A Question for FF Shooters

[Jim B.]

I have a 5DII coming this week and I have a lens question.I'm going to Amsterdam in December and would like to get some input.
I would like to take 1 lens only.I have a 24-105 and want to know if you all think it would be a good choice.Uses will be galleries,architecture and street shots.

[carregwen]

I have a 5D and a 24-105L. For general shots of the type you suggest it should just about be OK. You will just have to get closer to the people. Won't be a hardship for those pretty Dutch chicks!

[Bill44]

Back in my film days (Canon) I had a 35-105 as a walkaround lens. Something a bit wider would be handy too.

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

I have a 5DII coming this week and I have a lens question.I'm going to Amsterdam in December and would like to get some input.
I would like to take 1 lens only.I have a 24-105 and want to know if you all think it would be a good choice.Uses will be galleries,architecture and street shots.

Hi Jim,

It'll be a great day when Canon release an EF10-2000mm F1.0L IS USM for under $1000; unfortunately, until that time comes then whatever we use is going to be a compromise.

Personally I think 24 will be just fine for outdoor architecture, but could be a bit confining indoors. For people shots it should be fine; don't forget that with the 5D2 (and 1Ds3) your capturing that many megapixels that you can get quire agressive with cropping if need be (thus giving you a "psudo-crop factor" if required).

Personally however, I'd take more than 1 lens (hard to beat the 16-35 - 24-70 - 70-200 "trilogy").

[Lemix]

Hi!

Regarding your case, the lens you have is perfect for what you want. However, the F4 can be a limitation. I would advise on another lens - the EF 24-70F 2.8L - as it can catch just a little more light. And if you are planning on visiting galleries and museums, that is a must!

Personally, I use a two lens kit: EF17-40 F4L and EF70-200 F4L with my 5DMKII. This is light enough to travel and although F4 can be a limitation it's OK.

But, hey....! You have a 5D MK. If you need more light on your 24-105, just push your ISO values a little higher.

Gonçalo Lemos

[Dave Humphries]

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

It'll be a great day when Canon release an EF10-2000mm F1.0L IS USM for under $1000.

Colin, when this comes out I promise I'll buy a Canon camera, now how's that for a deal?

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

Colin, when this comes out I promise I'll buy a Canon camera, now how's that for a deal?

It's out now - I think (I'm sure I saw it listed on 1/2 dozen spams I just deleted from here!).

Seriously, Canon's Chuck Westfall has raised the topic of liquid lens elements being a direction that may well be a reality in the future; if they ever come to fruition then I suspect that we could well see some VERY versatile lenses.

[Jim B.]

Thanks for the replies.I was thinking f/4 would be okay for interiors,but wasn't sure if 24mm would be wide enough.
I plan to get a wider lens,but was hoping I could hold off until the 1st of next year.I'm going to get into town this weekend and shoot some building interiors with the 24-105 and see what I get.
Sure wish my 17-55 worked on FF

[Dave Humphries]

Or can they find a practical magnetic or gravitational way of bending and focusing the light, just think; 100% transmittance, no reflection flare.

I'd buy one of those!

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

Or can they find a practical magnetic or gravitational way of bending and focusing the light, just think; 100% transmittance, no reflection flare.

I'd buy one of those!

We Canon shooters have them already ...

... They're called "L-Series"

[Dave Humphries]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Sure wish my 17-55 worked on FF

Just how good is the auto-correct anti-vignette software these days?

More seriously, if the 17-55 is what you are used to on a crop camera Jim, that's narrower than 24 on FF. So you won't be losing anything, just not gaining what you'd like (small distinction I know)

[Colin Southern]

On a FF camera, 24mm isn't too bad. Much wider than that and you end up turning broom closets into bowling lanes ... not to mention some wicked convergence distortions if you don't set the shot up optimally.

[Jim B.]

So then the 24-70 with a 70-200 would be a decent combo for my trip? I know I have plenty of time to decide.I wanted to get your opinions to give me a place to start.

[Colin Southern]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

So then the 24-70 with a 70-200 would be a decent combo for my trip? I know I have plenty of time to decide.I wanted to get your opinions to give me a place to start.

It's the "Batman and Robin" combo of the photography world - only downside is the lack of width for some situations (not many) which is addressed by the EF 16-35mm F2.8L USM II. With those two you won't be wanting much else.

[Amberglass]

It also depends on how much you are willing to carry while on vacation. Though the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 IS are my most used zooms, they're also a brick to carry with little option of putting it down. My husband absolutely feels guilty watching me lug my gear around, but I'm used to it.

Most of the vacation shooting will be outdoors more than indoors. My personal fave is the 24-105 f4L IS for general zoom, which is lighter than the 24-70 2.8. Also the IS will give you more of a hand holdable f stop when evening comes. For late evenings or low lighting situations, either a 35 or 50 1.4. If you want to bring 3, than suggest the 17-40 f4 (more than adequate for landscape) which is a lot less expensive/lighter than the 16-35 2.8. Tripod will be obvious if you're shooting at night. Bringing a tripod isn't exactly what I consider traveling light.

Just my suggestion, cheers.

[Jim B.]

Amber,
Thanks for the hands on information.My 1st thought was to go with my 5DII and the 24-105,because I could fit all into my UD30.I have decided to take my UD50 also(it makes a nice sized "Man Purse" too)as a carryon.I'll pack the UD30 to use for walk around also.
I have a 50 1.4 for lowlight,but I don't think it will be wide enough for gallery and museum interiors.
I've decided on a 24-70 along with my 70-200.Looking for a used 24-70 at the moment and not having any luck.
Regards,
Jim

[rogerb]

Jim:
I have the 5DII and the 17-40 F/4, 24-105 F/4, 50 F/1.4, and 70-200 F/4 IS.
I find that the 24-105 is fine for landscape at the wide end but not for architectural shots in that there is a fair amount of barrel distortion wider than about 28mm (unless you want to correct in P-P). However it is still a very sharp and versatile lens. I would take the 50 1.4 with me also since it's small & light and is great fun to shoot with. It'll work for interior shots although it's a bit long, depending on how much traffic there is.

[GillR]

Jim,

Have you checked the Museums' policies on Photography? I know you aren't allowed to take photographs in Anne Frank's House or the Rijksmuseum. That, while perhaps a blow in one sense, might help with your choice of lenses

[Jim B.]

Hi Gill,

Thanks for the heads up.So far,from checking museum websites,these are the only two that prohibit photography.Of course,these are the two I was most interested in
Jim

[GillR]

It's a long time since I visited but Anne Frank's House is so small it would be very difficult to photograph, even without all the other people. As for the Rijksmuseum .. well, I spent so much time staring in utter fascination at The Night Watch (it's huuuuuuuuuuuuge) that I could barely gather my wits enough to look at the rest of the exhibits, let alone think about taking a photograph

You'll have a fabulous time there regardless! While I totally emphathise with the wish to have your own photos as mementoes, I never take a camera with me to museums & galleries because I find trying to take decent shots, invariably in dim light and with lots of other people around, just becomes a hassle and spoils the enjoyment.