swapping out one set of lenses for another?

[richard plumb]

anyone done a wholesale rejig of their lens collection?

I'm toying with the idea of dumping my 10-20 sigma, 24-105L and 70-300IS, and replacing them with the 17-55IS and 70-200f4L IS. Plus possibly the 1.4x teleconverter to give me the 300mm if I find I miss it.

I don't use ultra wide much, so the 10-20 is mostly used in the 15-20 range, so I think I could live without it. Then as a walkaround although I'd have a shorter lens, I would gain a stop and the 17-55 is supposed to be a great little lens.

same on the long end - I'd gain not only a stop, but a constant f4 rather than the variable aperture of the 70-300

Only thing is I'm unsure about losing the long end on the 24-105 so will I end up swapping more? Also I'll lose the 200-300. And will there be any noticeable quality increase? I'm very happy with the two longer lenses so I don't expect anything major, but mostly focusing on increased usability with them being faster?

[Tobers]

I'd keep the 10-20 and 24-105, ditch the long zoom and get the 70-200. That way you can move to a 5D or 1D later on, whereas the 17-55 is crop-sensor only.

If you get the 17-55 and upgrade the body later, you'll go back to the 24-105 for sure.

The 10-20 will give monster vignetting on a 5D, but might be OK-ish on a 1D. As you've got it now you might as well keep it, and flog it if you do change the body - prob go for a 16-35 if you get a 5D.

The 70-200 is a top lens - very nice indeed. The 1.4x converter is a nice piece of kit as well but I've found it can make the shot a tad soft at f4 on the 70-200, and you lose a stop so will be at 5.6 max anyway. It's good to have in the bag though - nice and tiny.

[cedmondson]

As far as the 17-55 vs 24-105 goes, you should ask Dave Bass. He was switching from 24-105 to 17-55 around the time I was choosing between those two so his threads here caught my interest. FWIW - I went for the 24-105 regardless. A couple of months ago I recall he was agonising about changing back. If I understand correctly he, you & I all have 40D's.

My personal view is I'm 95% happy with the 24-105 decision. You can see which other lenses I have in my sig. For me it's mainly about where it seems easier to change lens. My logic is that I only really want to go below 24mm shooting landscapes - and when I do my UWA is just the job. Generally though, I really like that bit of reach from 55mm to 105mm without a lens change. I sometimes covet the idea of F2.8 but wonder if it's just a case of the grass on the other side being greener. Every once in a while I find a situation where a 17-55 would be easier.... but I bet I'd miss the 24-105 benefits too if I changed.

I'm also slightly intrigued about why you've identified this as a 'bundle' decision. Certainly I'd see the 70-300 vs 70-200 as an entirely distinct issue.
Also why not keep the 10-20 in the short term (unless you need to raise funds from it) to see if it really becomes redundant? It's taken me some time to get even remotely comfortable with the wide-end of my UWA compositionally but now I have, I'm liking it a lot.

[h4rri]

I dropped the 24-105 in favour of the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

Don't regret it for a minute

[richard plumb]

cedmonson, thanks. Your kit is basically the same as mine, except my UWA is the sigma.

your comments are spot on too, and make me think twice. Like you, I appreciate the overlap between my 'standard' and long lens so I don't have to swap too often. I don't know if I'll find a 55mm long end too short.

Likewise on the 70-200. I'm sure the quality is great, but will I miss the 200-300?

I think part of the reason I'm thinking of it as a bundle, is that if I stick with the 24-105, then the 70-200 is really only a 105-200 if you see what I mean. Whereas if I bought the 17-55, I get more use of the full range of the 70-200.

The extra stop is appealing though, especially combined with the better high ISO performance of my 40D compared to my 350d.

Or do I keep my current setup and add something like the 30mm 1.4 for indoors/low light shots? Thats really where I'm wanting a little more I think, and the main reason for considering the 17-55.


These discussions always end up in big circular arguments in my head

[T0MAT01]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

I don't know if I'll find a 55mm long end too short.

If you've got the kit lens then pop that on and go for a walk with it. I know 55mm is too short for my liking even on a crop body and that's why I don't mind losing a bit at the wide end in favour of a bit more reach from the 24-105.

I guess you could also use one of them focal length exif checkers to see how often you use the 55-105mm range (some progs will even let you check through photos taken with a specific lens so you wont get skewed results from photos taken with your 70-300).

What this comes down to in the end is the usefullness of f/2.8 to you, which in turn depends on what you like to shoot...

[Tobers]

Yep - this is more of a f2.8 versus f4+IS debate I think.

Will f4+IS get you the shot more reliably than f2.8 without IS? And if your camera has really good ISO performance you could just whack up the ISO anyway to negate the 1 stop difference.

Regarding using the 70-200 more because you have a 17-55, rather than having an overlap - I dont think that needs to be much of a consideration. I wouldn't worry about not using a lens in a certain situation. I'd be more concerned about whether the lens I have on the camera at that time will get the shot without needing changing. The 17-55 will cover the wide end better than the 24-105, but the 24-105 will get longer shots better. So...do you use wide angle and your feet more (go for 17-55) or long zoom (keep the 24-105).

Might be worth you checking out the reviews on www.fredmiranda.com and also there are lens galleries on the lens section of photography-on-the.net/forum/

In the end, only you will know. If you've got the money, buy everything

Tobers

[tomson]

Just a thought...Don't get too bogged down with thinking you have to cover everything within an XXmm to XXXmm range - i used to use a 16-35, a 24-70, a 70-200 and a bunch of primes and spent more time thinking about what lens i needed rather than the composition of the shot. Now I shoot probably about 95% of the time with just two lenses - and I move about much more looking at the subject, changing my view point. If you stand in one spot changing lenses (as loads of people seem to do) you sometimes end up with really uninspiring, almost predictable images.

[daveb975]

I was abroad recently, and gave my 24-105 it's first real workout on the 40D since changing from a 17-85IS.

The only hassle I had was having to swap to my 10-22 more often than I would have done as I found I needed the wide end for large buildings quite a lot. a 17-70 or 17-105(!) would have been great.

I have got a similar set of lenses to you - 10-22, 24-105, and 70-300IS. I would personally find the long end of the 17-55IS too short as a walkabout lens. I don't use the 80-105 section of the 24-105 that much, but I find I take a lot of shots around 50-80mm. It would be annoying to have to keep changing in this range.

I too love the idea of a constant 2.8 and IS on my walkabout lens. If Canon would release an improved version of the 17-85IS, it may just about be my perfect lens.

[richard plumb]

yes, a nice 17-85 f4L IS would be nice. Or buy a 5D/6D which makes your 24-105 into a 17-85

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

Or buy a 5D/6D which makes your 24-105 into a 17-85

Eh? It stays as a 24-105.

[richard plumb]

I didn't want to try and be specific because all this crop/perspective/fov stuff confuses me.

But you'll get a field of view that is equivalent to a 17-85 on a crop camera. I think?

[Radiohead]

I think you're confusing things more by trying to reverse what is 35mm to a crop equivalence.

[cedmondson]

Richard,

I doubt I can add much more on the 17-55 vs 24-105 debate other than to introduce the thought that as you'd probably blow at least a few hundred quid on the change, why not consider keeping what you have and adding a Tamron 17-50 F2.8? Best of all worlds I'd say.....

I still think the 70-300 vs 70-200 decision should be taken in isolation - although I think I (sort of) comprehend your logic. I'd thoroughly recommend trying the two lenses side by side in your local camera shop and comparing the results. I did exactly that and could barely detect a difference. Adding a 1.4X extender to the 70-200, I thought the 70-300 was actually a bit sharper! Don't take my word for it though - make your own mind up.

......oh & a nifty fifty which I also have (& I've seen your other thread) may be the cheapest & simplest way to add a bit of fast glass / shallow DoF to your arsenal.

[jamesbryan17]

Originally Posted by Tobers

I'd keep the 10-20 and 24-105, ditch the long zoom and get the 70-200. That way you can move to a 5D or 1D later on, whereas the 17-55 is crop-sensor only.

If you get the 17-55 and upgrade the body later, you'll go back to the 24-105 for sure.

The 10-20 will give monster vignetting on a 5D, but might be OK-ish on a 1D. As you've got it now you might as well keep it, and flog it if you do change the body - prob go for a 16-35 if you get a 5D.

The 70-200 is a top lens - very nice indeed. The 1.4x converter is a nice piece of kit as well but I've found it can make the shot a tad soft at f4 on the 70-200, and you lose a stop so will be at 5.6 max anyway. It's good to have in the bag though - nice and tiny.

The 10-20mm doesn't work on a full frame