I'm looking for another L glass.

I intend to ditch my 10-22mm while doing this, as well as my 28-105mm.

I'm shooting a documentary project in Vietnam, and I'd like to be down to 3 lenses.

I'll have my 70-200 2.8L, 50 1.4, and ???.

I'm thinking something like the 16-35 2.8L... but I'm open to recommendations (zippy?)

Also the 24-70mm 2.8L is up for consideration.

I need fast glass. 2.8 is most likely the slowest I'm willing to go.

Any thoughts?


(Like an idiot I wrote 16-25 in the first post, as opposed to 16-35)

 

Full frame camera? If so, 24-70 or 85 1.4

 

My apologies, I intended to include that detail in the original post.

I'm currently shooting with a 7D and a 20D. (So 1.6x)

Though I intend to eventually pickup a FF. Probably when they've got the 5D improved upon. (As in with all of the features the 7D has).


Oh, and I love the 85mm... but I've already got the 70-200. It's not as fast, yes, but I'm really looking for wider coverage.


I'm satisfied with my 50+ Coverage between the 50 1.4 and the 70-200.

I want excellent 35mm coverage with whatever lens I get, with range coverage +/- that zone.

 

24 1.4

that'll get you the eqiv of 35mm

 

The Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 70-200 is all you will need. You will have a nice wide angle all the way to 200. 50-70 is pretty worthless most of the time. The Tamron is 2.8 is is EXTREMELY sharp (sharper than the 24-70).

 

I should have been more clear, I'm looking for the equiv. of a 50mm, hence the emphasis on the 35mm for the 1.6x.

NFR: I know you're a real strong proponent of the Tamron, but is it really L-good? I'm also looking for something more in the heavy-duty-weather resistant category.

I'm going to go research the Tamron now.

Thanks everyone!

 

Well, since you ask, you may take my advice any way you wish....I will give you a small rundown of my gear, and you tell me....

Bodies:

Canon 30D
Canon 1DsMKIII

Lenses:

Sigma 10-20mm
Tamron 17-50mm
Sigma 150mm APO Macro

Canon 50mm 1.4
Canon 16-35 LII F2.8
Canon 24-70mm L F2.8
Canon 70-200 L F2.8IS

The Tamron and the Sigma 150mm are L sharp. The Tamron IMHO is THE sharpest lens I own, PERIOD. Sure the build quality isn't L quality, but optically, the lens is PHENOMENAL!!!!

As you can see, money wasn't an issue when I bought lenses. It really is a remarkable lens.

 

I will do you one better, I'll try and snap 2 pics comparing the 24-70 and the 17-50. I wont be able to until Monday, but you'll be the judge.

 

Thanks Dave, that would be great. Money's not a huge issue, but obviously the less I spend on this, the more there is for other camera-related gadgetry.

I'm also considering the 16-35mm 2.8L, whats your take on that in comparison to the 24-70 and the 28-75? Since I've got the 50 1.4 and the 70-200 2.8, I'm less concerned with the larger coverage. And, though I'm considering going to FF, I'm still stuck with 1.6s, so wider coverage is a definite need.

As much as I love my 10-22 in many ways, I find the 10-14mm range is rarely usable, and it's not a fast lens...

As a photographer, I general prefer either really wide and sharp (10-22) or close portraits 50/70-200.

I'm expanding (try to) into Cinematography--which I've been doing in some ways for quite some time--and I'm following the whole 7D craze. I need something wide, however, that can give me the speed/focal selection I need for digital filming.

Right now the primary lenses I'm using are these:

10-22mm

35 f/2.0

50 f/1.4

70-200mm f/2.8L



Certainly if I go for the 16-35L I'll drop the 10-22... and I'm definitely dropping the 35 2.0 no matter which of these lenses I select. It's OK, but just not spectacular enough. It seems as though the 16-35 is the best mix of the two... but then I've got a giant 35-50 gap.

 

If you're not going full frame soon, why not pick up a good condition 17-55 used? They are extremely sharp and don't lose their value much.