All Around Kit : Pro Budget
If you’re getting started in your professional photographic career, a student that wants a big leg up, or just someone who wants the best possible image quality in most situations, then these are the lenses to consider. Some of the lenses will cross-over, whether you’re using a full frame sensor or cropped. (Prices are current as of Dec. 19, 2010, and include instant rebates)
For APS-C Sensors
1. Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II
The New Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II USM
Not just one of the best zoom lenses I’ve used, this is one of the best lenses I’ve used, period. Razor sharp across the zoom range from edge to center, even wide open. No significant distortion. Fast focusing, great image stabilization. A truly impressive piece of engineering; and much better than the original version of this lens (make sure you get the Mark II… see article comparing 70-200mm lenses).
The Downsides: The price on this beauty is not for the faint of heart.
2. Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 USM IS
As a companion, the 17-55mm doesn’t quite cover all the way to 70mm, but it handles it’s range in an exemplary fashion. Unlike many of the competing lenses, you won’t be hampered by soft edges at the wide end of the range. Obviously, the constant f2.8 aperture will be a joy to those of us who are trying to get a shot in a dark church or theater, or who need to stop action (wind blown grass, waves, children, etc).
The Downsides : Again, the price is best handled by those who can claim tax deductions.
For Full Frame Sensors
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM L
1. Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II
Here I’ll repeat myself… not just one of the best zoom lenses I’ve used, this is one of the best lenses I’ve used, period. Razor sharp across the zoom range from edge to center, even wide open. No significant distortion. Fast focusing, great image stabilization. A truly impressive piece of engineering; and much better than the original version of this lens (make sure you get the Mark II!).
The Downsides: The price on this beauty is not for the faint of heart, but the same can be said for most professional camera equipment, I suppose.
2. Canon 24-70 f2.8 L USM
This lens is the obvious companion to the 70-200, but the optical quality isn’t quite on par. The build quality is excellent, and in general, the optical quality is quite good… but I’m hoping that Canon will release a Mark II of this lens that will correct a couple of minor problems like field curvature, and add image stabilization.
The Downsides: Price. Field curvature also appears to be an issue; this will sometimes result in soft borders if you’re photographing something that requires a flat focal plane.
@admin Do you think the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is “good enough” for a Canon substitution?
Sigma has a few 70-200 2.8s, and in general, I think they’re very good lenses…. but it’s a little hard to keep track. I think they have a mark II of the non-OS, and they have the OS.
My thoughts on Sigma in general is that their pro-line lenses are really quite good, for the most part. They’re generally larger and heavier than Canon lenses, and usually they’re not as sharp at the extremes (wide open, zoom range ends, frame borders), but not to a degree that most people would notice.
I have used the old non-OS version, but not the mark II or OS (IS) version. The old lens was good for wedding work, journalism in general, especially at f4. Reviews that I’ve seen have been very positive of the newer lenses, especially the OS version… I think the mark II may be a little less sharp at 200mm.
The HSM motors are nice and fast, and AF performance is good. The Sigma OS works about as well as Canon’s too.
So, for a pro, yes… I think the OS version would be “good enough” or better, and the mark II is probably good enough, especially considering the price tag of $799… unless you’re using it for high-resolution critical work. I actually had an even earlier variant of this lens, the 70-210 f2.8 APO that came out in about 1992. I used it for a year of high school and 2 of college, and published photos in two newspapers with it… but I was shooting film, and people had slightly different expectations at the time. I think it’s safe to assume that any of the modern lenses would be better than it, though.
Hi Matthew,
I have a difficult decision to make. I want to buy one of two lenses nearly the same price but do not know which one.
The Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L USM without IS or the Canon EF 70-200 f4 IS USM.
Thats the limit that I can spend. I saw and handles a Nikon D300 with the 2.8 lens and it was quit heavy so the person discouraged me to buy the Canon 2.8. The person also said the IS is not that important as they shoot with the Canon F4 without IS and get very good results. I must admit that they do take very high quality photos but there must be something different with such a large price gap between the two lenses.
Hope you can help me deciding.
Regards
Sorry handled not handles it fact it was today.
Hi Luna,
The 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS and the f/4 IS are both excellent lenses; which one would be better for you will depend on what you’re shooting. The 2.8 non-IS is actually a better lens than the first f/2.8 IS model; the markII of that lens is probably the best zoom lens made (but obviously, it costs).
When it comes to optical quality, I think that the two lenses are comparable… I’d have to look up some lab tests to see whether one is technically better than the other, but both are awesome in real world use.
So… what it comes down to is this: the f2.8 is one f-stop brighter than the f4, when shooting wide open. This means the difference between 1/250th second exposure and a 1/500th second exposure, for example in the same lighting conditions.
That means that it depends on what you’re trying to stop; your camera movement, or the motion of the subject. Image stabilization will allow you to take hand-held sharp photos in lower light than the f/2.8, since the IS gives you about 3 stops of camera stabilization. IS is pointless if you’re using a tripod. So, if you normally start getting blurry photos because of camera-shake at 1/250th, with IS you can hand-hold shots at 1/30th sec.
However, it doesn’t matter how still your camera is if the subject is moving. For most action photography, I want a bare minimum of 1/250th sec, and any faster is better. Slower shutter speeds will give you motion blur in fast moving subjects.
So, if you’re going to be shooting in good light, either lens will work well. In low light, the f/2.8 is better if you’re shooting action, the f/4 is better if you’re shooting stained glass windows (or anything else that isn’t going to move around too much on you).
FWIW, the f2.8L is probably the way that I’d lean… and I’d use a tripod for those times when I could otherwise use IS. But if your shooting style doesn’t lend itself to tripod use, then perhaps you’ll want to take that into consideration
- Matthew
My two cents on a great general purpose lens – the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS. It has a very usable focal length for daily use and produces great images. It’s maximum aperture isn’t huge, but between an excellent IS and today’s low noise processors it can handle most situations very ably. I would say that principle advantage for my use to a faster aperture than f/4 is OOF highlights rather than additional speed. I use four lenses (all on your lists, BTW), including the 70-200 f/4L IS, 60mm Macro, and 10-22mm) and this is the lens that is on my body 90% of the time. As is apparent from my list of lenses, I use crop bodies, but I find the 24mm wide angle to be wide enough for most purposes. This is even more true for people who use FF bodies.
Hi Dustin,
Thanks for the input. I agree that the lens is a nice focal range and it’s a good lens for full frame; I do have an objection to the lens, though, which is that it’s resolution and chromatic aberration cause problems on APS-C sensors. I’ve found them to be bad enough that even with good software, they’re not correctable in post processing. If you haven’t experienced this, you may have an exceptionally good sample (or perhaps you don’t make large prints?). I would suspect that I’d used a bad example if I were simply talking about my own experience, but I’ve heard similar reports from other photographers. Whatever the case may be, I’d certainly be happy enough with the lens on a 5D.
- Matthew
Hi Matt,
I recently shot some portraits of my daughter for a blog post with the 24-105mm f/4L on a 7D (I needed a flash unit and I didn’t have my external flash). Here’s is one of the shots
http://fauxtojournalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/peachy-beachy-6.jpg
I want your opinion if you notice the resolution and chromatic aberration problems that you mentioned. Perhaps I can’t identify them. Granted, this is a 1024px (on the long end) and 72ppi photo, but, if you need it, I can email you a full size jpeg. The only alteration that I did was the lens correction in Lightroom 3.
Thanks,
Alfred
Hi Alfred,
That’s a beautiful picture (as usual)!
I don’t see any CA issues at this size. Chromatic aberration is generally in the range of 2 pixels at full resolution, so downsampling to web size will generally eliminate it pretty well. For me, its only been a problem for images that I want to print large.
Probably more importantly, though, is that CA is a problem in areas of high contrast (and particularly towards the borders of the image). Since you have a nice soft background, there is, ipso facto, very little local contrast, even in the hair that’s against the sky. That’s where I’d expect to see it in the full resolution version. Go ahead and email me a copy, I’d like to take a look! matthew@ligthandmatter.org
- Matthew
I suppose it’s worth mentioning that I don’t own a 24-105 myself; and the last time that I used one was nearly two years ago now… so it’s possible that raw conversion engines have improved to the point that the CAs are correctable. I certainly hope that’s the case, for the sake of 24-105 owners.
Being that this is the “Pro Budget” I’d like to point out that I’ve never once seen a pro photog with a 24-105 while the 24-70/70-200 is pretty much considered standard kit in photojournalism.
Hi John,
As I have more time in the coming weeks, I’ll be adding more categories to this “lens recommendations” section, including ultra-wide, portrait, telephoto, etc. Both of these lenses are typically considered portrait lenses, so I wouldn’t really include them in an all-around kit, but that said:
The Canon EF 135mm f2 is an awesome lens in virtually every way. There’s a little vignetting at f2, but I don’t find that to be much of a problem. The bokeh is gorgeous, the contrast and resolution are excellent. Great lens.
I’m actually not familiar with a Canon 85mm f1.4. I’ve seen the 1.2 and 1.8.
The f1.2 is an amazing lens but probably more expensive than most people will find practical. The image quality is excellent even wide open, and gets even better at f2.8. For most people, I’d recommend that f1.8 version, which still offers great performance in low light, smooth bokeh, and extremely high resolution… but at a fraction of the price.
- Matthew
What about the 135mm 2.0 or the 85 1.4? Be interested in your thoughts on those.