DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Help! - Which Canon Lens Should I Buy?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/05/2007 04:56:30 PM · #1
Hi everybody,

I've been working on this problem for over a week. I'm able to buy my first "L" lens. I'm stuck between 2 choices. I've read the reviews, but I'm just not sure which one to get. The choices are:

Canon 24-105mm F/4.0L IS USM
or
Canon 24-70mm F/2.0L EF USM

I guess I'm taking a poll on your recommendations. Thanks for your help!
 08/05/2007 04:59:34 PM · #2
the 2nd one...but it's 2.8

08/05/2007 05:00:55 PM · #3
Save some money...check out Tamron lenses, they are excellent. Here is the one I have:

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon
 08/05/2007 05:01:11 PM · #4
What will you be using the lens for?

I use my 24-70 at receptions a lot. And the fixed f/2.8 is a godsend. Even at f/2.8 it is sometimes difficult to focus on the B&G out on the dance floor, or outside when they are leaving, I can't imagine trying to use an f/4 lens in those scenarios!

However, if low light is not a concern, then maybe the longer reach of the 24-105 would be desirable.

08/05/2007 05:05:35 PM · #5
Originally posted by PGerst:
Save some money...check out Tamron lenses, they are excellent. Here is the one I have:

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon


I used that lens at receptions for a long time. The one reason I would offer for upgrading to the Canon lens would be the focus speed. The USM on the Canon lens is far and away faster than the Tamron. In low light, where focus is already slow enough (and you have the potential for fast movements such as cutting the cake), the Canon f/2.8 lens would be the better choice.

But if you're not dealing with low light with fast focusing (or simply need to save the money), then I really liked the Tamron lens a lot and still recommend it.


08/05/2007 05:11:24 PM · #6
Another vote here for the Canon 24-70 2.8L. Sure, the extra reach would be nice at times, but for me, the benefits of having the larger aperture outweighs the longer focal length.
 08/05/2007 05:27:49 PM · #7
Thanks,

I will be using the lens as a "walk around" lens. I was leaning towards the 24-70 2.8L lens. I just wanted to take a moment to ask here before I went with it.
 08/05/2007 05:32:43 PM · #8
Now I see the dilemma! :-) Go for the faster aperture, or go for the extra reach?

As a "walk around lens", I think you might prefer the 24-105 as it gives you more reach with a single lens.


08/05/2007 05:38:52 PM · #9
Buy both. I owned the 24-105 and I missed F2.8. Now I own the 24-70 and I miss the 105mm reach. Buy both.
 08/05/2007 05:42:04 PM · #10
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Buy both. I owned the 24-105 and I missed F2.8. Now I own the 24-70 and I miss the 105mm reach. Buy both.


And while you're at it, grab the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS....and maybe the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L as well.

Message edited by author 2007-08-05 17:42:22.
 08/05/2007 05:45:11 PM · #11
Maybe I'll just flip a coin :-)
 08/05/2007 05:46:42 PM · #12
In all seriousness, you can't beat the 24-105 for a jack-of-all-trades lense.
 08/06/2007 09:17:09 AM · #13
I am currently in the same dilemma...trying to decide on a lens for shooting weddings. I have signed agreements for two upcoming weddings....one of them mid-Sept. I have access to a 17-40mmL lens. My niece shoots a 20D. Both of us have found a need for a little more zoom. My weakness is low light though. I must have the faster lens. My concern with the 24-70mm is when using a flash mounted on the camera...do you ever get that shadow cast from the lens?

I want to buy NOW so I can get used to the lens.
 08/06/2007 09:56:10 AM · #14
My standard reply:

You're going to spend a $1,000 on a lens and you'd better figure it out yourself. Rent them.

I was trying to make the decision between the cheaper 17-40 or the more expensive 24-70. To help me with this decision, I rented both lens. I found the 24-70 to be bigger and heavier. I went with the 17-40 since it was cheaper and lighter.

I suggest you do the same. You're in New York, so there must be places around you that rent lens. Rent them both (one each weekend) and take them for a test spin. You might find you need the extra stops of light the 24-70 provide. You may find that you want the IS. These decisions only you can make.
 08/06/2007 10:00:57 AM · #15
I had a sleepless night before I bought my 24-70.SO much money!
Never looked back, it's such a great lens!
 08/06/2007 10:09:17 AM · #16
I have the 24-105 and it is nice lens but I miss the f/2.8..I got the 24-105 because of the reach and it is a lighter lens...the 24-70 is bigger and heavier and I couldn't imagine walking around with a heavier lens because the 24-105 is pretty heavy as it is.

When I am using my 24-105, many times it wish it were wider but the 24-70 won't help there.

I kind of regret spending the money...
 08/06/2007 10:39:40 AM · #17
I don't have places nearby where I can rent equipment. :-( I WISH!! Nothing within 2 hours though.
 08/06/2007 12:56:45 PM · #18
Originally posted by rick13601:
Thanks,

I will be using the lens as a "walk around" lens. I was leaning towards the 24-70 2.8L lens. I just wanted to take a moment to ask here before I went with it.


I went through the same agonizing decision and opted for the 24-105. It is a great walk-around lens, and I don't think I will really miss the extra stop for weddings. I almost never shoot at 2.8 because of the dof problems and although the extra stop is nice when looking through the viewfinder, I think the extra reach and the great performance at f/4 will more than make up for it. Just make sure that you have something like a 50mm1.8 or 1.4 or something else good and fast for those really low light situations.

For a walk around I think the 24-105 wins hands down.
 08/06/2007 01:02:43 PM · #19
My 2 cents would be to go with the faster lens. :-)
 08/06/2007 01:40:03 PM · #20
Go see: 24-70 vs 24-105
Note that this is set to f2.8 for 24-70 and f4.0 for 24-105.

I love my 24-70L and use this as my main and work around (though mine is at canon service center right now for front focusing problem). I think 24-70L is very usable at even f2.8 which allow me to take pics without flash.
 08/06/2007 02:11:20 PM · #21
I have the Canon 28-135 f3.5-5 IS USM that I use for walking around and it is a great lens!

Personally, I'd buy it and the Tamron lens everyone is talking about.
 08/07/2007 01:06:40 PM · #22
Originally posted by PGerst:
Save some money...check out Tamron lenses, they are excellent. Here is the one I have:

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon


I agree. I used the Tamron on so many of my pro shoots when shooting with Canon. It is so brutally sharp. Use the rest of your money for the Canon 17-40 L lens another winner.

Here is an axample with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and shot at f16.0 at 1/6th of a second 100 iso on Canon 20D with flash and tungsten.

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens example:

//anashcreation.com/thenashgallery/BenjaminKanarek/IMG_0526?full=1

The Canon 17-40 L lens example at 400 iso on the Canon 10D at f11.0 and 1/6th of a second flash and tungsten:

//anashcreation.com/thenashgallery/BenjaminKanarek/BenjaminKanarek0032?full=1

Message edited by author 2007-08-07 13:12:29.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:24:08 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:24:08 PM EDT.