Looking for input on lens purchase

[Orcrone]

I own the Canon T4i along with three zoom lenses; the EF-S 10-22, an EF-S 18-135 STM and an EF 70-300. Canon has the EF 24-105 F4l refurbished on sale for $639.99 and I'm wondering about pulling the trigger. One concern is the three lenses have a nice amount of overlap that I would lose on the 24 mm end with thiws purchase. I'm not a professional photographer,  but I do occasionally blow up a shot and hang it on the walls.

Normally I leave my 18-135 on the camera. With the 24-105 having less reach on each end of the scale I'm concerned about how much more often I'll be changing lenses.

Are my concerns unjustified? I've never useds an L series lens before, so I'm not sure about how much of an improvement I will see. Will it offset any potential disadvantages?

Thanks

[Orcrone]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Orcrone wrote:

I attended an engagement party yesterday.  The bride to be is a professional photographer. Her business partner was the photographer for the engagement party.  She was using the TAMRON 24-70 indoors without a strobe. I decided it was a sign that I should purchase that lens.

---

Well, you've been three days and 38 replies wrestling with your decision. Maybe such an omen is just what you needed. 

---

I'm an electrical engineer. The first place I worked my manager had a sign on the wall that read:

"There comes a time in the life of every  project when you have to shoot the engineers and begin production"

Did I mention that I once spent 25 minutes at Lowe's picking out a push broom?

[ebiggs1]

Well Mr. Engineer, this was and still is the best answer and/or solution.

"With what you have, I would have torn my pocket getting the money out to buy the EF 24-105mm f4L.  It is lightyears better that what you have.  Except the EF-S 10-22mm and that is the beauty of your situation.  EF-S 10-22mm, EF 24-105mm f4L and EF 70-300mm f4-5.6.  Looks made in heaven to me!

However, I would very soon think about replaceing the 70-300mm.  It is not in the same class as the other two and will let you down in IQ when compared.

There is a big plus, in my book, about having a constant aperture lens (24-105mm f4L).  Quite a few of the best lenses are constant aperture.  You don't have to be concerned about it changing as you zoom.  Not a big deal to the average amateur but  big concern to the advanced photographer.

Sell the EF-S 18-135 STM."

When I worked at Hallmark on e of my jobs was interacting with the Technical Design department.  It was full of and had nothing but engineers in it.

TTMartin has a point about not buying lenses for a camera you don't have but you are more safe by buying only EF lenses.  They fit any Canon camera.  You keep mentioning the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8.  Two things about it.  It is a great lens.  It is a f2.8, but remember that is just one stop faster than the EF 24-105mm f4.  The 24-105 is going to be slightly more versatile in range.  The Tammy slightly more versatile in lower light.  Neither a deal breaker or maker.

[Orcrone]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Well Mr. Engineer, this was and still is the best answer and/or solution.

"With what you have, I would have torn my pocket getting the money out to buy the EF 24-105mm f4L.  It is lightyears better that what you have.  Except the EF-S 10-22mm and that is the beauty of your situation.  EF-S 10-22mm, EF 24-105mm f4L and EF 70-300mm f4-5.6.  Looks made in heaven to me!

However, I would very soon think about replaceing the 70-300mm.  It is not in the same class as the other two and will let you down in IQ when compared.

There is a big plus, in my book, about having a constant aperture lens (24-105mm f4L).  Quite a few of the best lenses are constant aperture.  You don't have to be concerned about it changing as you zoom.  Not a big deal to the average amateur but  big concern to the advanced photographer.

Sell the EF-S 18-135 STM."

When I worked at Hallmark on e of my jobs was interacting with the Technical Design department.  It was full of and had nothing but engineers in it.

TTMartin has a point about not buying lenses for a camera you don't have but you are more safe by buying only EF lenses.  They fit any Canon camera.  You keep mentioning the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8.  Two things about it.  It is a great lens.  It is a f2.8, but remember that is just one stop faster than the EF 24-105mm f4.  The 24-105 is going to be slightly more versatile in range.  The Tammy slightly more versatile in lower light.  Neither a deal breaker or maker.

---

What I  believe I've decided upon is not much different. I read a number of reviews, watched a number of videos on YouTube and especially took into account the opinions given by everyone on this board.

The advantage of the 24-105 vs any 24-70 is the versatility. But it seemed to me that although it is a very good lens it's also getting a little long in the tooth and the IQ was not up to the standard of some of the 24-70 lenses. I also compared several different flavors of 24-70 (Tamron's f/2.8 and Canon's f/4 and f/2.8) lenses to each other. In general the Tamron held up well against the Canon's, although the Canon f/2.8L ii was slightly better overall than the Tamron. But both lenses produced excellent results and it's likely that I would be hardpressed to pick one over the other. When you throw in that the Tamron has IS and the huge cost difference I felt the Tamron was a wise choice for me. The Canon retails for $1899 or it can be had refurbished from Canon for over $1500. I found a couple of Canadian retailers on eBay. Both said that if the lens malfunctions during the warranty period (6 years!!) that I would send it back to them (my cost). In turn they would have it serviced through Tamron and then return it at their cost. Hopefully it won't need repair and if it does hopefully it will go as stated. I paid under $800 for the lens which is much less than I could purchase either of Canon's 24-70 lenses and on par with the 24-105.

I'm guessing that a fair number of people purchase their mark iii on the GAS plan because eBay have many for sale. I'm going to try and purchase a relatively new one in good shape. If that doesn't work I wlll purchased a refurbished one directly from canon.

When I have the lens and camera in hand I'll sell my T4i as well as the 18-135 and 10-22 lenses. At some point I will pull the triggger, purchase the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is II and sell the 70-300 lens. I'm not sure how quickly I'll purchase a wide angle zoom. That lens definitely sees the least amount of time on my camera.

My main concern about this plan is the relatively small zoom range of my goto lens (24-70mm).

[TTMartin]

---

@Orcrone wrote:

What I  believe I've decided upon is not much different. I read a number of reviews, watched a number of videos on YouTube and especially took into account the opinions given by everyone on this board.

The advantage of the 24-105 vs any 24-70 is the versatility. But it seemed to me that although it is a very good lens it's also getting a little long in the tooth and the IQ was not up to the standard of some of the 24-70 lenses. I also compared several different flavors of 24-70 (Tamron's f/2.8 and Canon's f/4 and f/2.8) lenses to each other. In general the Tamron held up well against the Canon's, although the Canon f/2.8L ii was slightly better overall than the Tamron. But both lenses produced excellent results and it's likely that I would be hardpressed to pick one over the other. When you throw in that the Tamron has IS and the huge cost difference I felt the Tamron was a wise choice for me. The Canon retails for $1899 or it can be had refurbished from Canon for over $1500. I found a couple of Canadian retailers on eBay. Both said that if the lens malfunctions during the warranty period (6 years!!) that I would send it back to them (my cost). In turn they would have it serviced through Tamron and then return it at their cost. Hopefully it won't need repair and if it does hopefully it will go as stated. I paid under $800 for the lens which is much less than I could purchase either of Canon's 24-70 lenses and on par with the 24-105.

I'm guessing that a fair number of people purchase their mark iii on the GAS plan because eBay have many for sale. I'm going to try and purchase a relatively new one in good shape. If that doesn't work I wlll purchased a refurbished one directly from canon.

When I have the lens and camera in hand I'll sell my T4i as well as the 18-135 and 10-22 lenses. At some point I will pull the triggger, purchase the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is II and sell the 70-300 lens. I'm not sure how quickly I'll purchase a wide angle zoom. That lens definitely sees the least amount of time on my camera.

My main concern about this plan is the relatively small zoom range of my goto lens (24-70mm).

---

Canon's Digtial Lens Optimizer does amazing things with the EF 24-105 f/4L IS. Straight out of camera JPGs from it in my opinion are unremarkable. Shoot RAW and run it through DLO and the difference in night and day. So before you commit to the Tamron, find a place where you can download some RAW images shot with the EF 24-105 f/4L IS and run them through DLO so you can see the difference for yourself.

Or better yet process some of your RAWs from the EF-S 18-135 IS STM and see how good your current gear really is.

If you don't own any prime lenses, I really would recommend you pickup the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. You need a lens where you can experiment with different apertures and see what works for you (will f/2.8 or f/4 be good enough). At $125 it is worth the cost just for what you learn from it. Note do NOT waste your money on the EF 50mm f/1.8 II the STM version is so much better in so many ways, better focus accuracy, metal mount, more aperture blades to name the biggies. 

As you saw you can pickup an EF 24-105 f/4L IS for pretty cheap when paired with a camera, so committing to the Tamron now seems really silly to me. 

[amfoto1]

---

...TTMartin has a point about not buying lenses for a camera you don't have...

but you are more safe by buying only EF lenses.  They fit any Canon camera...  

You keep mentioning the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8.  Two things about it.  It is a great lens.  It is a f2.8, but remember that is just one stop faster than the EF 24-105mm f4.  The 24-105 is going to be slightly more versatile in range.  The Tammy slightly more versatile in lower light.  Neither a deal breaker or maker.

---

First of all... I can't believe this thread is still going! Good grief!

Second, I agree with both sentiments....

A.  "don't buy lenses for cameras you don't have"... EF lenses are often bigger, heavier, more expensive and don't "help" your crop sensor camera in any way.

B. "you are more safe buying only EF lenses"... Mostly getting full frame lenses might offer some future-proofing... When and IF you get a full frame camera. I really like uisng a 24-70 on crop sensor cameras. In fact, for portraiture I like the lens better on crop than on full frame.

Regarding the Tamron... Yes, it seems a very good lens. Lots of positive reviews and the price is certainly attractive. Over the years I've used a number of Tamron lenses and have always been a fan, especially of most of their "SP" models. I currently use the modern Tamron SP 60mm f2.0 and a vintage, manual focus Tamron SP 90mm macro lens.

However, as a third party lens there is no guarantee that the Tamron will be fully usable on some future Canon camera. There have been numerous examples of third party lenses that wouldn't work properly with newer Canon (and other brand) camera models. This is because third party lens manufacturers do not license the technology from Canon. Instead they reverse-engineer it from existing cameras and lenses, and have to do so without infringing on any patents. Later Canon comes out with a new focus system or some new aperture controlling algorythms, that they carefully design to work fully with Canon lenses. But third party manufacturers had no idea of the changes and their lenses simply aren't designed to accomodate them.

Sigma has had the most compatibiity "issues" over the years. But Tamron has had their share, too. In some cases... especially with more expensive lenses and current or very recent models... the third party manufacturer has offered fixes. Sometimes those were free, other times not. I have an older Sigma 28-70mm that works fine with EOS-3 and 10D, but immediately causes 30D and later model cameras to "lock up" with an error code. It's not a valuable lens, so I just wrote it off.

So, on the one hand you're looking at a full frame-capable lens just in case some day maybe you'll buy a full frame camera. But on the other hand you're consider a third party lens, which may or may not be fully compatible with that future camera!

The other thing to think about is resale. If you bought a crop-only lens now and used it on your crop sensor camera... then some day buy a full frame camera on which the lens won't work... you can always sell the lens. In general, Canon lenses hold their value well... quite a bit better than most third party lenses. There are no guarantees of future values, of course. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't. I lost money on one Canon lens I sold, but others I have now are worth more used than I paid for them 10 years ago. . Just sayin'... 3rd party lenses tend to depreciate faster while on the average OEM lenses, especially premium ones, tend to hold their value.

Have fun shopping!

***********

Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & EXPOSUREMANAGER 

[Orcrone]

I keep coming across comments about "only buy lenses for cameras you own" and "buying a lens for a camera you may own one day".  For the record I've been actively looking for a 5d Mark iii. I've bid on five of them. I probably would have won the first auction except I must have changed my eBay password so auction sniper did not place my bid.  This is well past the theoretical right now. There are a number of 5d mark iii cameras coming up for auction that look to be in pristine condition and have relatively low shutter counts. If one of these don't pan out I'll be purchasing either a new, or more likely, refurbished camera.

I will concede that perhaps I could be making better lens choices. Perhaps I'm making a mistake because I should be sticking with Canon lenses. Perhaps I'm making a mistake because I should be purchasing primes. However I can guarantee you that I am not making a mistake because I'm buying FF lenses for a FF camera that may or may not arrive. I'm hoping to have it by Labor Day.

And please remember that what may be correct for one is not necessarily correct for another.  I've received a lot of advice. I then take the advice and apply it to my own style; how often am I using the camera, under what conditions and circumstances and what kind of photos. Only I know the answers to those questions so only I can take the GREAT advice I've received and decide what works best for me.

[TTMartin]

---

@Orcrone wrote:

I keep coming across comments about "only buy lenses for cameras you own" and "buying a lens for a camera you may own one day".  For the record I've been actively looking for a 5d Mark iii. I've bid on five of them. I probably would have won the first auction except I must have changed my eBay password so auction sniper did not place my bid.  This is well past the theoretical right now. There are a number of 5d mark iii cameras coming up for auction that look to be in pristine condition and have relatively low shutter counts. If one of these don't pan out I'll be purchasing either a new, or more likely, refurbished camera.

I will concede that perhaps I could be making better lens choices. Perhaps I'm making a mistake because I should be sticking with Canon lenses. Perhaps I'm making a mistake because I should be purchasing primes. However I can guarantee you that I am not making a mistake because I'm buying FF lenses for a FF camera that may or may not arrive. I'm hoping to have it by Labor Day.

And please remember that what may be correct for one is not necessarily correct for another.  I've received a lot of advice. I then take the advice and apply it to my own style; how often am I using the camera, under what conditions and circumstances and what kind of photos. Only I know the answers to those questions so only I can take the GREAT advice I've received and decide what works best for me.

---

At one point in this thread you had said you had decided against the 5D Mk II and were set on the 5D Mk III. When and if you get the 5D Mk II then decide on the lens. BTW, the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM would make a great lens to get acquainted with your 5D Mk II while you shop for your ultimate lens.

I for one started with a 35mm film camera and a 50mm f/1.8 lens, back in the day everybody did. There is a lot to be said about learning to see the photo with a prime lens before you take it. That was very important back in the film era. Today's digital cameras easily have 4 more stops of usable ISO and instant feedback. Maybe what you learn with a prime lens isn't as important as I imagine it, but, then again maybe it is.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Orcrone wrote:

I keep coming across comments about "only buy lenses for cameras you own" and "buying a lens for a camera you may own one day".  For the record I've been actively looking for a 5d Mark iii. I've bid on five of them. I probably would have won the first auction except I must have changed my eBay password so auction sniper did not place my bid.  This is well past the theoretical right now. There are a number of 5d mark iii cameras coming up for auction that look to be in pristine condition and have relatively low shutter counts. If one of these don't pan out I'll be purchasing either a new, or more likely, refurbished camera.

I will concede that perhaps I could be making better lens choices. Perhaps I'm making a mistake because I should be sticking with Canon lenses. Perhaps I'm making a mistake because I should be purchasing primes. However I can guarantee you that I am not making a mistake because I'm buying FF lenses for a FF camera that may or may not arrive. I'm hoping to have it by Labor Day.

And please remember that what may be correct for one is not necessarily correct for another.  I've received a lot of advice. I then take the advice and apply it to my own style; how often am I using the camera, under what conditions and circumstances and what kind of photos. Only I know the answers to those questions so only I can take the GREAT advice I've received and decide what works best for me.

---

At one point in this thread you had said you had decided against the 5D Mk II and were set on the 5D Mk III. When and if you get the 5D Mk II then decide on the lens. BTW, the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM would make a great lens to get acquainted with your 5D Mk II while you shop for your ultimate lens.

What on earth is going on here? Three inches above the cursor as I type, he says he's already bid on five Mark III's. How did a Mark II get back in the picture?

I for one started with a 35mm film camera and a 50mm f/1.8 lens, back in the day everybody did. There is a lot to be said about learning to see the photo with a prime lens before you take it. That was very important back in the film era. Today's digital cameras easily have 4 more stops of usable ISO and instant feedback. Maybe what you learn with a prime lens isn't as important as I imagine it, but, then again maybe it is.

Zoom lenses, such as they were, were pretty crappy in those days. (I was there too; I got my first Nikon in 1958.) But they're not crappy anymore. At least the ones being discussed here aren't.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

Zoom lenses, such as they were, were pretty crappy in those days. (I was there too; I got my first Nikon in 1958.) But they're not crappy anymore. At least the ones being discussed here aren't.

---

I'm not saying that a zoom lens is crappy. However, if you can live with a single focal length you can't beat the aperture size per dollar of a prime lens. And consumer grade prime lenses still have image quality on par with even the latest L zoom lenses.

The point I was trying to make about prime lenses isn't that they are better than zooms, but, that learning to deal with the limitations of a prime lens may lead to someone being a better photographer. Seeing the photo before ever looking through the viewfinder, instead of looking through the viewfinder and zooming to get the photo you want. You can't zoom with your feet while looking through the viewfinder. Well you can, but, you might end up on your face or your butt if you do. When you use a prime lens you have to see the photo before you ever lift the camera up. I think there is still value to that do matter how good zoom lenses are.

You may not appreciate how much you learned with that first 50mm prime lens back in 1958, but, it may be more than you realize. Those of us who started out with film and a 50mm lens, learned to look at the surrounding environment, pick out our subject, and see the photo in our minds, all before we ever started to zoom with our feet. You had to see the photo when shooting film, because you didn't have the instant feedback of digital on a rear LCD.  

And would I want go back to only using primes and never touching a zoom lens? heck no. But, for someone like the OP who's experience has been with zoom lenses, I think there is value to experiencing a prime lens.

[Orcrone]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

Zoom lenses, such as they were, were pretty crappy in those days. (I was there too; I got my first Nikon in 1958.) But they're not crappy anymore. At least the ones being discussed here aren't.

---

I'm not saying that a zoom lens is crappy. However, if you can live with a single focal length you can't beat the aperture size per dollar of a prime lens. And consumer grade prime lenses still have image quality on par with even the latest L zoom lenses.

The point I was trying to make about prime lenses isn't that they are better than zooms, but, that learning to deal with the limitations of a prime lens may lead to someone being a better photographer. Seeing the photo before ever looking through the viewfinder, instead of looking through the viewfinder and zooming to get the photo you want. You can't zoom with your feet while looking through the viewfinder. Well you can, but, you might end up on your face or your butt if you do. When you use a prime lens you have to see the photo before you ever lift the camera up. I think there is still value to that do matter how good zoom lenses are.

You may not appreciate how much you learned with that first 50mm prime lens back in 1958, but, it may be more than you realize. Those of us who started out with film and a 50mm lens, learned to look at the surrounding environment, pick out our subject, and see the photo in our minds, all before we ever started to zoom with our feet. You had to see the photo when shooting film, because you didn't have the instant feedback of digital on a rear LCD.  

And would I want go back to only using primes and never touching a zoom lens? heck no. But, for someone like the OP who's experience has been with zoom lenses, I think there is value to experiencing a prime lens.

---

Throughout this thread I've often felt attacked for not doing something in the same manner as someone else, without knowing why. Now that you've explained (thankfully in small words so I understand) you make a very compelling case for using primes to improve the artistic eye. Thanks for making me think of this from another angle.