07-05-2011, 02:03 PM
[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1309867365' post='9750']
I wrote:
"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 meant the 28mm/2.8 is not better than the 17-40mm/4.0 at 28mm, so that's why I haven't used this lens.
Best wishes,
Reinier
[/quote]
Nothing really is much better than the 17-40mm f4 L USM stopped down, lenses tend to be quite close at f5.6-f11.
The reason I (and I suspect also Wim) mentioned the 24mm f2.8, is that it tends to stand out a bit, being contrasty and sharp, with not a lot of barrel distortion, compared the other affordable primes and the wide ends of standard zooms. 24mm also usually is a bit more attractive to use than 28mm, when one wants a wide angle... so it might still be an interesting complement to any standard zoom you select, but that is for you to ponder over and decide about. Since you plan to get rid of your UWA, the 24mm f2.8 would not be competing with the 17-40mm f4 L USM anymore either... and it is a lot more compact and lightweight of course.
To me, the combination of standard zoom (the Tamron 28-75mm, Canon 24-85, 28-105, 28-135 IS have all been mentioned) and the 24mm f2.8 for distortion free, contrasty wide landscapes on a budget and lightweight/compact, seems like an ideal combination for you, to me. As you will not find a standard zoom with very little distortion at the wide end.
My ideal wide angle lenses for FF are the lovely 24mm f1.4 L USM II (I believe Wim has thatone). But it is expensive. The 24mm f2.8 is surprisingly good, and a very affordable alternative. I will be getting one for my current APS-C camera, in the near-ish future, for wide angle close up/macro stuff (and the 20mm f3.5 voigtlander), I will be using it for that purpose with 12mm extension tube.
Like Win mentions, the 24-105mm f4 L IS USM is a great standard zoom, but not without quite obvious barrel distortion at the wide end. With its 670 grams it is less heavy than the 24-70mm f2.8 which weighs a kilo, but that may still be more heavy than you want. The other mentioned alternatives then are weighing less.
I wrote:
"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 meant the 28mm/2.8 is not better than the 17-40mm/4.0 at 28mm, so that's why I haven't used this lens.
Best wishes,
Reinier
[/quote]
Nothing really is much better than the 17-40mm f4 L USM stopped down, lenses tend to be quite close at f5.6-f11.
The reason I (and I suspect also Wim) mentioned the 24mm f2.8, is that it tends to stand out a bit, being contrasty and sharp, with not a lot of barrel distortion, compared the other affordable primes and the wide ends of standard zooms. 24mm also usually is a bit more attractive to use than 28mm, when one wants a wide angle... so it might still be an interesting complement to any standard zoom you select, but that is for you to ponder over and decide about. Since you plan to get rid of your UWA, the 24mm f2.8 would not be competing with the 17-40mm f4 L USM anymore either... and it is a lot more compact and lightweight of course.
To me, the combination of standard zoom (the Tamron 28-75mm, Canon 24-85, 28-105, 28-135 IS have all been mentioned) and the 24mm f2.8 for distortion free, contrasty wide landscapes on a budget and lightweight/compact, seems like an ideal combination for you, to me. As you will not find a standard zoom with very little distortion at the wide end.
My ideal wide angle lenses for FF are the lovely 24mm f1.4 L USM II (I believe Wim has thatone). But it is expensive. The 24mm f2.8 is surprisingly good, and a very affordable alternative. I will be getting one for my current APS-C camera, in the near-ish future, for wide angle close up/macro stuff (and the 20mm f3.5 voigtlander), I will be using it for that purpose with 12mm extension tube.
Like Win mentions, the 24-105mm f4 L IS USM is a great standard zoom, but not without quite obvious barrel distortion at the wide end. With its 670 grams it is less heavy than the 24-70mm f2.8 which weighs a kilo, but that may still be more heavy than you want. The other mentioned alternatives then are weighing less.