling those focal lengths with a zoom is worth the difference in image quality and speed a prime such as the 50mm art would give?

In a word, yes.

At least for me it is. You may have to give it a bit more consideration as your style of shooting may well be different to mine though, especially if you are used to using a 50mm as a walk around lens. But from what I can see from your description of what you want the 24-70 f2.8 fits the bill. The extra flexibility provided by a zoom in walk around situations is really useful and when you are talking of a lens as sharp as the L series there's little compromise needed.

Why not rent one for a few days and see how you like it?

Yeah right now I don't feel like I miss anything but image quality if I walk around with my 50mm. I at times feel limited by having to choose between my 50mm and the 17-40mm if I am not taking a bag. I think if I could afford to I would be an all prime lens type of person, but I can't right now. Would the 24-70 f/4L IS being thrown in to the choices change anything? You really have me thinking about the 24-70 again. There are two things I am wanting this lens to do primarily, first portraits along with the 70-200 and the second is I am planning to have kids in the next year and want a good lens for that. After that I would like the lens I get to help in the walk around realm and maybe my landscape even though I am pretty satisfied with the 17-40/70-200 combo for that.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah...you did not originally have the Canon 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM in the choices...here's a review that has some nice things to say about that lens, and its "new" 4-stop IS system. Canon EF 24-70mm f 4L IS USM Lens Review

This is the second review I've seen this week on 24-70mm lenses...yesterday I was checking out the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC's review...and was VERY impressed by ultra-slow-speed hand-held results with the Tamron VC lens.

I dunno...I am not a fan of shooting anything close-up at f/2.8, meaning to me, a short focal length lens like a 24-105 or 24-70 is not going to be used at f/2.8. I don't like shallow DOF on environmental pictures, so to me, an f/4 lens with stabilizer is a much more-attractive option than a faster lens. Honestly: most zooms are inferior at f/2.8 to what they can do at f/5.6. Unlike many people, I see value in IS and VR and VC for hand-held shooting, stopped down shooting, panning, and shooting in the wind or on the run, or while walking slowly. A 300/2.8 at 30 yards has enough DOF to get the picture; at 5,6,7,8,9,10 feet, f/2.8 is still a very shallow DOF lens. I'm NOT interested in f/2.8 indoors...I want DOF, so to me the 24-70 IS would be a lens I would consider. Others might well have different opinions. I personally don't give a rip about having f/2.8 for close-range, social/kids/life shots...I don't like that approach. YMMV. As usable ISO ranges have gone up, Nikon and Canon are offering brand-new high-resolution f/4 zooms with stabilization. There are reasons for that.

 

[Scuba]

Great points Darrel and thanks for the great review link. What are your thoughts about a young kid and motion blur with the f/4 lenses? Obviously I am a fan of f/4 already I am worried about not being able to get moving shots indoors. I only have a 5D mk II so normal range max ISO is 6400 and expanded 12800. If I had a 5d mkIII I wouldn't even ask.

Also, the 24-105 is currently on sale in the Canon refurbished store for $530. I suppose I could get the 24-105 and a 85mm 1.8 in my budget.

 

[Derrel]

I live in a dark part of the USA...not Miami or California or Arizona or Florida, so much of the year, indoors means flash + ambient. When my son was little, I shot most indoor stuff using flash assist indoors, except in the summertime, and back then we had a house that had skylights, and a dining room and living room that adjoined and each room had two literal entire WALLS of windows + arched massive skylights above in each room. Living room faced north, like a North Light studio. I still like flash assist, and f/6.3 or f/7.1.

I can't shoot anything moving indoors here that I like either, and so to me, aperture is not that big a concern on a lens used for kid pics. I actually think photographing one's kids is an important, once-in-their-lifetime endeavor, and a worthy thing to do. I've seen people who do their kid pics using the fast prime route, and shoot that way...just not my preference. But it's one way to do it.

WOW...24-105 refurbed for $530? Oh my...now that is tempting! You've got a 580 EX-II to bounce at 1/4 power, right???

 

[Scuba]

Hmm, well you have me thinking Derrel. I guess it really isn't complicated to set up my flashes and fire wireless to counter the slower lens. I do like the fast prime look sometimes but I think that will not always be practical with a fast moving little one and I am sure there are many shots that get thrown away due to focus issues. I have a 430ex II and a 540ex to use as slaves so I can light a room up if need be. There is someone selling a 24-70 2.8 version I for $800 locally right now. Or I could try the 24-105 + 85 1.8 combo which would end up around $900 or so. I am on a freeze from my wife following this purchase for a while so I want to get it right!

 

[beagle100]

Hmm, well you have me thinking Derrel. I guess it really isn't complicated to set up my flashes and fire wireless to counter the slower lens. I do like the fast prime look sometimes but I think that will not always be practical with a fast moving little one and I am sure there are many shots that get thrown away due to focus issues. I have a 430ex II and a 540ex to use as slaves so I can light a room up if need be. There is someone selling a 24-70 2.8 version I for $800 locally right now. Or I could try the 24-105 + 85 1.8 combo which would end up around $900 or so. I am on a freeze from my wife following this purchase for a while so I want to get it right!

you should be able to get good children photos with your current lens lineup, there is never going to be a perfect lens for indoors and outdoors. I'll still vote for a longer prime (85 - 200mm) if you like blurred backgrounds for outdoors and one of the 24-70 2.8 versions for indoors.

 

[Derrel]

24-105 with IS, and ultrasonic motor focus, L-series build + an 85mm 1.8 EF.... both for $900 or so...sounds like a lot of capabilities...a good f/2.8 wide-to-medium telephoto zoom, that's one piece of kit; then the 85/1.8, another, different, separate item, of known high performance, but also light weight, and a great focal length for portrait and family work from that 10 to 40 foot range, and easily carried, not a monstrous, obvious, attention-commanding lens in social situations. The 85/1.8 is also a super-fast,super SHARP tele for shooting loose, then cropping in later, for events, night time events, etc.

 

[beagle100]

24-105 with IS, and ultrasonic motor focus, L-series build + an 85mm 1.8 EF.... both for $900 or so...sounds like a lot of capabilities...a good f/2.8 wide-to-medium telephoto zoom, that's one piece of kit; then the 85/1.8, another, different, separate item, of known high performance, but also light weight, and a great focal length for portrait and family work from that 10 to 40 foot range, and easily carried, not a monstrous, obvious, attention-commanding lens in social situations. The 85/1.8 is also a super-fast,super SHARP tele for shooting loose, then cropping in later, for events, night time events, etc.

that combo is also good and the 24-105 L is often sold as part of a kit so you can get it used for good prices

 

[GlennT]

I have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and my experience has been... satisfactory. The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 is far superior to that lens, but I've seen a few comments about the AF that made me slightly nervous about it. It does sound like it is tremendously better than my old 17-50mm though, plus quieter and faster with the Ultrasonic Drive. The rings turn opposite of the Canon norm, and there is a small chance the 3rd party reverse engineered mount won't communicate properly with a newer camera body in the future. That's the situation I ran into with my 17-50mm; it doesn't focus linearly on my 7D, but works fine on the old Rebel XT. I wouldn't shy away from the Tamron, but I'd keep those thoughts in mind. I considered it, but decided that range wasn't ideal for my usage on a crop body.

FWIW, I often stop down to f/3.5 or more, especially since it's usually casual shooting of our kids running around, but I sometimes shoot wide at f/2.8 and crop for composition later; less magnification, more depth of field. This past Christmas was the first time I put the flash on a stand with an umbrella, and that was a far better experience than either making due with available light or flash mounted on-camera. This was with extended family, and I was able to get more people in focus went I wanted to with this setup.

17mm on a crop body has been plenty wide for birthdays, and the 17-50mm Tamron was great for the once a month growth progress shots of our daughter. It's been a good range for indoors IMO, so 24mm on a full frame should be a good fit. I don't see myself going full frame any time soon, so I ended up with the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S. 24mm just wasn't going to be wide enough on a crop body, and I would've ended up looking for a 16-35mm or similar and larger filters; just more money I don't have. The 24-105mm f/4L IS is currently next on my list, as a "walk around and leave everything else at home" lens.