cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Looking for input on lens purchase

Orcrone
Enthusiast

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

76 REPLIES 76

"If you are only looking for improvements in image quality you are spending way more than you need to."

 

Whoa there cowboy!  And you aren't?  C'mon.  Comparing a $11,000 to a $2000 lens?

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@TTMartin wrote:

@Orcrone wrote:

@TTMartin wrote:
It's $3000+ when you add the Tamron lens and in my opinion he will only see marginal improvement in image quality. Especially considering he could spend 1/10 that buying a prime lens for his T4i and get the same degree of improvement for the narrow usage where he needs it.

You're really having trouble dealing with me purchasing a new camera and lens. Perhaps I may refer you to a 12 f-stop program for your anxiety.


It's your money spend it how you want. I can only offer advice based on my personal experience and knowledge.

 

If you are only looking for improvements in image quality you are spending way more than you need to.

 

However, if you get personal satisfaction and status from owning a full frame camera then go for it.


You've offered your advice as many people have. But most have the courtesy to allow me to make up my mind and not get indignant if I don't do exactly as suggested.


@Orcrone wrote:

@TTMartin wrote:

@Orcrone wrote:

@TTMartin wrote:
It's $3000+ when you add the Tamron lens and in my opinion he will only see marginal improvement in image quality. Especially considering he could spend 1/10 that buying a prime lens for his T4i and get the same degree of improvement for the narrow usage where he needs it.

You're really having trouble dealing with me purchasing a new camera and lens. Perhaps I may refer you to a 12 f-stop program for your anxiety.


It's your money spend it how you want. I can only offer advice based on my personal experience and knowledge.

 

If you are only looking for improvements in image quality you are spending way more than you need to.

 

However, if you get personal satisfaction and status from owning a full frame camera then go for it.


You've offered your advice as many people have. But most have the courtesy to allow me to make up my mind and not get indignant if I don't do exactly as suggested.


Got it, no more input on your purchase.

He lost me a long time ago.

Go get your 5D Mk III and Tammy and take some great photos!

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

My take at this point is get the 5D Mk III and the Tammy.  Forget any primes.  You simply will not use it when you get this combo.  The disadvantages with primes far out weight a slightly more than one stop faster aperture.  You will need to be in pixel picker territory to see the IQ difference.

Although I still prefer the Canon , I understand the price difference is big factor.  And there again, you will be in pixel picker territory to see the difference.

 

Two more things not mentioned but left unclear is Tamron and Sigma can re-chip most of their lenses if need be to work with newer models of cameras.  Not to say that will not change in the future but it is true today.

And two, Adobe Lightrooom and Photoshop both have lens correction for most lenses including Tamron.  Canon only has it for its own lenses. Plus either software lets you create your own profiles as you see fit.

 

The 5D Mk III and the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 would be the dream outfit for most prosummers!  Very difficult to fault it.

Long way to go from your original query but you will love that combo. Smiley Happy

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

My take at this point is get the 5D Mk III and the Tammy.  Forget any primes.  You simply will not use it when you get this combo.  The disadvantages with primes far out weight a slightly more than one stop faster aperture....:


I think a lot of it comes down to personal preference.

 

I've been shooting for going on four decades. So I grew up using primes because, back in those bad old days, zooms really sucked.

 

Gradually I've started using more zooms and today one or two are among my most used lenses. In fact, for certain types of shoots I carry mostly primes.

 

But I also still use a lot of primes. The reason is not that primes necessarily offer better image quality. Sometimes they do, but the zooms I use are top notch, too. Nor is it because primes tend to be smaller, more unobtrusive and less intimidating, although there are times it's a real advantage. It's also not just because primes can offer a 2 or 3 stop larger aperture than a zoom, which I generally appreciate more for it's ability to blur down a background, than for low light shooting capabilities.

 

In thing for me it's because shooting with a prime is different than shooting with a zoom. When I use a zoom I tend to stay in one spot longer. With primes I move around more, looking for angles and exploring the subject more thoroughly. In a sense, zooms let me be lazier, while primes make me work with the subject in a different way. As a result I think I tend to find more interesting shots with a prime than with a zoom.

 

Not sayin' one way is better than the other. Just sayin' that sooner or later anyone who is moderately serious about their photography should try both to explore what benefits they get from each, then decide for themselves. Someone who has never shot with a prime should get one and use it for a while, to see if it works for them or not. And the opposite holds true for anyone who has never used a zoom, although I'm sure those folks are rather rare these days.

 

Henri Cartier-Bresson shot almost exclusively with a "normal" prime, throughout his career. The vast majority of his work was a 50mm lens on his Leica rangefinder. 

 

I personally don't care for 50mm lenses on full frame (but I love one on a crop DSLR, where it's a fast, short telephoto/portrait lens). I tend to prefer a slightly wide normal, such as 40mm or 35mm on full frame.... But I would never have known this unless I tried shooting with a 50mm and saw how it "felt".  

 

And, things change. I've had a couple of the "big white" primes (300/2.8 IS and 500/4 IS) for more than ten years and they are truly superb. But today one of my top "dream lenses" is the EF 200-400/4L IS 1.4X... for its sheer versatility and uncompromising image quality. For what I shoot with a big telephoto, a zoom covering the range from 200mm to 560mm would likely be very useful and help me get some shots I'm missing now using primes. With big lenses like the 300 and 500mm, I'm not terribly mobile anyway... so I'm not seeing the same "prime effect" I mentioned above. More often with these lenses I'm set up on a tripod in a blind and waiting for a subject, or similar. Soon as I win the lottery, I'll be buying a 200-400/4 1.4X!  

 

Sometimes just changing out your gear or adding a new lens can stimulate or reinvigorate your shooting and take you places you didn't know existed. And you'll never know, unless you try.

 

To each his own!

 

***********


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 


@TTMartin wrote:

Do NOT buy a lens for a camera you don't have!!!



Just wondering the reason for that statement. Is it that I want to evaluate a lens on preferably the actual camera to which it will be attached? Is it that it won't be very useful if I don't switch to FF and keep using my current camera.

 

I plan on purchasing the 5d mark iii real soon.

Announcements