Which is considered the best lens ( Canon Mount ) in the 100mm and less area

V

vision_filmz

Carbonite Member
Looking for the best lens in the 24-100mm area. What I am looking for specifically is sharpness and just overall the best lens as far as image quality.
 
Well, it was a broad question, and that sticky is actually a good place to start... lots of discussion in that thread after the original post, and lots of references to preferred lenses of DVXUser members. That 55-250mm lens was listed in the "under $300" category, which is obviously not going to house the best of the best, so take that in context. There is a "price is no object" list, too.

There are plenty of lenses that can be considered the "best", but "best" for what? And the "24-100mm area" means... ? Are you looking for a single lens? Zoom? Prime? What are your primary shooting goals?
 
C2V said:
Well, it was a broad question, and that sticky is actually a good place to start... lots of discussion in that thread after the original post, and lots of references to preferred lenses of DVXUser members. That 55-250mm lens was listed in the "under $300" category, which is obviously not going to house the best of the best, so take that in context. There is a "price is no object" list, too.

There are plenty of lenses that can be considered the "best", but "best" for what? And the "24-100mm area" means... ? Are you looking for a single lens? Zoom? Prime? What are your primary shooting goals?
Click to expand...


Actually I am looking to rent a lens to shoot a couple of things this weekend. I am thinking about renting the Canon 24-105 IS, Canon 24-70 , Sigma 24-70. I know the 24-70 do not have IS so that might be a problem when doing hand held work? Also I do not need anything past 100mm, more so looking into the 20mm and up range.

Also which is considered the sharpest zoom? Canon 17-55, Tamron 17-50 ( non vc ) anything else? Looking for the best lens ( sharp wise )
 
Last edited:
Canon L-series are very, very nice. I'm assuming those are the 24-70 and 24-105 you were considering? Both are nice and sharp. The 24-70 is a constant f/2.8 while the 24-105 is a constant f/4, if that matters. Sharpness may work against you, though. It can make aliasing and moire worse.

As for IS, it only goes so far and can actually work against you. And you won't want to shoot hand-held longer than 35mm, 50mm if you're steady. At 70mm or 100mm, hand-held is pointless, IS or no IS.

I would consider these two among the best zoom lenses in that focal range.
 
I've had both lenses (still have the 24-105) and I have to say that I prefer the f/4 IS. It's lighter, the extra reach is nice, and the IS comes in handy. The 24-70 f/2.8, even w/o IS, will serve much better indoors, even though the thing is a brick.

If you're renting, try them both. They are complementary.
 
Are you shooting indoors? If you are shooting indoors without extra light f=4 may be too slow.
Do you really need a zoom, or could you do with a prime by moving your camera (and tripod if you use a tripod) back and forth? If prime is OK the suggestion by Kin Lau is excellent. If you already have a fast 50mm prime (which you may have), then consider just renting a fast 24mm to complement for wider shots if you have a crop sensor camera. 24mm+50mm should be plenty fine for video.
Are you going to do stills or video? A very sharp lens (good for stills) may work against you for video (moire). Most lenses out resolve 1920x1080.
There is no "best" lens, and more expensive doesn't necessarily imply it is better for video.
 
kostas said:
Are you shooting indoors? If you are shooting indoors without extra light f=4 may be too slow.
Do you really need a zoom, or could you do with a prime by moving your camera (and tripod if you use a tripod) back and forth? If prime is OK the suggestion by Kin Lau is excellent. If you already have a fast 50mm prime (which you may have), then consider just renting a fast 24mm to complement for wider shots if you have a crop sensor camera. 24mm+50mm should be plenty fine for video.
Are you going to do stills or video? A very sharp lens (good for stills) may work against you for video (moire). Most lenses out resolve 1920x1080.
There is no "best" lens, and more expensive doesn't necessarily imply it is better for video.
Click to expand...

I will be filming people. I noticed that the 50mm 1.8 provides better quality than the kit lens
(18-55mm)

I have been looking through these forums and have been really impressed with the look of Russian Glass, this might be something I will look further into. I have the 18-55mm, 24mm Canon, 50mm Canon

I usually never shoot anything past 50mm, but just in case something happens I don't want to lose a shot because of it.
 
vision_filmz said:
I have been looking through these forums and have been really impressed with the look of Russian Glass, this might be something I will look further into. I have the 18-55mm, 24mm Canon, 50mm Canon
Click to expand...

I take it you've been through the Vintage Lens discussion (Chris Watson)... full of neat stuff. The Russian glass is impressive, but word got out and the market shot up. Once dirt-cheap lenses are now climbing in price.

If it's vintage primes you're after, you might also check into Yashica ML-series lenses. I've started collecting them and am so far very, very pleased with the results. The 50mm lenses are widely available (from f/1.4 to f/2), and many of them incredibly inexpensive. The 28mm f/2.8 costs more. The ones that are pricey are the 24mm and 35mm (if you can find a 35mm). Unfortunately, it's hard to get a traditional set of primes, since they didn't make 85mm or 100mm (other than a 100mm macro). But they have 24, 28, 35, and 50, plus some constant-aperture zooms that cover the higher ranges. There are also 135mm and 200mm primes.

You'll also see YUS and DSB lenses. The MLs are multi-layer coated and are regarded as the best of the bunch. The YUS and DSB are single-layer, and are generally both the same (YUS was the domestic version and means "Yashica US", while "DSB" lenses were everywhere else), though most people seem to think that the YUS lenses have a better coating than the DSB lenses. I've not gotten hard facts on why, and I have not put them up side-by-side for comparison, but prices reflect that theory. MLs are the most expensive, YUS second most, and DSB are dirt-cheap.

These come in Yashica/Contax (Y/C) mount, and adapter rings are available from Fotodiox. Like many other vintage primes (these are ca. 1975-1985), these are completely manual and have no communication with the camera... a real challenge for still photography, but not so difficult for video. The ML glass was manufactured by Contax (Zeiss), and is quite pleasing.
 
Last edited:
The vintage glass is hard to rent... lensrentals.com for instance only has newer stuff.

If you're indoors, you probably want a faster, wider lens, like the Canon 24mm f1.4. If it's both, get that and the 24-105, and you're set.
 
I have to say the best lens for APS-C is the canon 17-55 2.8IS. Amazing! Don't mess with L glass for APS-C, it is not designed for that. All the L zooms are not really wide enough for APS-C (eg the 24-70, 24-105 and the 70-200).. Or they are too short (eg the 16-35 and 17-40).

The perfect APS-C kit for price/perfomace/high-quality (stills and video) is

Canon 17-55 2.8IS
Canon 50 1.4
Canon 85 1.8
Tokina 11-16
Sigma 30 1.4
 
Agree with sane: there's not too much you couldn't shoot with that! If you need a long telephoto, rent a 70-200 2.8 IS, or buy a used Tokina 70-200 f2.8 like mine.

Incidentally, all that adds up to:

Canon 17-55 2.8IS $1200
Canon 50 1.4 440
Canon 85 1.8 414
Tokina 11-16 $649
Sigma 30 1.4 490

$3,193

If you need to cut down, you could substitute the Sigma 17-50 (non IS) f2.8 or the Tokina 16-50 f2.8. You'd save about $400.00
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top