# From 40D to 1D II N - Is this wide enough ?



## kittyhawk (Jul 12, 2013)

Hi all,

A few weeks ago, I sold my venerable EOS 40D for a used EOS 1D Mkii N.
I was very satisfied with the 40D but when it comes to photograph moving kids... the AI-Servo tracking just shows its limits.

Until a few days ago, I owned only 2 EF lenses : 50/1.8 and 70-200/4L.
With the 40D, I used the kit lens EF-S 18-55 IS for my wide angle needs.

My plan is to buy a used zoom. I just need a few extra months to save up money...

In the meantime, as I'm not afraid (or even ashamed) to attach "amateur" lense on a "pro" camera, I just bought a used EF 22-55/4-5.6... yes, I did it !
I must say that results are better than expected, once processed in LR. Even if this old lens is not listed in "lens profile" (nor in Canon DPP), LR makes a good job, especially in center part of the picture.

My question is now about "walk around" or "standard" zoom lens.
I made a lot of searches on the Internet : 17-40/4L, 24-105/4L, Tamron 24-70 VC or even old EF 24-85/3.5-4.5... waiting a rumored 16-50/4L ? Lens like EF 16-35/2.8L is out of reach...

From your experience, what would be reasonable choice ?
Using my plastic 22-55 (some say that 22mm is more like a 23mm), I find it wide enough so far.
It's actually the "difficult" decision. A friend of mine use a 17-40 on a 1DsII and I must say that 17mm is great on FF camera.
I know that your not in my mind but, your advice and experience would be very appreciated, especially regarding IQ and 1.3x sensor's characterisitcs.

Thank you very much,
Ivan

PS: Sorry for my English which is not my mother tongue.


----------



## Vossie (Jul 12, 2013)

Your choice will depend on your budget. The 24-105 is a very nice all-purpose lens. Decent af speed and good focal range. You can find plenty good second hand units at reasonable price. The Tamron is more expensive, but in general gets very good reviews. The 24-85 is much older and I do not think if offers the same IQ.

How much wouod you want to spend?

Whether 24mm is wide enough depends on your shooting. As a walkaround, for me 24 is wide enough.


----------



## kittyhawk (Jul 12, 2013)

@Vossie :

Thank you.
My budget would be around 500 euros (650 USD)... but could be more, later...next year.

In my "recent" experience (last 15 years), I didn't get wider that 28-29mm (I used EF-S 18-55 on my 40D and 28-135 on my old 50E). Before that, when I was student, I used a Tamron SP 20-40/2.7-3.5 on a Minolta SLR... since then I never really missed the 20mm position.

My subjects for that lens will be family/travels pictures, mainly.
No "super wide super close" special effect image 

Ivan


----------



## Artifex (Jul 12, 2013)

Although it is more expensive, I've heard really nice things about the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (thought I haven't had the chance to try it myself). If you are willing to put a bit more money, I would recommend that you check this one out. It would also nicely complete your zoom focal length : 24-70 at 2.8 to 70-200 at 4.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 12, 2013)

Ah The MkII N, The AF system that simply worked... No real Wides for APS-H though. Maybe a Tokina 11-16mm Adapted to canon mount would work...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 12, 2013)

The 17-40mm L will be a big upgrade, and its plenty wide for most usage, giving about the equivalent full frame FOV of 22mm on your 1D MK IIN.
That will be much wider than your 18-55mm lens on a 1.6 crop which has a 28.8mm equiv FOV.


----------



## Hannes (Jul 12, 2013)

But the 22-55 you have now is by all accounts a standard zoom with the 1.3 crop, 28.6-71.5mm equivalent. Why not use that if you are happy with it? Maybe get a longer prime like a 85 1.8 for shooting the kids at a longer distance using a bigger aperture than your 70-200 can muster?


----------



## kittyhawk (Jul 13, 2013)

Thanks you all for your answers.

It's true that the old 22-55 has a good range on a 1.3x body, it has a mirco-USM and, once processed, it gives better results than expected (although the edges remain weak). But i's not fast (4-5.6) and not beeing listed in lens profile (DPP, LR, DxO..) is a real issue. 

The question actually is, from your experience : is 17mm (22mm FOV) a real/essential advantage on every day use ? Do you find 40mm to be too short ? Of course, one of the good points of the 17-40/4L is its price on used market.

As I don't feel limited, so far, with the 22mm (29mm FOV) I'm wondering if a 24-xxx zoom would be a good choice. That's why I was also considering the "old" 24-85/3.5-4.5 (it's listed in DxO, may be in DPP ?) as a temporary solution before a better -and more expensive- choice (24-105/4L or 24-70/2.8 used).


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 18, 2013)

Owning a 1D I can tell you that only 16-35 can be a sufficient 'wide' lens on it. 22 as your widest is definitely too limiting. My 24L only acts as a mild wide on it and although it's good, every time I use 24L on it, it re-ignite my urge to get back to FF.  :-X


----------



## cfcis99 (Jul 18, 2013)

I have 1D mark 2 and a 17-40mm, in my opinion it's wide enough since comming from an APS-C camera. At the same time short at 40mm. That is were the 24-70mm comes in. 

Also, I think one of the main market of the 1D Mark 1-4 series are the Sports, wildlife and photo journalist photographers, not actually landscape shooters.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2013)

I am with BozillaNZ on this one.

I used APS-H for years, indeed I still have my original 1D, but when I used them the 16-35 was permanently on one, it is the best lens for the camera by far.

Now I know you said the 16-35 was out of the question, but what about a second hand 17-35 f2.8 or a MkI 16-35 f2.8? They can both be had for reasonable money, the 17-35 often around $500 on eBay.

Best bit is you lose the lenses pretty bad corner performance when using an APS-H so you win every way round.


----------

