Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 24-70 2.8 L USM and 100 or 180 macro? etc. Ideal set ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by fr@nk, Jun 29, 2006.

  1. fr@nk

    fr@nk Guest

    Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 24-70 2.8 L USM and 100 or 180 macro? etc.
    Ideal set ?

    I'm working on my ideal set. (standard , light tele and macro)

    A little while ago I posted my idea of an ideal set.
    I got some good useful reactions.

    I will go for the 70-200 2.8 L USM but unsure of the IS version for the
    extra money

    I now doubt which is better/more handy:

    Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 25-70 2.8 L USM

    24-105 is slower, but has IS (compensate??) and cheaper if in set
    bought
    24-70 2.8 L USM, is faster, has no IS, and less length.

    My feeling is the 24-70 is better, but little less flexible.

    Who advises?

    The other doubt is the macro solution:
    100 2.8 USM macro or 180 3.5 USM
    100 is cheaper and faster, also for portraits (??), 180 further
    distance possible, and softer background, but more expensive (also
    portraits possible)
    I dropped the choice for the MPE65 macro 1-5x f2.8

    I'm down to this set now: (for the 5D), not buying in one go, but I
    want to have a plan.

    24-70 2.8 L USM (1st lens to get)
    70-200 2.8 L USM (IS ??)
    180 2.8 usm macro
    Extender 2x (image not sharp any more?) or 1.4x (better image)

    I started an other trail some while ago with this starting point:

    5D
    430 or 580 EX
    MPE65 macro 1-5x f2.8
    EF 100-400 F 4.5/5.6 USM L IS
    EF 24-105 F4 IS USM

    start with 5D + 24-105

    Thanks
    Frank
     
    fr@nk, Jun 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. fr@nk

    Backbone Guest

    "fr@nk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 24-70 2.8 L USM and 100 or 180 macro? etc.
    > Ideal set ?
    >
    > I'm working on my ideal set. (standard , light tele and macro)
    >
    > A little while ago I posted my idea of an ideal set.
    > I got some good useful reactions.
    >
    > I will go for the 70-200 2.8 L USM but unsure of the IS version for the
    > extra money
    >
    > I now doubt which is better/more handy:
    >
    > Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 25-70 2.8 L USM
    >
    > 24-105 is slower, but has IS (compensate??) and cheaper if in set
    > bought
    > 24-70 2.8 L USM, is faster, has no IS, and less length.
    >
    > My feeling is the 24-70 is better, but little less flexible.
    >
    > Who advises?
    >
    > The other doubt is the macro solution:
    > 100 2.8 USM macro or 180 3.5 USM
    > 100 is cheaper and faster, also for portraits (??), 180 further
    > distance possible, and softer background, but more expensive (also
    > portraits possible)
    > I dropped the choice for the MPE65 macro 1-5x f2.8
    >
    > I'm down to this set now: (for the 5D), not buying in one go, but I
    > want to have a plan.
    >
    > 24-70 2.8 L USM (1st lens to get)
    > 70-200 2.8 L USM (IS ??)
    > 180 2.8 usm macro
    > Extender 2x (image not sharp any more?) or 1.4x (better image)
    >
    > I started an other trail some while ago with this starting point:
    >
    > 5D
    > 430 or 580 EX
    > MPE65 macro 1-5x f2.8
    > EF 100-400 F 4.5/5.6 USM L IS
    > EF 24-105 F4 IS USM


    I'd go for the following:
    all Canon lenzes
    70-200mm F/2.8L USM IS
    16-35mm F/2.8L USM LENS
    Extender EF 2x II
    MP-E65mm F/2.8 1-5x <-- strictly for macro i.e. there is no focus ring!
    You might also want to add a 100mm F/ 2.8 USM macro
    for a flash you need 2 580EX for portrait photography as well as a MT-24EX
    Twin lite for your macro photography

    BTW I have all of the above! <smiles>
     
    Backbone, Jun 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. fr@nk

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >fr@nk wrote:
    > Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 24-70 2.8 L USM and 100 or 180 macro? etc.


    24-105 over the 24-70, that one I'm clear on (have the 28-70, which is
    rarely used, and the 24-105, which is used a LOT). IS and longer focal
    range plus lighter weight = winner.

    Wife has 180 macro, I have 100 macro, sometimes she borrows mine,
    sometimes I borrow hers ... in theory 180 is a better lens but for
    travel the 100 packs easier and costs many hundreds of $$ less, which
    is money you can spend on yet another lens :) Can't go wrong with
    either or these though.

    > I dropped the choice for the MPE65 macro 1-5x f2.8


    I think that's the right move, we have this one and it's fine but it's
    a very specialized lens, not a starter macro solution.

    > Extender 2x (image not sharp any more?) or 1.4x (better image)


    You won't notice much drop off in quality with the 1.4x ... with the 2x
    the 70-200 f/2.8 is defnitely a bit soft at the corners ... get the
    1.4x and if you need more focal range buy the 100 mm macro and use the
    money you just saved to buy a 300 f/4 L IS or 400 f/5.6 L when the
    70-200 isn't long enough.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jun 29, 2006
    #3
  4. fr@nk

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Bill Hilton <> wrote:
    >
    >>fr@nk wrote:
    >> Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 24-70 2.8 L USM and 100 or 180 macro? etc.

    >
    > 24-105 over the 24-70, that one I'm clear on (have the 28-70, which is
    > rarely used, and the 24-105, which is used a LOT). IS and longer focal
    > range plus lighter weight = winner.


    "At 24 mm the 24-105 mm lens is definitely better at the edges at f4
    and f5.6. This finding is slightly surprising to me as f4 is the maximum
    aperture for the 24-105 mm lens, whereas the 24-70 mm is stopped down
    by one stop... At 35 mm the lenses are practically identical and I'd only
    give a very slight edge to the new lens, and only at f4. The difference
    is more one of contrast than resolution, to my eyes... At 50 mm the same
    applies; a tad better contrast from the new lens."

    [ http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml ]
     
    Bill Tuthill, Jun 29, 2006
    #4
  5. fr@nk

    Eatmorepies Guest


    > I will go for the 70-200 2.8 L USM but unsure of the IS version for the
    > extra money


    The 70-200 f2.8L is a brilliant lens. I didn't buy the IS version and have
    had no problem with blur so long as I use 1/250s or faster. I have used a
    slower shutter speed but only when able to lean on a wall or some such. It's
    my favorite L lens for public events.

    > I now doubt which is better/more handy:
    > Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 25-70 2.8 L USM
    > Who advises?>


    I have both. The 24-105 is a superb walk about lens and if I owned neither I
    would get this lens. However the 24-70 f 2.8L is another brilliant lens.
    Crisp and with excellent subject separtation at full apeture.

    > The other doubt is the macro solution:
    > 100 2.8 USM macro or 180 3.5 USM
    > 100 is cheaper and faster, also for portraits (??), 180 further
    > distance possible, and softer background, but more expensive (also
    > portraits possible)


    I have a 100mm macro but don't use it. I use the 70-200mm f2.8 with
    extension tubes. Much better colour than the 100mm macro. The 100mm is
    simpler though.

    > I'm down to this set now: (for the 5D), not buying in one go, but I
    > want to have a plan.
    > 24-70 2.8 L USM (1st lens to get)
    > 70-200 2.8 L USM (IS ??)
    > 180 2.8 usm macro
    > Extender 2x (image not sharp any more?) or 1.4x (better image)


    I have a 1.4x - too many review sites suggest the 2x degrades the image. The
    1.4x doesn't seem to present much of a problem.

    My order of merit;

    1. 24-105 f4L IS
    2. 70-200 f2.8L and 1.4x extender
    3. 16-35 f2.8L
    4. 300mm f4L IS
    5. 24-70 f2.8L

    This order reflects the frequency with which I use the lenses.

    If I could only have one it would probably the 70-200 f2.8L - for it's
    versatility at street events. Followed by the 16-35 f2.8L, if I were allowed
    two.

    John
     
    Eatmorepies, Jun 29, 2006
    #5
  6. fr@nk

    Barry Guest

    Just a quick comment regarding the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8....it is
    my favorite lens for pubic events as well. However, I opted for the IS
    version after careful consideration and I'm really glad that I have it. It
    has made a big difference for me in low light situations. I use the same
    lens for other kinds of work where I'm taking photos in the early morning or
    evening, when the light is not the best. The IS makes a difference. I've
    taken sample shots at such times, with and without the IS turned on, and the
    IS shots are almost always better (but only when I get below what is my
    usual limit on hand holding). The other thing I like is that there are two
    IS modes, one for normal use and one for panning a fast moving object
    (birds, cars, people on bicycles etc). The second mode compensates for
    movement that is not in line with the panning. How it does this, I have no
    idea.

    Barry



    >> I will go for the 70-200 2.8 L USM but unsure of the IS version for the
    >> extra money

    >
    > The 70-200 f2.8L is a brilliant lens. I didn't buy the IS version and have
    > had no problem with blur so long as I use 1/250s or faster. I have used a
    > slower shutter speed but only when able to lean on a wall or some such.
    > It's my favorite L lens for public events.
    >
    >> I now doubt which is better/more handy:
    >> Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 25-70 2.8 L USM
    >> Who advises?>

    >
    > I have both. The 24-105 is a superb walk about lens and if I owned neither
    > I would get this lens. However the 24-70 f 2.8L is another brilliant lens.
    > Crisp and with excellent subject separtation at full apeture.
    >
    >> The other doubt is the macro solution:
    >> 100 2.8 USM macro or 180 3.5 USM
    >> 100 is cheaper and faster, also for portraits (??), 180 further
    >> distance possible, and softer background, but more expensive (also
    >> portraits possible)

    >
    > I have a 100mm macro but don't use it. I use the 70-200mm f2.8 with
    > extension tubes. Much better colour than the 100mm macro. The 100mm is
    > simpler though.
    >
    >> I'm down to this set now: (for the 5D), not buying in one go, but I
    >> want to have a plan.
    >> 24-70 2.8 L USM (1st lens to get)
    >> 70-200 2.8 L USM (IS ??)
    >> 180 2.8 usm macro
    >> Extender 2x (image not sharp any more?) or 1.4x (better image)

    >
    > I have a 1.4x - too many review sites suggest the 2x degrades the image.
    > The 1.4x doesn't seem to present much of a problem.
    >
    > My order of merit;
    >
    > 1. 24-105 f4L IS
    > 2. 70-200 f2.8L and 1.4x extender
    > 3. 16-35 f2.8L
    > 4. 300mm f4L IS
    > 5. 24-70 f2.8L
    >
    > This order reflects the frequency with which I use the lenses.
    >
    > If I could only have one it would probably the 70-200 f2.8L - for it's
    > versatility at street events. Followed by the 16-35 f2.8L, if I were
    > allowed two.
    >
    > John
    >
    >
     
    Barry, Jul 12, 2006
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. David Grandy

    Canon 100 non USM macro

    David Grandy, Aug 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    475
    Bill Hilton
    Aug 12, 2003
  2. J. Cod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    440
    J. Cod
    Sep 29, 2004
  3. Joe Smith
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    377
  4. Joel Dorfan

    Old vs New Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5 - 4.5 II USM Lens

    Joel Dorfan, Aug 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    932
    Joel Dorfan
    Aug 17, 2005
  5. fr@nk

    Ideal Canon DIGI set ?

    fr@nk, Jun 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    549
Loading...

Share This Page