Hello All,
About 1,5 years ago I bought a second hand Canon EOS 5D I together with a EF 17-40mm. Although the 17-40 is a fine lens, it is not the range I prefer. In my film days I always had a Canon EF 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 II. Actually I still have it, but after 20 years of intense usage, it has been broken.
I would love to own a 28-70mm(a bigger range is welcome too) once again and sell my 17-40mm. I have read some tests, but I cannot make up my mind yet.
Of course I want quality(who doesn't) I will use the lens for landscapes(flat Dutch landscapes and seascapes), buildings and nature. I want as little distortion and field curvature(or none at all) as possible. And weight is important too, like the Canon 24-70/2.8 is too heavy. I have about 500-600 euro to spent.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Kind regards,
Reinier
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1309765804' post='9728']
Hello All,
About 1,5 years ago I bought a second hand Canon EOS 5D I together with a EF 17-40mm. Although the 17-40 is a fine lens, it is not the range I prefer. In my film days I always had a Canon EF 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 II. Actually I still have it, but after 20 years of intense usage, it has been broken.
I would love to own a 28-70mm(a bigger range is welcome too) once again and sell my 17-40mm. I have read some tests, but I cannot make up my mind yet.
Of course I want quality(who doesn't) I will use the lens for landscapes(flat Dutch landscapes and seascapes), buildings and nature. I want as little distortion and field curvature(or none at all) as possible. And weight is important too, like the Canon 24-70/2.8 is too heavy. I have about 500-600 euro to spent.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Kind regards,
Reinier
[/quote]
There's basically no standard zoom lens without field curvature and little distortions.
Regarding your budget limits there's probably just the Tamron 28-75 and the old Sigma 24-70/2.8 to choose from.
I would probably lean towards the Tamron and pray for a good sample.
You want a cheap/affordable standard zoom, of not too much weight. The Tarmon 28-75mm f2.8 XD Di is indeed an option. Not sure how it compares to that old 28-70 you had, but in the center it is a sharp lens, and the corners are ok. At half a kilo, it is not light, but light for an f2.8 lens.
Another option can be the very affordable Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM (I or II). It focusses silently, fast and accurately on the 5D, and is reasonably sharp when you stop down a bit. Problem is availability in the Netherlands (has not been carried by Canon here for many years now) but if you find it for instance 2nd hand, it is a nice lens for the money.
Saw one on market place with original box for €150 for instance.
With either of those, I would get a Canon EF 24mm f2.8 for the distortion free wide angle shots... a contrasty lens, low in distortion, sharp, compact and light.. Great to also bring along (weight) and make wide landscape shots, when you need a bit better optics.
I personally found the EF 24-105/4L to be a very good standard lens on the 5D ... however,
it will not fit into your budget ... and it also exposes quite an amount of
barrel-distortion at 24mm (which might be unacceptable to you for the price the 24-105L costs).
Besides the lenses already named (Tamron 28-75/2.8, Sigma 24-70/2.8 and Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5)
I see the "EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM" and the "EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM"
Just my 2cts ... Rainer
Canon 28-135 IS and Tamron 28-75/2.8 were the two lenses that popped into my head.
The first would give you lots of range and IS, the second more speed and a tad more sharpness.
Both these zooms start at 28 mm. You already have an ultrawide so why get a 24-something zoom. Those cost more and have distortion at the wide end.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309777228' post='9731']
You want a cheap/affordable standard zoom, of not too much weight. The Tarmon 28-75mm f2.8 XD Di is indeed an option. Not sure how it compares to that old 28-70 you had, but in the center it is a sharp lens, and the corners are ok. At half a kilo, it is not light, but light for an f2.8 lens.
Another option can be the very affordable Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM (I or II). It focusses silently, fast and accurately on the 5D, and is reasonably sharp when you stop down a bit. Problem is availability in the Netherlands (has not been carried by Canon here for many years now) but if you find it for instance 2nd hand, it is a nice lens for the money.
Saw one on market place with original box for €150 for instance.
With either of those, I would get a Canon EF 24mm f2.8 for the distortion free wide angle shots... a contrasty lens, low in distortion, sharp, compact and light.. Great to also bring along (weight) and make wide landscape shots, when you need a bit better optics.
[/quote]
sorry but the 28-105 3.5-4.5 is optically crap. from 28-50mm it never gets sharp, even stopped down to f/8 or f/11. Between 50-105 it is decently sharp at f/8- f/11, but horrible wide open. I had one for years during the film days and always used my Tokina 20-35 at the wide end and a misfocssing Sigma 70-200 at the long eninstead. Autofocus, was splendid with this lens though.
if your budget doesnt strech, Id go for the 28-135 inestead which is 400 Euros and optically much improved. Of course a decent Tamron 28-75 could also provide good results, with the advantage of higher speed.
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1309806821' post='9735']
sorry but the 28-105 3.5-4.5 is optically crap. from 28-50mm it never gets sharp, even stopped down to f/8 or f/11. Between 50-105 it is decently sharp at f/8- f/11, but horrible wide open. I had one for years during the film days and always used my Tokina 20-35 at the wide end and a misfocssing Sigma 70-200 at the long eninstead. Autofocus, was splendid with this lens though.
if your budget doesnt strech, Id go for the 28-135 inestead which is 400 Euros and optically much improved. Of course a decent Tamron 28-75 could also provide good results, with the advantage of higher speed.
[/quote]
That can be a sample variation thing, I know a number of people who actually like the 28-105mm quite a bit. Of course, not an L-lens.
I just now looked on fred miranda, and there too are a number of people who like it, and then there are some who do not. It gets a noticeably higher score than the 28-135 on fred miranda too.
Many conflicting opinions about these two lenses.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309851742' post='9745']
That can be a sample variation thing, I know a number of people who actually like the 28-105mm quite a bit. Of course, not an L-lens.
I just now looked on fred miranda, and there too are a number of people who like it, and then there are some who do not. It gets a noticeably higher score than the 28-135 on fred miranda too.
Many conflicting opinions about these two lenses.
[/quote]
In any case - both have high distortions at 28mm. I wouldn't be on low field curvature either.
For the sake of completion you could add the 24-85mm USM. Strangely it has been discontinued but it's probably somewhat better than the other two IN THE OVERLAPPING RANGE.
Hi Reinier,
If you want as little distortion and field curvature as possible, I reckon you will have to go the prime route, probably something along the lines of 24 F/2.8, 50 F.1.8 or F/1.4, and 85 F/1.8 or the old 100 F/2.8 non-L macro.
If you can get over some distortion, and I know it is out of your budget, did you consider the 24-105 F/4L yet? Very good for a standard zoom on the 5D, and in good, used condition a little over your current budget (around € 700).
Kind regards, Wim
Hello Everybody,
Thanks very much for the replies and advice.
I could probably stretch my budget a little, let's say maybe towards 750 euro, but that depends how much I get for my 17-40mm.
At the moment I have the following lenses:
EF 28mm/2.8
EF 50mm/2.8
EF 17-40mm/4.0
EF 70-200/4.0
Tamron 200-400mm(bought for just 125 euro)
I am not to keen on this lens, because it's not worthwhile to use this lens isntead of the 17-40mm at 28mm. I am planning to sell both lenses. I also have the 50mm/1.8, but it has never been used. It came with the camera when I bought it(second hand).
Distortion can be a problem with flat horizons like seascapes when the horizon is in the top or bottom of the frame. Of course I can correct this, but I try to do as little post processing as possible, due to the limited amount of time I am able to sit.
Best wishes,
Reinier
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1309862416' post='9748']
Hi Reinier,
If you want as little distortion and field curvature as possible, I reckon you will have to go the prime route, probably something along the lines of 24 F/2.8, 50 F.1.8 or F/1.4, and 85 F/1.8 or the old 100 F/2.8 non-L macro.
If you can get over some distortion, and I know it is out of your budget, did you consider the 24-105 F/4L yet? Very good for a stnadard zoom on the 5D, and in good, used condition a little over your current budget (around € 700).
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]