Torn between lenses!

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2006 · Torn between lenses!

pchaplo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Torn between lenses!

I use the older 28-70 that you can get for ~$700 now. The fast lens is great for lower light handheld situations and the wide aperture does help the AF. But with the 20D, isnt that zoom range a bit on the long side? Used 16-35mm is what I would look at if I were in your mocassins.

Just my 2k,
Paul

Feb 02, 2006 at 06:15 PM

Michael11
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Torn between lenses!

My thoughts are... you can never have too many great lenses (Coming from a guy who doesn’t have any great lenses yet).

I was (Am) mulling over which lens to save up for first, second, third, forth, fifth... etc. As I was (Am) in the same "Who's on first, what's on second and I don't know who's on third" state of mind when it comes to buying a good next lens.

I am almost to the point of just saving up for a 24-70mm f/2.8L and then start saving for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. After that, I will save up for the 16-35mm f/2.8L and somewhere in between snatching up the 50mm f/1.8 (Because it's so darn cheap) and the 85mm f/1.8 (Because its so darn fast). Then not needing a 300mm f/2.8, I will get the 300mm f/4 last.

The way I look at it is, you only live once (Most of us)... so you might as well give yourself what you really want from the get go.

It may take a little while, but I am going to get there (I hope sooner than later... I don't want to miss too many good shots).

Good luck on your quest.

On the other hand, money is king... so the more you save on a f/4's, the more f/4's you can get sooner then later. So go with what your gut tells you. Or just get the f/2.8.

Ok, I just changed my mind again... (If you are poor... "like I am now") keep the 17-40mm f/4 and then get the 70-200mm f/4 (You see what I'm up against here?! This is a never ending battle). Then get the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8.

I just want to shoot some pictures!!!

I hope this helps you out

I'm sure it doesn't.

I need a drink...

Feb 02, 2006 at 07:38 PM

JasonJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Torn between lenses!

Geez, with FM members going back and forth, I seem to be going back and forth as well.

As of now, this is how I feel:

24-70 has really nice bokeh and it's one stop faster than the 24-105IS.
The 24-105IS on the other hand has a more versatile focal length and IS, which will help me with camera shake, but not subject movement. I would love to get nice, buttery results with the 24-70, but the IS seems crucial at times.

Feb 03, 2006 at 09:07 AM

Michael-M
Offline
Account Locked

p.2 #4 · Torn between lenses!

buy the 24-70 now, and the 24-105 later when you can afford..................or do as i did and buy both now.
each has it's own specs that does a few things beter than the other.
if you do indeed like zooms over primes, then there will always be a time and place where one will be the best choice.
Canon really created a "catch 22" here.

Feb 03, 2006 at 12:19 PM

Suba
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Torn between lenses!

As already mentioned, do not underestimate the 20d AF additional feature where the autofocus using extra focussing points on any f2.8 (or faster) lens.....

This would not function with an f4 lens.

Feb 03, 2006 at 12:29 PM

JasonJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Torn between lenses!

Well said Michael-M... a catch-22.

Suba, does the 20D have focus points that do not function unless the lens can offer a wide aperture of f2.8 and wider? Or is it just the amount of light let in by the lens that assists the AF?

Feb 03, 2006 at 07:08 PM

Yakim Peled
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · Torn between lenses!

The central AF point is a high precision one with f/2.8 or faster lenses.

Feb 04, 2006 at 09:50 AM

rhorta
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Torn between lenses!

Like many here I had (and to some extend still have) difficulties making up my mind.

I finally opted for the 24-105, and primes to cover the low light / fast side.

IS is of more use to me when it comes to a GP zoom.

When it came to the 70-200 range it was a lot easier to make up my mind.

There are now basically 3 lenses left in my mind (but only after moving to FF).

85L and 135L, with my mind devided between the 24L and 35L (leaning towards the latter). It may be a matter of just choosing one, or all...if the funds are there.

I notice you have a 17-40/4 and 70-200/4.

If these two lenses are fast enough for you, you won't feel sorry if you get a 24-105. Actually IS will probably be more of use to you than one extra stop.

(but seriously if money were no concern most people would love to have BOTH 24-70 and 24-105 and to see some post terrible critiques on the lens they DON'T have is just silly...).

Feb 04, 2006 at 10:25 AM

JasonJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · Torn between lenses!

Thanks for clearing that up Yakim. I had no idea.

Ruy, you have just made my decision process a little more difficult. For some odd reason, almost a gut feeling, I was going to go with the 24-70. Without substantial reasoning -- I just decided to get this lens. But as you mentioned, the f/4 isnt terribly slow and I'm able to get by and so the IS could be of help. I guess I don't want to purchase the 24-105IS lens and regret that I didn't get the f2.8 lense.

The main reason I wanted an IS lens is that when I shoot small concerts (mainly church events where bands come and play set during a time of worship), I tend to shoot at ISO1600 with a shutter speed ranging from 1/13s to 1/60s (mainly 1/13s to 1/60s and when I'm lucky 1/80s to maybe 1/100s). This is with my f/4 lenses. When I use my 50/1.4 lens, I shoot around f/1.8 or f/2.8 and I can get slightly faster shutter speeds. I can hand hold fairly well at 1/30 of a second and can salvage a few at 1/13s too. I'm sure the IS would give me a high percentage of keepers at those shutter speeds. Now that I look through some of my photos, the percentage of keepers at f/2.8 from my 50/1.4 lens was much higher than the keepers with my 70-200 f4L. While thats not a fair comparison, keeping in mind of the focal lengths, I think I might go with the 24-70 and then save up for the 70-200IS!

Wow, I'm so wishy washy. Thank's everyone for guiding me through this difficult, yet almost ridiculous process!

Feb 04, 2006 at 10:38 PM

Savas K
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · Torn between lenses!

The dollar figure and time spent learning the lens once you have it makes getting preliminary info all the more important. I enjoyed this thread. Be sure to go and handle these lenses and the operation of them in the store. I would even say to prepare yourself not to buy one during this visit. You will probably want to think about what you just experienced afterward. At that point, you will be good to go. Visit the store and buy the lens you want.

Feb 05, 2006 at 03:00 AM

rjk55425
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Torn between lenses!

Buy the 24-105 and add a fast prime somewhere within that range.

Feb 05, 2006 at 03:22 AM

RGS65
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · Torn between lenses!

kahren wrote:
i choose the 24-70 over the 24-105. the IS doesnt make it up to one stop down, atleast for me. if that helps you

Ditto for me, but I understand why some don't. I'm just a 2.8 or better snob, but I don't generally use a tripod and there are times when I wish I had IS. I like the bright viewfinder of the 2.8 lenses. This is a tough choice and no one lense can do it all. Now, put IS on my 24-70L with f/2.8 and I'll gladly give up the extra reach of the 105.
BTW, the 85 1.8 is awesome - of you are set on getting that, then perhaps the 24-105 is the choice for you.

Feb 05, 2006 at 04:54 AM

JasonJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Torn between lenses!

Saves K, I will make sure to stop by a photo store and check out both lenses. I overlooked that option completely.

I think im going to go with the 24-70 for now. The central high precision AF point seems like a winning reason to go with the 24-70

. If not, I can always sell and go for the 24-105IS. I'm just hoping to avoid that situation.

Thanks again to everyone that contributed to this thread and my buying decision!

Feb 05, 2006 at 05:18 AM

jra111
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Torn between lenses!

I have the 24-70L , 70-200 2.8 L non IS, and the 85 1.8 . For me IS didn't help unless the subject was perfectly still. Before I bought my len's a friend let me borrow his 70-200 2.8L IS & 28-300 L IS . I took the 70-200 to a birthday party and shot candids from across the room , my conclusion was even for normal conversation movement IS was not helpful at shots 1/50 and under. After that I went with the non IS but I am also a blurred background kind of guy and like 2.8 or faster. I will say I sold my Bigma and got the 100-400L IS for the IS and that helps alot.

Feb 05, 2006 at 05:49 AM

orthopod
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · Torn between lenses!

You'll find that with the IS indoors shooting bands, etc, at slower shutter speeds you'll have perfectly crisp objects, and less crisp people as they move.

In my experience, shooting indoors without flash with a F4 lens at events like birthday parties, etc. you really have to push the iso, shoot in Raw, and be prepared to do a lot of PP. I have lost MANY good shots using a f4 lens indoors (made the mistake at my sons birthday party at a place that wouldn't allow flash...had a 24-105 IS and my wife left my lens bag at home!)

The IS is great when shooting stationary objects, or for people posing. If you are trying to catch little ones running around or indoors the extra stop is much more valuable than IS IMHO.

Feb 05, 2006 at 01:35 PM

AGeoJO
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · Torn between lenses!

Right before Christmas I bought a 24-105 mainly for the IS, slightly lighter and the extra reach. After a period of getting the feel for it, I felt confident the new lens would do just fine. Up to this point, I had taken my trusted 24-70mm as the main lens on many out-of-the-country travels and came back with great images. For local to semi-local shots where I can drive, I try to take and use only prime lenses. I just came back from a two-week trip and for the first time I took the 24-105mm. Granted the images are fine but somehow I felt it didn't give me the satisfaction that my trusted 24-70mm lens did many times before. The funny thing is, I couldn't say that it would have generated better pictures, even without the IS but somehow.... Is this more sentimental but why and I am not biased since I have both lenses. I am debatting which one to sell and at this point, I am leaning towards selling the 24-105mm.

Feb 05, 2006 at 02:23 PM

Gary W. Graley
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · Torn between lenses!

Same debate, a friend let me use his 24-70, hice, fast but limited range and so for me I went the 24-105 as I travel a lot and don't want to carry a lot of equipment on business trips. I had the 28-135 IS and liked that very much, clean sharp images at very low shutter speeds were impressive.

My plan is to pick up a 35L for those times I just have to have a good indoors fast lens, plus I've always wanted one too

Good luck with your choice, I would also say to keep that 17-40L, if you have it already, it's a great lens and handy to have at times.
G2

Feb 05, 2006 at 03:04 PM

Gnarl
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · Torn between lenses!

Lots of good input for you Jason from the forum. My take would be if you're just shooting stationary objects indoors (museums, etc) you might want a lens with IS, but if moving objects are involved you want the fastest lens for available light shooting. To throw another lens into the mix, I'd take a look at the 17-85 IS rather than the 24-105 IS, if you're shooting the former (half the cost, decent lens, very useful range on the 20D). If you're shooting the latter (people indoors), the 24-70L, Tamron 28-75, or better yet fast primes are the ticket. If you want one zoom lens for the best quality and versatility, I like the 24-70L.

Feb 05, 2006 at 03:34 PM

Master-9
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · Torn between lenses!

I just got a Canon 24-70L yesterday and I'm in love with it....nuff said

Feb 05, 2006 at 04:48 PM

Mark Booth
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · Torn between lenses!

Had the 24-70. Love the lens but barely used it due to the weight and limited focal length. Let's face it, it's not even 3x and you can zoom with you feet in many situations. I found myself using my 50mm 1.4 far more frequently. And, since I already had the 50 1.4, it seemed logical to give the 24-105 a try. Not only do I also love the 24-105, it has also become one my most frequently used lenses. It's a PERFECT walk-around lens, particularly with a 1.3 crop-factor camera. Plus, it compliments the 17-40 and the 100-400 very nicely. I can now carry 4 lenses (50mm, 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400) along with the 1.4 TC and cover everything very nicely from 17mm all the way up to 560mm (100-400 with TC). The 50mm is in there for hand-held low light situations.

Mark

Feb 05, 2006 at 05:47 PM

MikeBinOKlahom
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #21 · Torn between lenses!

Main point I have to make is that it sounds like you are satisfied with the 17-40, and perhaps with the 70-200/4, though that's not as clear. If you're satisfied with these lenses and find them useful, I sure wouldn't sell them! I think you'd regret it later.

As for the 24-70 and 24-105, either choice you make will be wrong--But either choice you make will also be right. Both sound like they have excellent uses for you, which means that either one will be superior sometimes. You just have to choose which one you think will be superior more often. Have you looked at the photographs you actually USE (in church bulletin or whatever) so far, and seen how often you need f/2.8 or greater versus how often you need a long shutter speed on a static subject? That may help your decision.

From what you describe, if I were you I'd get a 24-105L and supplement it with one or two fast primes. The people making that recommendation are very wise, I think. In particular, the 50/1.8 is so small and cheap as to be a no-brainer purchase. You could add an 85/1.8 or a 35/2.0 to that, depending on whether you prefer wide or telephoto in your wide-open shots. All these would actually be better than the 24-70/2.8 in terms of shooting speed!

My uses are different than yours, I shoot more landscapes and nature, but for what it is worth, I have a 28-70/2.8L now, and have decided to replace it with the 24-105L when I have the money.

Feb 05, 2006 at 06:15 PM

JasonJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #22 · Torn between lenses!

Hmm, very well put Mike. I AM happy with both lenses. I have decided to keep the 70-200 f4 for now. I actually found out YESTERDAY that I will be going to Europe this summer! I'm planning on selling the 17-40L and getting the 10-22 and 24-70. That would cover me from 10-200mm! Sounds promising to me, but I have not done much research in the ultra-ultra wide angle lenses. Would that not be a good kit to take to Europe? My understanding is inside the churches and buildings, the lighting would be pretty dark. I'm planning on taking both a tripod and monopod, but I heard that some places do not allow tripods. Either way, thats a whole new topic matter, but it should play a part in my decision process.

Feb 06, 2006 at 12:10 AM

coppertop
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #23 · Torn between lenses!

Just to throw my two cents in...

I had the 17-40L and the 28-135mm IS. While I was happy with the 17-40L, the 28-135mm was a dissappointment. The only drawback on the 17-40L was the 40mm end. I could have found a decent replacement for the 28-135mm in Canon's 24-85mm or the Tamron 24-135mm.

However, I've grown lazy in my old age and the less I have to change out lenses, the better it is. I use the 80-125mm range more than I use the 17-40mm range. My fear was that the 17-40L would stay in my bag and essentially be wasted. I decided if I returned the 28-135mm, I'd return the 17-40L as well.

Options included getting the 24-70 f2.8L, Tamron's 24-135mm, or the 24-105 f4L IS. I had saved for this purchase and wanted something nice. I may have put all my eggs in one basket but I choose the 24-105 f4 L IS. The 24-70mm just didn't have the reach and while I've read a lot of positives about the Tamron, the L IS are advantages I couldn't ignore.

My lens is on the loading dock at KEH and should be with me middle of the week. Hopefully, my decision was a good one. I'll keep my Sigma 18-125mm in the back just in case I need a wider angle. The wider angle range of this lense is more consistent and better than the telephoto end.

The only alternative, if I made the wrong choice, would be to give Tamron a try.

I agree that you should keep the 70-200 f4L. I've been impressed with mine since the day I took it out of the box. It's a strong foundation for any camera bag. If the 24-105 works out for me, I'll look at the 70-300mm IS, Sigma's 135-400mm or a fast prime for my next lens.

Good luck with the 24-70. Everything I've read about it gives this lens high marks. It should serve you well.

Feb 06, 2006 at 04:34 AM

JasonJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #24 · Torn between lenses!

I do plan on keeping the 70-200 f4 for now (up until I replace it with the 70-200IS). As mentioned before, I'm planning a trip to Europe this summer, so this will also effect my decision between the 24-70 and 24-105IS. I'm leaning towards the 24-70 and a 10-22 EF-S lens for now, but I'll have to do a bit more research now!

Feb 07, 2006 at 02:58 AM

Michael11
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #25 · Torn between lenses!

The research I have come up with on wide-angle lenses is...

10-22 EF-S is a magnificent lens for your ultra wide angle needs (On a Canon 20D or XT). Sharp, and just about everything is controlled as far as Pincushion distortion, CA, Vignetting... The only thing it is not... is fast (meaning f/3.5-4.5), but f/3.5-4.5 isn't that bad, just probably not good for very low light places where you cannot use a flash.

If you wanted anything for very low light work, you will have to pay more for a 16-35mm f/2.8L (And you don't get as wide as the 10-22... "Duh"). But that is the widest f/2.8 I have seen (25.6-56mm on 20D... not so wide anymore), zoom wise.

You can get the Sigma 10-20mm or 12-24mm, but they are even slower at f/4-5.6 and f/4.5-5.6 and said to be not as good as the Canon 10-22 version...

There may be other (Better) options out there, but I have not seen them.

If I were voting for best ultra wide-angle lens for the money (For the 20D), I would get the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 EF-S. If I had the 5D or even the Mark II's, I would get the 16-35mm f/2.8L (Mark II would be around 20mm and the 5D would be 16mm on the wide side).

If you get this, you can always use your 50mm f/1.4 for the very low light stuff.

Feb 09, 2006 at 06:58 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end