New mid range zoom lens recommendtions

[Bizair]

I've recently moved from a 7D and I have various lenses for the APS-C format. But I have moved to a new 5D III, and my current EF lenses include the 17-40L and a 50mm f1.4 prime, both of which I find superb lenses. But I need to purchase a mid range zoom.

 

Could I have collective experience on where I should go? I would prefer Canon but Tamron also has good reviews. I am looking at 70 to 125mm max zoom.

 

I do a lot of travel so do not wish to have any more than 2 lenses accompany me.

 

The reason from moving from the 7D was the lower noise capability. I'll retain the 7D as a backup for my range of EF-S lenses.

 

Any views welcome.

 

Edit: Forgot to add that a reputable camera retailer in Melbourne stated that Canon outsource to Tamron the production of several of their lenses, including some L series lenses. So comment on this statement is also welcome.

 

Ken

[Sheila Smart]

Hi Ken

 

In that range, you cannot go past the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS or if you want to spend more, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.  I have had both versions of the 70-200 f/4L and non-L and there is little difference between the two.  I had this lens for many years and only sold it a couple of years ago to a friend who was looking for this particular lens and I had already bought the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS (which I bought when I came second in a comp on Facebook sponsored by Digital Camera Warehouse..but that's another story).  There is, of course, the Canon 24-105 which I never liked as it suffers bad CA - well, mine did although others swear by this lens.  Here is a link to my 5DII and the 70-200 f/4 L IS http://www.pbase.com/sheila/canon_70200_f4_l_is_with_5dii  

 

Sheila

[John Gaffen]

Ken,  You might want to consider the Canon EF 24 -105mm F4 IS USM,  not quite the focal length range you were looking for, but, but it has been my main walkabout lens for some years now.  I use it with my old 1Ds Mk 1 and  will be useing  it for my 5D Mk II aswell (both have full frame sensors). I've found it to be very versatile throughout its entire  focal range. Not the fastest lens out there, but  very capable in my oppinion giving me high image quality in many different conditions. . 

[John Gaffen]

Like Sheila, I also have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. It’s a great Lens, but very heavy, particularly when coupled to a 1Ds, consequently, I would not use it  for general walkabout purposes! I do not find CA a problem with my 24- 105, any that does occur, is easily correct in Lightroom.

 

[Phil Crean]

+1 for the 24-105mm f4 L IS Have had one now for over 4 years, used with a 40D and a 5D MKII.

Needs careful holding as the IS is not as good as claimed and can sometimes be a tad soft due to slight camera movement at lower shutter speeds, I don't like to use it at less than 1/60th at wide end and 1/125th at long end. 

CA is well dealt with by ACR, so I don't consider that to be an issue. When I shoot weddings it hardly comes off the body unless a faster prime is needed, and gives great results covering everything from candids to beautiful bridal portraits at f5.6.

Had to have a new iris fitted after 2 years and allegedly that's a common fault, though Canon don't admit it!

Hope that helps.

Phil

[David Kilpatrick]

Canon does not outsource any complete lenses to Tamron, which is part-owned by Sony, but actually has worked for many years with Sigma with whom the AF protocol is shared (Sigma mount AF lenses have basically the same AF internals as Canon, and Sigma manufactured early Canon digital bodies). Sony has many lenses built by Tamron, as Minolta did beforehand. All lens makers use a range of components - Tamron and Konica Minolta now make the 'hybrid aspherics' (glass sandwiched with plastic) found in many lenses, Sigma makes the 'moulded aspherics' (all glass, pressed) and that's because these companies have that technology and the relevant patents or licenses. So Canon might be getting a tray of components arrive on the assembly line from Tamron, but not any actual complete lenses. I don't know why dealers say this kind of thing.

 

The 24-105mm f/4 L can be good or bad, luck of the draw, but with Adobe Lens Profile correction from raw and the new flatter plane sensor of the 5D MkIII, you should not see too many fuzzy patches across your image , too bendy lines or too much colour fringe. You can avoid all of those by spending more on a 24-70mm f/2.8...

[Sheila Smart]

Actually, David, I sold the 24-105 and replaced it with the 24-70 f/2.8 L which is rarely off my 5DIII. Its a superb lens but a bit short for Ken's requirements.

 

Sheila

[wzfoto]

I have used/owned all of the following and here are my 2c on each:

 

canon 24-105 f4 is, light, good around travel lens, but a little slow at f4

canon 24-70 f2.8 mk1, heavy, well constructed

tamron 28-75 f2.8, light, cheap

[Stokie]

Another vote for the 24-105, although I had to have the iris replaced too.

 

It's on my 5D mk II nearly all the time and I find it produces good images throughout it's range.

 

As an aside, what are peoples recommendations for a 90 or 100mm macro lens for the 5D.

 

 

John.

[Doc]

Plus 1 for the 24-105; I had a 5D MkI and now have the MkII, and continue to use Canon's 24-105 for the vast majority of my shooting - I agree CA can be noticeable but thats easily dealt with by RAW software. Also a little barrel distortion at the wide end, but the range of the lens is very useful and although the max aperture is a little slow I have found the IS works well and happily hand-hold it at 1/8-1/15 sec at the wide end.

 

I also have the 75-200 f2.8 MkII which is an absolutely superb lens - and though I have the 100-400, I now rarely use it as I got the MkIII x2 extender to use with the 75-200 if needed. 

Kumar S

[John Gaffen]

The only macro lens I have experience with is Canons EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM.  Its good for portraiture, but, be warned,  its so sharp that it shows every tiny little  detail on a face! In magnifies upto  1X and  its minimum focussing distance is 0.31m/1.0 ft.  It has produced some great close-up images  of flowers and insects and it has worked well with my old 1Ds Mk 1 and my recently aquired 5D Mk II.  

[Borniet]

We own the 17-40L, the 24-70L and the 70-200 2.8L IS, and they are just the greatest combo! I can't but recommend them. We do have some primes and macro's to help in on low light and specialized stuff...

[Stokie]

The only macro lens I have experience with is Canons EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM.  Its good for portraiture, but, be warned,  its so sharp that it shows every tiny little  detail on a face! In magnifies upto  1X and  its minimum focussing distance is 0.31m/1.0 ft.  It has produced some great close-up images  of flowers and insects and it has worked well with my old 1Ds Mk 1 and my recently aquired 5D Mk II.  

 

John,

 

I've been looking at macro lens for a while since my Tamron SP AF Di 90mm macro packed up. It gave me an excuse to buy Canons EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM! Should be arriving within the next few days.

 

Incidently the Tamron is an excellent lens too, I can highly recommend it, although it's a bit dated now as it doesn't have IS.

 

John.

[Paul Thompson]

Another +1 for the  24-105L as a great everyday lens. Not too heavy like a 70-200L.

It suffers from CA which is easily fixed in Photoshop ACR

Using on 5D Mk2 no worries with QC

Regards

Paul

[Bryan]

Yet another vote for the 24-105 f4!

 

I had the older 24-70 and mine was a curate's egg of a lens. Wonderfully sharp in the middle of the frame, but major problems with edge softness and I had it back and forth to Canon to sort out.  Despite having various lens groups changed, It was never properly sorted!

 

I bought a 24-105 f4 and 5DII kit, and was able to compare the 24-70 with the 24-105. 

 

The 24-105 is a good deal lighter and less bulky, and mine is wonderfully sharp across the frame. There is quite a bit of distortion at the wide end and there are issues with CA that I never saw with the 24-70. I guess that you are not going to get the performance of a prime from a zoom, but it's a very convenient lens. I sold the 24-70.

 

I also carry a 70-200 f4, not as heavy as the f2,8 and probably not quite as excellent optically, but a good lens, certainly fit for purpose.

 

 

[Bizair]

Thanks all. Excellent advice. So much so that it may give me the option to carry only one lens around.

 

I'm not concerned with CA (I used to be). As stated LR4 or ACR is superb at correcting any problems in that regard, as well as very good noise control. I'm also not all that worried going for F4 max aperture, higher ISO and LR4 has fixed that. Same with IS. My problem is not camera movement so much as subject movement for my main use. If in doubt I shoot off a few quick shots in succession and if movement is a problem then I usually get at least one keeper. I know this is not the best solution, but it works for me. And for serious landscape, a tripod always.

 

So I might hire a 24-105 for a week or so to give it a try. It's a bit short and I'd love to own the 70-200L F2.8 II but the weight is a problem as a carry-round all day. I'm used to getting in close with the 17-40 but acknowledge that having some extra reach is worthwhile. If the 24-105 works out I might even consider selling the 17-40, althought I do love that lens. If I can get a solution which means that I avoid changing lenses in the field then I've found it saves a bit of grief with sensore dust.

 

As to studio work, I mainly use the EF-S 60mm F2.8 macro or EF 50 F1.4 which I use with the 7D and my old 550D. Both so sharp they damages the eyeballs.

 

My wife also has a 7D with a Tamron Lens SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [iF]. I'm impressed by its IQ and my wife loves it. It never leaves her camera.

 

Thanks again for the great advice. You have got me thinking.

 

Ken

[Sheila Smart]

Thanks all. Excellent advice. So much so that it may give me the option to carry only one lens around.

 

I'm not concerned with CA (I used to be). As stated LR4 or ACR is superb at correcting any problems in that regard, as well as very good noise control. I'm also not all that worried going for F4 max aperture, higher ISO and LR4 has fixed that. Same with IS. My problem is not camera movement so much as subject movement for my main use. If in doubt I shoot off a few quick shots in succession and if movement is a problem then I usually get at least one keeper. I know this is not the best solution, but it works for me. And for serious landscape, a tripod always.

 

So I might hire a 24-105 for a week or so to give it a try. It's a bit short and I'd love to own the 70-200L F2.8 II but the weight is a problem as a carry-round all day. I'm used to getting in close with the 17-40 but acknowledge that having some extra reach is worthwhile. If the 24-105 works out I might even consider selling the 17-40, althought I do love that lens. If I can get a solution which means that I avoid changing lenses in the field then I've found it saves a bit of grief with sensore dust.

 

As to studio work, I mainly use the EF-S 60mm F2.8 macro or EF 50 F1.4 which I use with the 7D and my old 550D. Both so sharp they damages the eyeballs.

 

My wife also has a 7D with a Tamron Lens SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [iF]. I'm impressed by its IQ and my wife loves it. It never leaves her camera.

 

Thanks again for the great advice. You have got me thinking.

 

Ken

Ken

 

The 70-200 f/4 L IS is much lighter than the f/2.8 version.

[Bizair]

 

^ Thanks Sheila

 

I might hire both and give them a good workout.

 

Ken

[lensandbrushes]

For what it's worth, I have an older copy of the 24-105 ( and 5D III) and I am seriously looking for something to replace it.  While I love the range of focal length, CA is an issue that ACR is not fully dealing with, I find I frequently have to do a second pass in Photoshop.  The images are quite soft at the edges and there is some distortion.  When I use ACR to correct the distortion I find the image gets even softer.  I will be testing the 24-70 II next week to see whether there is significant improvement.  It may well be that newer copies of the 24-105 perform better, so make sure to arrange to thoroughly test if you decide to buy one on the used market.

 

Rumour is that Canon is going to bundle the 24-70 with new 5D's, instead of the 24-105.

 

Louise

[David Kilpatrick]

24-105mm for sale in good nick privately here in UK: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152884012570693&set=gm.462966380458236&type=1

[John Gaffen]

In addition to the 24 - 105mm, I also have the Canon EF 17 - 40mm  L-series zoom and I would not consider selling it, because the difference between 17 and 24mm at the widest end of both lenses is quite large, and makes a significant difference to the field of view provided by both lens.