# ok so i did it and bought into FF... now i need a good standard zoom



## hamada (Apr 7, 2013)

i thought about buying a kit but i got a very good deal for a 2 month old 6D body.

but now i need a good standard zoom for my new FF camera.

main use will be landscape photography.
ultimately i will buy a 24mm TS or 14mm one day for landscape work.
but right now i don´t have the money. 
and i need a standard zoom anyway, so buying a used 24mm TS yet is not an option.

so what is the best choice for best quality at the short end?

as im not bound to a kit anymore i have more choices then the 24-70mm tamron or 24-105mm canon.

1000 euro maximum.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 7, 2013)

Any lens stopped down to f/16 for landscape use will be essentially the same. So, pick your lens for other.

The TS lenses are the exception, since you can tilt to improve depth of field without stopping down to the point where diffraction far overpowers the lens sharpness.

Until you decide to purchase a TS, pick a lens for all around use, like a 24-105mmL or 24-70mm.


----------



## hamada (Apr 7, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> until you decide to purchase a TS, pick a lens for all around use, like a 24-105mmL or 24-70mm.



well that´s what i wrote. 

i like to know which standard zoom you guys recommend, as freelancer wrote. 
don´t know why his postings were deleted, at least his post was a bit helpfull.


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Apr 7, 2013)

if you do mainly landscapes.. the 16-35L is one heck of a lens.. but i wouldnt call it a standard zoom. the 17-40mm F4 zoom is another great lens and is about 600.00

for a standard zoom.. and a standard lens you cant get better than the 24-105mm F4.. its a great every day lens.. does great at landscapes .. and everything else.


----------



## LostArk (Apr 7, 2013)

The Samyang 24mm tilt shift is coming out soon for $999, so you might want to hold off till the reviews hit and see if it'd be worth it for you.

In the meantime, I find a nice 35mm or 50mm prime to be generally much more versatile than a 24-70. At 70mm you're really not into telephoto range yet, and 24mm is only 1-3 steps back from normal. So I would get a 50mm and a 70-200 f/4, and the samyang tilt shift, all for less than the 24-70 f/2.8L


----------



## hamada (Apr 7, 2013)

LostArk said:


> In the meantime, I find a nice 35mm or 50mm prime to be generally much more versatile than a 24-70. At 70mm you're really not into telephoto range yet, and 24mm is only 1-3 steps back from normal. So I would get a 50mm and a 70-200 f/4, and the samyang tilt shift, all for less than the 24-70 f/2.8L



as i wrote i need it for landscape work for a period, until i buy a 24mm TS or 14mm.
a 35mm or 50 mm are not wide enough for my needs.

and i don´t want to carry two or even three lenses and change lenses constantly when i travel.
a zoom is a way better travel companion. 



> all for less than the 24-70 f/2.8L



i would not buy the 24-70 f2.8 II from canon.
as i wrote my budget for the standard zoom is around 1000 euro.
the tamron 24-70 f2.8 would be my choice then.


ps: i have the 70-200mm f4 IS, a 50mm f1.4 and a 100mm f2.0


----------



## wayno (Apr 7, 2013)

I have found from experience that the 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms all have a practical place in my kit for landscape work. I don't understand how people preclude the longer zooms - you can't always trek that extra three kilometres to capture the scene you really want...


----------



## hamada (Apr 7, 2013)

wayno said:


> I have found from experience that the 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms all have a practical place in my kit for landscape work. I don't understand how people preclude the longer zooms



who does that?


----------



## RMC33 (Apr 7, 2013)

hamada said:


> wayno said:
> 
> 
> > I have found from experience that the 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms all have a practical place in my kit for landscape work. I don't understand how people preclude the longer zooms
> ...



I do on a regular basis. I shoot landscapes with a 500 f/4 II~ http://rmc33.com/YEU9kc


----------



## Hannes (Apr 7, 2013)

The 24-105 is a very good lens but do bear in mind the distortion at 24mm is noticeable but that applies to the tamron as well. I suspect the canon might be better sealed which is always a plus when out in the hills and filter size is a little smaller. Not to mention the canon is a little cheaper usually and since you didn't mention a flash that might be a good purchase.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 7, 2013)

hamada said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > until you decide to purchase a TS, pick a lens for all around use, like a 24-105mmL or 24-70mm.
> ...


There are four standard EF Zooms that Canon makes. The best is clearly the 24-70mm f/2.8 MK II.
The 24-70mm f/4L and the 24-105mm f/4 L are pretty much equal. The EF 28-135 brings up the rear, only use it if thats all you can afford.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup


You have to decide which suits your budget. I can recommend the 24-70mm f/2.8 MK II its the best, but its also expensive. 
The Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 has lots of fans and a history of failures, if you are careful with it and don't treat it roughly, it should be fine. Its resale value in the future is still unknown, and probably depends a lot on its long term reliability, and whether Tamron fixes the flaws.

There is a very good article here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx


----------



## rich_h (Apr 7, 2013)

I have the 17-40L and the Tamron 24-70 (bought last week).

I was using the 17-40 as a walkaround, but now, personally, if 24mm is wide enough, I can't see a reason to get any zoom in this range other than the Tamron. I've been very happily surprised with just how sharp and contrasty it is. It gets close to the 70-200 f2.8 II (not quite as sharp but good enough for me not to worry too much which I use at 70mm). Feels really solidly put together too.

On a tripod, stopped down to f8 or more, the 17-40 is great, but the Tamron is sharper with better contrast and clarity wider open, has better corners, has really good VC and opens to 2.8 of course. Build seems at least as good. I wont be using the 17-40 anymore except on the rare occasions I need UWA. The Tamron does have a little more distortion at 24mm, but DXO (or I would assume Lightroom) corrects this automatically and I have not found it an issue so far.

I have not used the 24-105L much but a friend has it and somehow her shots seem slightly more 'muddy' (less sharp, lower contrast, images don't quite pop the same somehow) - both using the 5D3. Not saying it's a bad lens, but it did not excite me particularly, and f2.8 swung it for me.

Tripod, small apertures and UWA get the Canon. 
Anything else, I can recommend the Tamron. I think I'm going to turn into a Tamron fanboy pretty quickly!


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 7, 2013)

24-15 is my vote. Small, light, excellent quality, take it anywhere.

sek


----------



## brad-man (Apr 8, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> hamada said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Would you mind pointing me to where you got this info? The only negative I have ever seen was by Roger @ LR mentioning a weak glue connection of the front element on the first batch of lenses.


----------



## RC (Apr 8, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> 24-15 is my vote. Small, light, excellent quality, take it anywhere.
> 
> sek


+1 (24-105) definitely a highly versatile lens. If you suddenly run into some extra cash, get the 24-70 II.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 8, 2013)

17-40L is the best deal for a landscape lens that is kinda GP. Just buy a 70-200 F4L + 50mm and your done.


----------



## TexasBadger (Apr 8, 2013)

I would consider the 24-70 2.8L. You should be able to find one for ~ $1000. If I could only have one lens and could not afford the II, this is the one I would get. It may not be quite as sharp as the new version, but it is a great lens. I use mine all of the time and get fantastic results.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 8, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Would you mind pointing me to where you got this info? The only negative I have ever seen was by Roger @ LR mentioning a weak glue connection of the front element on the first batch of lenses.


Yes, thats a big flaw, you just don't glue a large lens element in ploace and expect it to stay there. Tamron needs to fix this. There is no indication that the issue was a batch issue, if they did not provide some positive support, there is cause for concern.

My local dealer, suggested I pass it up. This is a dealer who only hires photographers for employees. He would sell me one if I demanded it, just suggested to pass it by.

Other reports are sporadic. As I noted, some users love it, and time will tell as to whether Tamron has fixed any of the reported issues. So far, they have not commented. As far as service is concerned, they are famous for claiming user abuse when a product fails. This means that when your lens comes unglued, you may have to pay, warranty or not.

I'm taking a wait and see approach. Certainly, for the price, its a deal, as long as it can standup to pro level use.


----------



## bycostello (Apr 8, 2013)

tamron make a good affordable lenses


----------



## corey.kaye (Apr 8, 2013)

I've got the 24-70 v.1 and I gotta say the 24-105 F4 is just as sharp or more so. The extra 2 stops are not very often missed and the IS is AWESOME for video shooting. If you're into landscape (as am I) we don't often shoot at 2.8.....

$0.02

EDIT: You don't have the 16-35 F2.8? This is the lens you want!!


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Apr 8, 2013)

*Tamron 28-75*

I'm a big fan of the Tamron 28-75 2.8. I bought a well used copy for $260 about two years ago and it is still going strong.

It's $500 new, so you can have a good lens now and save up for the later purchase of a trophy lens that will make you feel good. 

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05

For landscape work you will presumably be using a tripod so you won't need stabilization and you will be stopped down to F8 or so. You don't need the latest and greatest lens. Why spend a lot of money for capabilities you won't use?

The really great thing about this Tamron 28-75 is the small size and light weight. After using this lens for a while, I find the Canon 24-70 mark I is annoyingly large and heavy. So was the new Tamron 24-70 stabilized lens that i rented. It's a nice lens if you need stabilization, but I felt that my old 28-75 did everything I need with substantially less bulk. Instead of buying the new Tamron, I bought a couple of the less expensive L primes and I'm very glad I did.

I got together with my local photo buddy today to help him confirm the MFA on his 7D with the Canon 50mm 1.4 (+5 MFA needed) I was surprised to learn that he has become very attached to his (much newer than mine) copy of the Tamron 28-75.


----------



## robbymack (Apr 8, 2013)

the 24-105 is a good option, but you should have bought it in the kit, no worries as there are tons for sale used at or near the same price you'd pay in the kit. that's your choice if you want good reach and don't care if f4 is a little on the slow side. The canon 24-70 f4 is maybe a hair or two sharper, but not enough to justify the price difference IMHO. If on the other hand you need f2.8 and if you can afford it the canon 24-70ii is really peerless, however that comes at a insane (IMHO) cost. Having an extra $1000 in my pocket and IS is important to me, so the Tamron is the clear choice, at least for me, between those two lenses. Don't concern yourself with the internet babble about lens elements coming unglued, those things get blown way out of proportion by the gear patrol on the internet. Yes Roger at Lens rentals had a problem with 2 of his first 10 lenses, he has not had a problem with any of them since and Tamron quickly repaired the issue. Roger is also fond of saying Tamron has one of the best service departments in the photo business these days with three day turn arounds and rarely ever a hassle. He hasn't seen a problem since, nor have I seen anyone else complaining of that issue with that lens. My copy has worked flawlessly since day one (about 6 months now) and is noticeably sharper than the canon 24-70i it replaced and the IS really good. I can get a solid 2-3 stops when needed, I don't blink an eye now at 70mm and 1/15.


----------



## smithy (Apr 8, 2013)

TexasBadger said:


> I would consider the 24-70 2.8L. You should be able to find one for ~ $1000. If I could only have one lens and could not afford the II, this is the one I would get. It may not be quite as sharp as the new version, but it is a great lens. I use mine all of the time and get fantastic results.


+1. This is exactly what I was about to post. Although if you could find a 16-35mm for $1000 or less then that would also be worth considering if landscape is going to be your main interest.


----------



## kentandersen (Apr 8, 2013)

one more vote for 24-105

I have a Sigma 12-24, a Samyang/ 35 1.4, 135L and the 24-105. I use them on a 5dMKII and an old 400D. I would buy all of them again. The only one of them I would have loved to change is the Samyang (Rokinon, Walimex) lens. Mainly becouse of the build quality. The Image quality is excelent for the price.

The Image quality of 24-105 is excelent. I rarely have the need of more. There is 3 thing I like about it. Its size is great. The image stabilizer is realy helpful, and the extra 105mm is used alot.

If you buy a used 24-105, you still have money left to buy a good prime.


----------



## pwp (Apr 8, 2013)

hamada said:


> I thought about buying a kit but i got a very good deal for a 2 month old 6D body.
> But now i need a good standard zoom for my new FF camera.
> So what is the best choice for best quality at the short end?
> 1000 euro maximum.


You want the best quality standard zoom? A few posts have suggested a 24-70 f/2.8 series-1. Right zoom range....wrong lens. While good copies of this lens are known to exist, most of them are mongrels. I had five over a number of years. Avoid them. They highly likely to disappoint. 

You've got yourself a great body, so back it up with a truly phenomenal lens, the new 24-70 f/2.8II. Everything positive you have read about this lens is true. As I mentioned on another thread, photographers including myself are disposing of L primes in the 24-70 zoom range...the new zoom makes them obsolete. It's just that good.

-PW


----------



## rpt (Apr 8, 2013)

I have used the 24-105 on my 5D3 and I love it. I have no personal experience with third party lenses.


----------



## RGF (Apr 8, 2013)

Go with the 24-105


----------



## adhocphotographer (Apr 8, 2013)

Pick up a used 24-105 and keep the rest for a 17-40... I find the extra reach of the 24-105 very useful on my 5DIII... Enjoy it buddy!


----------



## syder (Apr 8, 2013)

+1 for the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc

Better image quality than the 24-105L or the 24-70L mki 

A damn sight cheaper than the mark ii and it has IS (which for video - where I make most my money - makes it a more useful lens)


----------



## And-Rew (Apr 8, 2013)

with my 5D2's - i would choose between the 24-105 or the 17-40 - both F4 but with IS on the 24-105.

The differences, so far as i can tell - are pretty much about focal length. I've heard pluses and minuses for both lenses. The 17-40 is a more compact lens, and if honest, the 'sharper' of the 2 lenses. 

For what you want, i suppose i would recommend the 17-40 (given your budget), and put the rest towards the savings towards your TSE lens.

Of course, you could always go mad and opt for a prime


----------



## michi (Apr 8, 2013)

I bought a refurbished 24-70 2.8 L Mark 1 from Canon when they had a discount, it was under $1,000. I also have a 24-105. I prefer the 24-70, I feel it has nicer colors and feel of the resulting images. It is a heavy, bulky brick though.


----------



## smithy (Apr 8, 2013)

pwp said:


> hamada said:
> 
> 
> > I thought about buying a kit but i got a very good deal for a 2 month old 6D body.
> ...


But where can you get one for less than 1000 Euros?


----------



## RC (Apr 8, 2013)

adhocphotographer said:


> Pick up a used 24-105 and keep the rest for a 17-40...



This is a good plan, 24-105 for your standard zoom (used or new) and a 17-40 (stopped down) for landscapes. You can probably get by just fine with 24mm for landscapes now and add a wider lens latter. Get a CPL, both lens take a 77mm filter which makes it nice.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 8, 2013)

If you need wider than 24mm, get the 17-40 f/4. If you don't, but need faster than f/4, get the Tamron 24-70. Otherwise I would, like so many others have done, recommend the 24-105. User experience around here suggests there's some variation among them in terms of sharpness. I can't comment on that - all I can say is that the two I've tried (rented one, then bought one) are both sharp; both perform superbly even in very low light on FF (I have 5DII & 6D; at least with non-moving things, IS more than makes up for the difference between f/4 and f/2.8); 105 is much more useful than 70; so I think it's a bargain for what it is, even when not acquired as part of a kit. 

(I've also tried two copies of the Tamron 24-70; I rented one, then bought one, but neither was any sharper than my 24-105, and the results I got in low light with it at f/2.8 or otherwise weren't any better than I get with my 24-105 at f/4 or otherwise. So although it's clearly a very good lens, I returned it because it added nothing useful to me.)

PS - it's not clear why you found Mt Spokane's comments unhelpful - seems to me they were spot on.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 8, 2013)

24-105 all the way. It's a great lens.


----------



## StepBack (Apr 8, 2013)

Well first congrats on the ff. Should be great for landscapes to capture the color and lighting nuances. I like taking close ups of flowers in gardens whether at conservatories or at home, a park whatever. Then there's landscape like the Grand Canyons or the Swiss Alps, beaches, wetlands and the ocean. So decide what it is you want to capture in landscape. Then match the lens to your needs. I use a 24-70L and sometimes the 70-200L. If I were doing it all over again I'd weigh well the weight of the lens I"m comfortable carrying. If I wanted an all around lens I guess the 70-200 is terrific. But instead of a 24-70 I would look for a wide angle with a large aperture. You may not have such a need right now. The 24-105 is also very good. Remember u have to carry these suckers around perhaps all day maybe on long hikes. Good luck.


----------

