Indecision help needed!

[Liz]

I was going to get the Canon 24-105 IS L lens when I get my tax return. The first production of this lens was "recalled" by Canon due to a specific flare problem. All the lenses were replaced by brand new lenses. There is a huge shortage of these lenses due to their popularity with IS and L combined along with the zoom.

Well, I caved and got the lens now because Norman Camera called me to say they had it in - I had forgotten I was on their waiting list. Now I have to pay for it! I need to sell a couple of lenses to help out - or pay lots of interest on my charge between now and tax time.

I'm having a problem deciding which lenses to sell. I need to sell 2 of the 3 and am having difficulty parting with any of them. The lenses are all Canon and include: 35mm/f2.0, 50mm/f1.4 and 85mm/f1.8. I want to keep the 17-40.

I had decided to sell the 85mm anyway, but wasn't in a hurry since I put off getting the lens - now I need to make a decision and do it!

I'd love some practical suggestions to give me a boost to "let go" of 2 of the 3 lenses. I do need one low light lens for indoors.

Thanks.

Liz

[another view]

From what you're saying, selling the 35 and the 85 makes the most sense. The 35 is an f2.0 which is only one stop faster than your 17-40, and that lens has the same focal length in it's range. You've decided to sell the 85, so that would leave the 50. I think it would be a good idea to keep this one, because it will be two stops faster than any other lens you'll own (17-40 and 24-105).

YMMV.

[Liz]

Thank you, Steve, I have one other question.

Am I crazy to sell the 85mm vs the 50mm/f1.4 - the 85mm is probably better for low light, but then I won't have a nice small kit to take out on those "tired" days. ;)

Any pros and/or cons?

Liz

From what you're saying, selling the 35 and the 85 makes the most sense. The 35 is an f2.0 which is only one stop faster than your 17-40, and that lens has the same focal length in it's range. You've decided to sell the 85, so that would leave the 50. I think it would be a good idea to keep this one, because it will be two stops faster than any other lens you'll own (17-40 and 24-105).

YMMV.

[drg]

I'd keep the lens you think is the 'best' of the three. I personally really like 50/1.4's as an all around lens.

The 85mm length (and its been a few years since I've used a prime length close to that) is great for a studio setting where that extra reach keeps you out of the lights and out of the face of the model and flattens the features slightly,etc. For all around lens though I think its a bit long, and digital crop adds additional issue.

If you don't have a 'good' 50/1.4, sell all of them and find a 50/1.8 for $100 bucks and you're covered!

I've never seen a 'bad' Canon 50/1.8. I have seen a couple of 1.4's that weren't as good optically as I'd like. It's usually very apparent, either a chromatic aberration or the contrast isn't defined enough, or the resolution is not worth the extra cost.That's what I mean by a 'good' one.

Best of luck with your choice.

[another view]

Am I crazy to sell the 85mm vs the 50mm/f1.4 - the 85mm is probably better for low light

Actually I'd say just the opposite. First, the 85 is f1.8, right? That's a 2/3 stop disadvantage. Then there's handholding - with practice may be able to get sharp handheld images with an 85 at 1/60, but if you can do that with the 85 then you can go to 1/30 on the 50 - there's another whole stop.

Of course you won't always use the absolute minimum shutter speed you can handle or the widest aperture, but you have those tools available and in low light every little bit counts.

[Liz]

Steve,

Very good points. Sold! I've been strongly inclined to keep the 50mm/f1.4 as it's my favorite prime. I've always loved it - but most people LOVE that 85mm/f1.8 so I thought I was missing something.

I think I still have a buyer for the 85mm too. ;)

Liz

Actually I'd say just the opposite. First, the 85 is f1.8, right? That's a 2/3 stop disadvantage. Then there's handholding - with practice may be able to get sharp handheld images with an 85 at 1/60, but if you can do that with the 85 then you can go to 1/30 on the 50 - there's another whole stop.

Of course you won't always use the absolute minimum shutter speed you can handle or the widest aperture, but you have those tools available and in low light every little bit counts.

[Liz]

Thanks for the input - I've been leaning toward keeping the 50mm/f1.4 - and I have a great copy. It's my favorite prime. As I said to Steve, there is a lot of fuss made over the 85mm/f1.8 - it sort of has a reputation of being one of Canon's best non-L so I was afraid I'd regret it.

The 85mm length is a very good point - especially since I have an XT which brings it to about 136mm. I almost forgot how long that is. :-)

Thanks......I love the color rendition of the 50mm/f1.4 - I've never regretted getting this lens. So guess I'll go with my first impulse.

Thanks - I lost my doubts about making the right decision now.
Liz

I'd keep the lens you think is the 'best' of the three. I personally really like 50/1.4's as an all around lens.

The 85mm length (and its been a few years since I've used a prime length close to that) is great for a studio setting where that extra reach keeps you out of the lights and out of the face of the model and flattens the features slightly,etc. For all around lens though I think its a bit long, and digital crop adds additional issue.

If you don't have a 'good' 50/1.4, sell all of them and find a 50/1.8 for $100 bucks and you're covered!

I've never seen a 'bad' Canon 50/1.8. I have seen a couple of 1.4's that weren't as good optically as I'd like. It's usually very apparent, either a chromatic aberration or the contrast isn't defined enough, or the resolution is not worth the extra cost.That's what I mean by a 'good' one.

Best of luck with your choice.

[another view]

but most people LOVE that 85mm/f1.8 so I thought I was missing something.

Trust your own judgement - what works for some people doesn't work for everyone. Some people here are die-hard film shooters and some have no interest in anything but digital. All good tools, just a matter of whether or not they accomplish what you want them to accomplish.

[Liz]

Thanks again. BTW, I finally had a chance to try out the 24-105 - it is an awesome lens! It truly has that "L" color and it's sharp. I just love it! Even though I have to sell just about everything else to get it! It's worth it. I'll post some pictures over the weekend hopefully.

Liz

Trust your own judgement - what works for some people doesn't work for everyone. Some people here are die-hard film shooters and some have no interest in anything but digital. All good tools, just a matter of whether or not they accomplish what you want them to accomplish.

[Peter_AUS]

Liz, keep the 50 and sell the others. I hope the replacement lens works out better than the original did.

[Franglais]

I was going to get the Canon 24-105 IS L lens when I get my tax return. The first production of this lens was "recalled" by Canon due to a specific flare problem. All the lenses were replaced by brand new lenses. There is a huge shortage of these lenses due to their popularity with IS and L combined along with the zoom.

Well, I caved and got the lens now because Norman Camera called me to say they had it in - I had forgotten I was on their waiting list. Now I have to pay for it! I need to sell a couple of lenses to help out - or pay lots of interest on my charge between now and tax time.

I'm having a problem deciding which lenses to sell. I need to sell 2 of the 3 and am having difficulty parting with any of them. The lenses are all Canon and include: 35mm/f2.0, 50mm/f1.4 and 85mm/f1.8. I want to keep the 17-40.

I had decided to sell the 85mm anyway, but wasn't in a hurry since I put off getting the lens - now I need to make a decision and do it!

I'd love some practical suggestions to give me a boost to "let go" of 2 of the 3 lenses. I do need one low light lens for indoors.

Thanks.

Liz

I'm a Nikon user. Perhaps this is why I don't agree with all that has gone before. Plus I don't remember exactly what sort of camera Liz has. Did you change your film body for a 300D then a 350D? I'm assuming you did.

I find the most useful prime lens with an APS-sized sensor is the 35mm f2. This gives me a "normal" view (equivalent to a 50mm in film terms). It's a full TWO stops faster than the 17-40 f4 and the 24-105 f4 (who said one stop??) which makes it a useful available light lens.

Let us know how you get on with the 24-105. I've seen it suggested that this lens is particularly suited to correction in software like DXO. It's supposed to be very sharp with lots of distortion. The shape of lenses to come?

Charles

[another view]

It's a full TWO stops faster than the 17-40 f4 and the 24-105 f4 (who said one stop??) which makes it a useful available light lens.

I did - oops. Guess I was thinking that the 17-40 was a 2.8 lens like the Nikon 17-35... I stand corrected.

[Lava Lamp]

Just wanted to say I've bought and sold many lenses and sometimes agonized over one, but never really miss it when it's gone. You can do more with less than you think sometimes. When I went digital, I sold me 85mm 1.8 (Nikon) and never ever miss it. I think now and then that I'd like a 50mm 1.4 and I frequently use the 35mm 2.0.

[Liz]

Let us know how you get on with the 24-105. I've seen it suggested that this lens is particularly suited to correction in software like DXO. It's supposed to be very sharp with lots of distortion.

So far, I love it! I haven't experience distortion to any more of a degree than most lenses at 24mm which isn't much.

I love the color rendition. As soon as I saw my first images and the color/sharpness I knew I made the right decision.

Where did you find the reviews or whatever suggested special correction in DXO? I've only read excellent reviews - but I only found 3 official reviews (official"meaning not just by a new owner - but done by those who do reviews for websites).

Thanks - I'll keep shooting. I haven't done much because of time.

Liz

[Franglais]

Let us know how you get on with the 24-105. I've seen it suggested that this lens is particularly suited to correction in software like DXO. It's supposed to be very sharp with lots of distortion.

So far, I love it! I haven't experience distortion to any more of a degree than most lenses at 24mm which isn't much.

I love the color rendition. As soon as I saw my first images and the color/sharpness I knew I made the right decision.

Where did you find the reviews or whatever suggested special correction in DXO? I've only read excellent reviews - but I only found 3 official reviews (official"meaning not just by a new owner - but done by those who do reviews for websites).

Thanks - I'll keep shooting. I haven't done much because of time.

Liz

I was looking at a summary in Chasseurs d'Images November 2005 p134. It's all in French and you don't get Chasseurs d'Images in the States, so to summarise their test (done on a D5):

The problem area is at the 24mm setting. Vignetting is 1.3 diaphragms at full aperture and even at f11 it's still 0.7 diaphragms (0.3 diaphragms is a more typical figure). Distortion is 1.5% barrel at 24mm but by 32mm it's already dropped to 0.26% (0.65% is a more typical figure at 24mm).

If you're shooting on a Rebel XT the vignetting won't matter to you because you're only using the center of the frame. And the distortion you can remove in DXO if you really want to.

The good news is the sharpmess. I don't think I've ever seen a test where the lens is so sharp all the time, at all apertures and focal lengths. The only time it's less than excellent is at full aperture at the 105mm setting.

The whole thing is atypical. It's as though the engineers had changed their goals knowing that certain defects could be removed with software. I'm curious to see if the new Nikon 18-200 VR has the same sort of performance.

Charles

[Liz]

Thanks Charles,

I do have the Canon Rebel XT - so the distortion would be less than an issue. I'm going to test it some more, but so far I'm very happy. Maybe I was too busy looking at the color - and didn't really pick up on the distortion. I have to say the color rendition is absolutely awesome - true "L" quality.

Thank for your taking the time to translate and post this. I really appreciate it and will look for the distortion and vignetting. I paid a lot of money for this lens and - in a perfect world, the lens would be perfect.... I am blown away by the sharpness and color, so guess I can live with the rest.

IS - I need the IS because I finally got to the point where I can admit to myself that my slight camera shake problem isn't going to disappear. With some lenses it is more evident so I sold them - it's not noticeable with my 50mm/f1.4 - the images aren't affected probably due to the f1.4. The 24-105 is worth the money even for Is alone - and I get all those perks besides (paid the price, of course)

Liz

I was looking at a summary in Chasseurs d'Images November 2005 p134. It's all in French and you don't get Chasseurs d'Images in the States, so to summarise their test (done on a D5):

The problem area is at the 24mm setting. Vignetting is 1.3 diaphragms at full aperture and even at f11 it's still 0.7 diaphragms (0.3 diaphragms is a more typical figure). Distortion is 1.5% barrel at 24mm but by 32mm it's already dropped to 0.26% (0.65% is a more typical figure at 24mm).

If you're shooting on a Rebel XT the vignetting won't matter to you because you're only using the center of the frame. And the distortion you can remove in DXO if you really want to.

The good news is the sharpmess. I don't think I've ever seen a test where the lens is so sharp all the time, at all apertures and focal lengths. The only time it's less than excellent is at full aperture at the 105mm setting.

The whole thing is atypical. It's as though the engineers had changed their goals knowing that certain defects could be removed with software. I'm curious to see if the new Nikon 18-200 VR has the same sort of performance.

Charles