# All primes... But what zoom?



## Leopard Lupus (Jan 29, 2012)

Hello CR!

I am a prime sort'a guy. I currently own the 35mm f/1.4 L, 50mm f/1.2 L and the 135mm f/2 L.
I am shooting with a Canon 5D mk ll.
I have always loved my primes, but am considering a good walk-around lens. 
Any opinions out there on what to invest in? My main reason is for the versatility and to NOT have to carry my three primes all day. 
Thanks in advance!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 29, 2012)

The 24-105mm f/4L is my lens of choice as a walking around lens. Not quite as much reach as the 135mm (I just got that lens, awesome!), but still has plenty of reach. The one single spot where it is not as great is it's f/4, so it's a bit slow, and you don't really get a lot of bokeh, although it's decent if you're zoomed in and your subject is pretty close. Also, at 24mm it has a some distortion, although Lightroom does a good job correcting for that. Sometimes I actually kinda like it, it all depends on what the shot is.


----------



## vuilang (Jan 29, 2012)

24-70? if you do think about it. probably best to wait for new version. Shud come out within months from now


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 29, 2012)

On the 5DII a 70-300L is a good all purpose lens - small and reasonably light - good IQ - good for portraits whilst having good reach.

Only downside is that it is a little slow - but if you are out walking with the 5DII in the daytime that wont be an issue as you have spare iso to play with.


----------



## Rampado (Jan 29, 2012)

For me the 50mm already is a great walk around lens... 

but if you want more versatility, 24-105L is a good choice...


----------



## well_dunno (Jan 29, 2012)

I will also say 24-105L looking at the primes mentioned. If possible, combining it with a 70-200L or a 70-300L does make life easier IMO... 

Cheers!


----------



## tron (Jan 29, 2012)

I agree on 24-105L. It covers your 35 and 50 and comes close to 135. It also offers 24 and 28mm.


----------



## traveller (Jan 29, 2012)

Looking at it from the other point of view, what is it that you like about your primes? If it's shallow depth of field, then getting a 24-105mm f/4L doesn't make much sense! If you find yourself stopping the primes down to f/2.8-4 all the time, then the only reason to have primes instead of a standard zoom would be to force you to think about your framing and perspective; a zoom is the opposite if this too. So I would ask yourself again, if you like primes so much, why _do_ you want a zoom? 

Might I suggest that if the 5D MkII and the three primes that you have are too heavy and bulky to carry in certain situations, then a 5D MkII and 24-105 f/4L IS won't really solve that problem. If this is your thinking, then have you considered a mirrorless camera with the equivalent fast primes to your 'L' collection?


----------



## hoousi (Jan 29, 2012)

With your prime setup I'd opt for either the 16-35L II or the 70-200L II, both good for walk-around depending on your goals and adding some reach on the wide or long side at the same time. A 24-105 may just be boring, rather miss a few shots but enjoy those you get just carrying the 35 for instance and save 1000.


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 29, 2012)

I'll put my vote in for the 24-105 as well.
I have a 70-200 and almost always end up leaving it at home. I find that the 70-200 really only gets used for work or if I have a particular goal in mind for that day (i.e. street shooting). The 24-105 is a great zoom range, and on a 5DII the 24 is a pretty nice wide-angle. At f/4, it's far from slow, gives pretty good bokeh and great IQ. Also, at a minimum focusing distance of only 1.5', it's less restricted than the more than double 3.9' MFD of the 70-200.

I like the 16-35...but again it's a pretty specific use lens. Or so I find, anyway. And the range it covers is almost useless for a "walk around" lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2012)

If your main reason is versatility, the 24-105L is the way to go. It's a broad focal range, wide to tele, and has IS. 

I've got a good assortment of zooms and primes. Of them, if I'm going out with one lens, it's the 24-105. If I'm taking two, it's often the 24-105 and 70-200 II. I've considered the 24-70, and if they release a MkII I'll get it, mostly for around the house. But the 5DII + 24-105 is an excellent and versatile combo.


----------



## lbloom (Jan 30, 2012)

Nothing says versatility like the Tamron 18-270mm (where cost meets focal lengths!!!)! Alas, crop lenses! ;D Don't any soccer moms use FF sensors?


----------



## lbloom (Jan 30, 2012)

On a serious note, I agree with most everyone else about the 24-105mm. Covers so many key lengths with good IQ.


----------



## Zdog (Jan 30, 2012)

I personally am not a big fan of the 24-105 for stills. It is good for hand held video. It has good IQ but not great. My 50 1.2L clobbers it. The 24-105 is a jack of all trades and master of none kind of lens. It really depends on your style as to what is a good walk around lens. I would like to try the 16-35L with an 85 1.8 kicker for a walk around combo.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 30, 2012)

Leopard Lupus said:


> Hello CR!
> 
> I am a prime sort'a guy. I currently own the 35mm f/1.4 L, 50mm f/1.2 L and the 135mm f/2 L.
> I am shooting with a Canon 5D mk ll.
> ...




Just playing devil's advocate here: do you really need one? The obvious choices are of course the 24-70 and the 24-105. Both are great and it's hard to say which is "better" since it depends on application and preference. BUT as a "prime sort'a guy" are your really going to take either of them?

I have a 50, 135, 200 and then the 24-105 - because as a "kit" you couldn't beat the value of it, otherwise I may have opted for the 24-70 and may still trade it one day. The 24-105 is way better then I expected. It's very sharp and the results at all focal lengths are really really good. But I do like my fast primes and the 24-105 is anything but not fast with its f/4 limitation. The IS works but I personally consider it a gimick and see no value in it. So the 24-70 would probably be more the zoom for me or so I thought for a while.

What I find though now is that I go for the 135 and 50 more often and leave the zoom behind unless I expect needing the wide angle. Well, and if I already had a wide and fast prime like you...

So in short: if you really feel you need a zoom either is fine. If you shoot a lot wide open the 24-70 maybe a better choice. If you really want the wide range the 24-105 is better, especially since the long end delivers pretty decent results as far as background blur goes - more or less a wash compared to f/2.8 at 70mm.


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Jan 30, 2012)

Wow, thank you all for the input!

My two main reason for considering a zoom is: 1. the weight, an 2. A versatile lens I can use for personal work.
The camera body and mounted lens is fine, but having two heavy L primes + 580ex ll in my bag while shooting can be difficult. I like to "zoom with my feet" when it comes to primes, so I tend to find myself in awkward positions where I worry about the safety of my two unmounted lenses.
I am considering the 70-200 L at the moment, paired with my current 35 L. 
If(when) the mk ll version of the 24-105 lens comes out, what all is there to improve on? As this isnt an urgent priority purchase, would it be worth the wait for the mk ll and NOT the 70-200?

(I have ordered a 70-200 L and 24-105 L rental as of today. Thank you all!)


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 30, 2012)

The 24-105 is still kind of young. I'm not all that convinced that it will be replaced anytime soon. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the 24-105 will still be current for another 2-3 years. The lens is already pretty good, but I think CA could be improved on and maybe one more stop in IS, but not sure how physically feasible that is. Sharpness, maybe; but it's plenty sharp as is. It's possible there might be an update with the next 5D, but I'm not betting on it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 30, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> ... the 24-105 is better, especially since the long end delivers pretty decent results as far as background blur goes - more or less a wash compared to f/2.8 at 70mm.



I think statements like this are a bit misleading. Yes, if you're at the same distance to your subject, 105mm f/4 actually gives shallower DoF. Heck, at the same subject distance, my 100-400 at 400mm and stopped down to f/22 is shallower than the 85L at f/1.2. But it's not the same picture at all. A head/torso shot at 70mm becomes a tight head shot at 105mm, and as soon as you back up to match the framing at 70mm, you've negated the effect of the longer focal length on DoF with the opposing effect of greater subject distance. So, for the same framing (with the same sensor size), it all comes down to aperture, and f/2.8 is wider than f/4. 

Which means if you want shallow DoF, a fast prime will beat a zoom. Since the OP already has the fast primes, and wants versatility, I think (personally) that the 24-105 is better for that.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 30, 2012)

I also have numerous primes, but for just walking around, a zoom can be useful. I use a 24-105mmL like many others. I also have a 70-200mm f/4L IS and a 100-400mmL. The 70-200 used to be my most used lens, but now , it seldom gets used as the 100-400L covers most of the range, and is usually at 400mm.

I used to have a wide zoom, 17-40mm L, but I really have not been into wide images, so I bought a uised Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime and a used Canon 15mm FE for much less than I sold my 17-40mm L for.

Many photographers love to take wide vistas, its just me, I'm not one of them.


----------



## katwil (Jan 30, 2012)

The often mentioned 24-105 is a good lens, but I’ve been disappointed in its performance at 24mm, especially with barrel distortion. Regarding your comment about an update to that lens, most of the talk on CR recently has been around an update to the 24-70, not the 24-105. One lens that I’ve been looking at, but don’t own yet, is the EF 28-300L IS. I realize that you have a concern about weight, but if you’re going to capture the subjects you normally get with the 135, the 24-105 will require cropping. As long as you’re test-driving lenses already, why not try that one?


----------



## 00Q (Feb 1, 2012)

I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have. 

I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.


----------



## vuilang (Feb 1, 2012)

00Q said:


> I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have.
> 
> I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.



SHARPER??
at both wide open (2.8 vs 4.0)? or both at F4.0?
dont ridicule the image sharpness between the f4.0 n F2.8.. they cant compare


----------



## Ryusui (Feb 4, 2012)

00Q said:


> I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have.
> 
> I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.


What's nonsense are your blanket statements.

Yes, I recommended the 24-105 because it's what I have. But I have also used the 24-70 quite extensively before purchasing my 5DII, and I spent a good amount of time trying to decide between the 5DII body + 24-70 and 5DII kit. I went with the kit because, for my purposes, that difference between 70 and 105 would actually make a difference, despite it not being "too much." And the IS noticably reduces my camera shake, especially from about 50mm or so out. I also really enjoy having the IS for video - even if I don't use video that often.
Also, I can't speak for others, but I don't see myself ever owning the 24-70. It would be a redundant lens in my kit considering everything else I have or will purchase. Though I wouldn't be surprised to find many others out there who don't buy both lenses just because of Canon's "clever marketing strategy."

People most definitely are likely to recommend what they have. But usually - not always, but usually - people have what they have for a *reason*.


----------



## archangelrichard (Feb 4, 2012)

You have a lot of advice here but a few caveats:

YES, people are going to recommend / not recommend what they have instead of what is right - they haven't seen everything out there so take that as a grain of salt

NO you haven't fully described what you are using this lens for other than "walk around"

specifically - I would never consider "L" glass to be "walk around" - I have too many ducats tied up in that to be slogging it through the mud, banging it around on rocks, etc.. I would be protecting it to the point it would not be fast to get to; covered when it is rainy or foggy outside; etc.

Now if by "walk around" you mean dry spring / fall grassy fields (no dirt / mud / water / trees / rocks / etc.); that makes a difference in the recommendations

But do realize that many people who post on forums are "fanboys" - jerks who post that their opinions are the highest truths, and attack anyone who tries to look at things objectively.

What you need only you can know, people can give you suggestions to look at but they can not know what you are going to DO with that lens; what you mean by "walk around". For the money you might want to consider the idea of a "walk around" camera like the SX 40 HS - much much lighter, much wider zoom range and you aren't risking your 5D in questionable adventures; this could work out better for you in the long run


----------



## elflord (Feb 4, 2012)

00Q said:


> I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have.
> 
> I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.



Have you used either of them on a full frame ? That is dof/fov equivalent to 15mm-70mm f/2.5 on a crop.

The upper part of the range gives the camera some short tele range. On the crop, the 24mm-70mm has that, but on the full frame, the extra range is useful. It's not critical "reach" in the same sense as a long tele has "reach", but more for the change in perspective. That 70-105mm covers your classic portrait focal length range. You won't get the same effect but moving closer to the subject with a wider angle.


----------



## elflord (Feb 4, 2012)

Leopard Lupus said:


> My two main reason for considering a zoom is: 1. the weight, an 2. A versatile lens I can use for personal work.
> The camera body and mounted lens is fine, but having two heavy L primes + 580ex ll in my bag while shooting can be difficult. I like to "zoom with my feet" when it comes to primes, so I tend to find myself in awkward positions where I worry about the safety of my two unmounted lenses.



Just an anecdote that might be interesting -- on a recent trip, I took a 5D Mark II and just the 50mm f/1.4. It was somewhat liberating to only have to worry about one lens. Sometimes it's better to pick one lens and leave your bag at home even if you have primes.

But if you want a lens that can cover a range of shooting scenarios -- wide angle, normal and some short tele capability, the 24mm-105mm seems like a pretty good choice. Constant aperture is a plus too even though it's "only" f/4. The 24-70 is only an all-rounder if it's paired with the 70-200 otherwise it's a wide to normal on ff or a normal to short tele on crop.


----------



## Dave T (Feb 5, 2012)

You said your a prime kind of guy. Well be prime and be proud! (smiley face goes here)

Take the 35 or the 50 and walk around with them. Many great photographers have recorded wars, famines, floods and coronations with one of those two lenses. We of the prime world...don't need no stinkin' zoom lenses! (LOL)

Dave


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2012)

katwil said:


> One lens that I’ve been looking at, but don’t own yet, is the EF 28-300L IS. I realize that you have a concern about weight, but if you’re going to capture the subjects you normally get with the 135, the 24-105 will require cropping. As long as you’re test-driving lenses already, why not try that one?



I decided to do just that - try out the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS. I think it will work well as a walkaround lens on my 5DII. Not worried about weight - I'm used to carrying a gripped 7D + 100-400mm for hours on a Blackrapid strap, plus, it's lighter than my current 'walkaround' combo of the 24-105 and 70-200 II, and it means no lens changes. I've got a trip coming up, planning to take the 28-300, 35L, either the 16-35L II or 135L, and a 430EX II. For me, that's packing light. 

Personally, I don't believe in renting to try out a lens - I'd rather put that money toward ownership. Instead, if I'm not certain a lens will meet my need (which is the case here - concerned about my satisfaction with IQ from a superzoom, even though this is arguably the best superzoom available), I buy it used. I only buy from Craigslist, and won't pay more than 70% of the current new price. I did that for the 28-300, and that's with the current rebate - tomorrow when the price goes back up, I'll have an extra margin. This way, I can try the lens for an extended period, and if I decide not to keep it, even if I end up taking a small loss on the sale it would be less than the cost of a 4-day rental (and after having re-sold four of the five used lenses I bought previously, I've actually made a net profit).


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 5, 2012)

here are a couple of shots with the 28-300
i think 1 is with the kenko 1.4 TC attached and the other is without
should still have all the exif data


----------



## melbournite (Feb 5, 2012)

00Q said:


> I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have.
> 
> I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.



I must admit that I'm one of those that owns the 24-105 who has had it since the 5DI and was always using it as my main walk around lens. That was until I purchased a 16-35II and the 70-200 2.8II and now hardly use the 24-105 for any purpose. 

Having said that, considering what Leopard has and is asking for, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 24-105 - it's a great lens. 

Having said that too, I am personally waiting for the 24-70II and it could be the perfect lens for Leopard (if he can wait....).

Leopard and I should swap lenses - I would love to try his primes.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 5, 2012)

Leopard Lupus said:


> I have always loved my primes, but am considering a good walk-around lens.
> Any opinions out there on what to invest in? My main reason is for the versatility and to NOT have to carry my three primes all day.



Just my take:
I experienced a great versatility of the EF 2.8/24mm with a crop body resulting in roughly 38 mm focal lengh.

If I go to full frame the probability to buy a Voigtländer Ultron 2,0/40 SL II is near 100 percent.
200 grams, 24.5 mm length makes it a non obtrusive lens - on the camera and in a pocket if another lens is on the camera. Only drawback (perhaps) is the the lack of AF and maybe the price. Max reproduction ration is 1:7 and 1:4 with a closeup-lens delivered with that lens.
This lens might be a good compromise between your wide and standard prime. For the long end the 2.0/100 EF might be a more compact choice.

It is not "the one" lens for walkaround but a compact lens set: A compromise between prime addictness (I know that!) and reduced weight/size.
For *ME* I love to use just the 38mm and the 160mm focal length as walk around combo - given in equivalent on my crop body for the EF 24 and the EF 100 or EF 100 macro.

Sorry for bringing a non-Canon lens in play - if canon would produce a pancakeö EF 2.0/40mm I would buy it just in time!


----------

