I'm selling my Canon 24 - 105 f/4 L; time to move to 2x primes

[alfa147x]

Here is what I'm thinking I'll sell my 24 - 105 f/4L for about $800 and my EF 50 f/1.8 for $65 for $900 I should be able to get two fast prime lenses.

Also they must be EF since I'm looking to buy a used 5D sometime next year.

I'v always wanted a Canon 50 f/1.4 I think that's going to take about $340

Leaving $560 for a wide prime lens

Any off brand prime recommendations? I need something wide around 24mm
It would be a nice pair with the 50 1.4

Any reason not to buy a 50 1.4? Any reason I should stick with my 24 - 105 f/4L ?
What are thoughts about the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG? That's EF right?

This is still in the brainstorming stage, so if my thoughts seemed to be in disarray that is why

Thanks guys,
Alfa147x

 

[klocwerk]

the 50mm 1.4 is a very nice lens, I don't think you'd go wrong there.
You're losing a useful zoom lens though. Consider if you're going to miss having that zoom as a general walk-about, I know I would.

 

[randomlinh]

The sigma 20/24 aren't too bad, but aren't too great either. But I don't think you have much of a choice.. it's that or the 24L. There's also the 24/2.8 from canon, and I almost got it, but could not find a good used copy (new seems ridiculously priced).

and as stated, the zoom is a pretty nice walk around, so are you ready to give that up? Personally, I can and did, but it's damn difficult when shooting events.

 

[alfa147x]

The sigma 20/24 aren't too bad, but aren't too great either. But I don't think you have much of a choice.. it's that or the 24L. There's also the 24/2.8 from canon, and I almost got it, but could not find a good used copy (new seems ridiculously priced).

and as stated, the zoom is a pretty nice walk around, so are you ready to give that up? Personally, I can and did, but it's damn difficult when shooting events.

Thanks guys,

I think 20 - 24 rang would be perfect. Is ebay an okay sourse for used lenses?

I can give up the zoom because I don't shoot events anymore. Photography has gone from a hobby to job to a hobby and I might try to get into real estate photography. I don't know just yet. But I love my 50 1.8 and I think I can give up the zoom.

 

[randomlinh]

Wait a sec, you have crop cameras, heh, didn't notice that. Any take on the sig 30? EF mount, but the glass is for crop.

As for ebay, it depends basically. I bought two m42 lenses w/o a problem, but that's a different market. I'd stick to fredmiranda and POTN if you could w/ used lenses.

 

[alfa147x]

Wait a sec, you have crop cameras, heh, didn't notice that. Any take on the sig 30? EF mount, but the glass is for crop.

As for ebay, it depends basically. I bought two m42 lenses w/o a problem, but that's a different market. I'd stick to fredmiranda and POTN if you could w/ used lenses.

Yeah since I plan on upgrading to a 5D I don't want to invest in any crop glass

Alright I'll keep those places in mind

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Yesterday you created a thread stating that the 24-105 is your favorite lens...

 

[996GT2]

Yeah since I plan on upgrading to a 5D I don't want to invest in any crop glass

Alright I'll keep those places in mind

The 24-105 IS is the FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, which is one of the most-recommended lenses for crop-sensor cameras. You sure you're ready to give up this very useful range?

-24-105 has a similar range to the 17-55 on crop (which is 27-88)
-f/4 on FF has similar depth of field to f/2.8 on crop
-FF cameras are about 1-2 stop better in ISO performance so you can use a higher ISO compensate for the f/4


If you plan to upgrade to FF soon, I would keep the 24-105. If you plan to stick with APS-C for a while, I'd sell the 24-105 and get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 + the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. You should still have a few hundred left over after you buy those two if you want to add a third lens to the lineup.

 

[Madwand1]

Canon's affordable wide primes are mostly old designs which are nothing special and generally out-performed by modern high-quality zooms such as the 24-105, which as noted elsewhere, is also a great range to have, especially on FF.

Distortion would be the main weakness on zooms, but this is correctable in post-processing. Speed is not that critical for wides, and the FFs especially have good low-light capability.

Get a FF body, and you'll have a very wide lens in the 24-105.

Another option might be to re-buy the 24-105 as a kit with a FF, but this path gets you another lens more suited to a crop which would probably be not as useful down the road.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

The Sigma 20/1.8 is pretty soft. I would take the Canon 28/1.8 over it. But then, I'm not sure that I could ever give up zooms for primes. I know the 24-105 isn't the best on crops, so maybe switch to the 17-55 like 996GT2 said. I was a big fan of the Sigma 30/1.4 when I had a copy.

Hey 996GT2, I just realized you're on POTN! I'm the guy that sold you the wonky 30D. How's it holding up?

 

[jpeyton]

If you buy a good copy of the Sigma 50/1.4, it would be noticeably better than the Canon 50/1.4. By "good copy", I mean one that has the autofocus dialed-in with your camera body. The Sigma will be sharper wide-open, has better bokeh, and feels better built.

The 100/2.8 macro is a good second prime.

 

[Madwand1]

The 24-105 IS is the FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8

The 24-105 is wider on a FF -- equivalent to 15-66 on a crop. The new EF-S 15-85 3.5-5.6 comes closer to a direct match, and goes even longer, but with loss of some speed. The 15-85 is reported to be a good lens, and considering the usefulness of the 24-105 range on a FF, it'd probably be a great lens to have on a crop unless a wider aperture is critical to you.

 

[Madwand1]

FWIW: http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/03/ef-50-f1-4-ii-usm-cr2/

 

[996GT2]

The 24-105 is wider on a FF -- equivalent to 15-66 on a crop. The new EF-S 15-85 3.5-5.6 comes closer to a direct match, and goes even longer, but with loss of some speed. The 15-85 is reported to be a good lens, and considering the usefulness of the 24-105 range on a FF, it'd probably be a great lens to have on a crop unless a wider aperture is critical to you.

The 24-105 is wider and reaches a little further than the 17-55, but I consider those two the most similar due to the constant aperture and the fact that f/4 on FF is very similar DOF-wise to f/2.8 on crop. the 15-85 is in a different class of lens IMO (more consumer oriented).

 

[996GT2]

The Sigma 20/1.8 is pretty soft. I would take the Canon 28/1.8 over it. But then, I'm not sure that I could ever give up zooms for primes. I know the 24-105 isn't the best on crops, so maybe switch to the 17-55 like 996GT2 said. I was a big fan of the Sigma 30/1.4 when I had a copy.

Hey 996GT2, I just realized you're on POTN! I'm the guy that sold you the wonky 30D. How's it holding up?

Hey, that was a while ago, but the 30D actually worked pretty well with *some* of my CF cards. You just had to be careful which card you put in the camera so that it wouldn't error...with the right card, it was fine. I ended up selling it locally though once I got the 40D.

 

[alfa147x]

If you buy a good copy of the Sigma 50/1.4, it would be noticeably better than the Canon 50/1.4. By "good copy", I mean one that has the autofocus dialed-in with your camera body. The Sigma will be sharper wide-open, has better bokeh, and feels better built.

The 100/2.8 macro is a good second prime.

Hmm the cost is $100 difference :\

 

[alfa147x]

Yesterday you created a thread stating that the 24-105 is your favorite lens...

Yeah I know but I think I'm not using all L I paid for ($600 new )

 

[alfa147x]

What if I didn't buy a 5D? I still want to stick to EF just incase

I KNOW the 24 - 105 is a good lens, I just want something faster. I'm thinking of waiting for the new 50mm 1.4, till then I'll sell my 24 - 105 buy something and use that my 100 - 400 L and my 50 1.8

I have no use for a wide angle zoom lens, I'v noticed how much I actually zoom vs zooming with my legs. This is something that I know im not going to regret

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I have no use for a wide angle zoom lens, I'v noticed how much I actually zoom vs zooming with my legs. This is something that I know im not going to regret

There is often no way to zoom with your legs to get the amount of scene into the frame that you can with, say, a 17mm lens on FF (~11mm on crop). Especially shooting interiors. There is no way to back up through a wall.

If you're serious about getting into real estate photography, your best purchase will be a wide-angle zoom and a good tripod. Doesn't matter how slow the lens is; you will be using the tripod anyway. Half-second exposures at f/11 will be your friend.

 

[alfa147x]

There is often no way to zoom with your legs to get the amount of scene into the frame that you can with, say, a 17mm lens on FF (~11mm on crop). Especially shooting interiors. There is no way to back up through a wall.

If you're serious about getting into real estate photography, your best purchase will be a wide-angle zoom and a good tripod. Doesn't matter how slow the lens is; you will be using the tripod anyway. Half-second exposures at f/11 will be your friend.

As of right now I'm not too sure about real estate photography, Could I suffice with my 18 - 55? I plan on putting any income from that into my camera

I have this tripod Link

 

[alfa147x]

What if I got a cheaper zoom lens around the 15mm EF mark then got the 50mm 1.4 II

What I'm really after is the bokeh from the primes

 

[alfa147x]

I could splurge and buy a used Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L and then a EF 50 f/1.4 II

Then I could put more money into my car

 

[996GT2]

I could splurge and buy a used Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L and then a EF 50 f/1.4 II

Then I could put more money into my car

17-40 is a very mediocre lens on APS-C. For real estate photography on crop, the Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16, or new Sigma 8-16 are much better.

If you play to get a 5D very soon though, the 17-40 is a pretty decent lens. Not the sharpest of Ls, but then again ultrawides are Nikon's forte, not Canon's.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I agree, don't go for a 17-40/4 on a crop. It will just make you mad with its limitations. A 17-55/2.8 is a lot better option.

If you're just after bokeh, your 50/1.8 is fine when wide open. An f/2.8 zoom can do a lot as well. Even your existing zooms at longer focal lengths, close focus distance and wide open (or close to it) will give a nicely blurred background.

I would just... I dunno. Your current lens setup covers a lot of bases. I would save up for a bit and pick up a 28/1.8 or 85/1.8.

 

[alfa147x]

Awesome, thanks guys,

This is what I think I'm going to do:
1) Sell my phone that I get with a new contract
2) Sell my 30D and buy a 5D whit the phone money
3) Nothing.

Really the reason I want the 50 f/1.4 II because I HATE how shitty the 1.8 feels. It would be nice to able to get super wide with the full sensor... I think that's the only place my lens line up lacks. I can't give up the 24 - 105L, it fits my collection quite nicely.