I have a tamron 28-300 and a Canon 24-85 USM Standard (the cheapie one) but I'm trying to get a good quality lens to replace the 24-85.

Thinking of something in the 18-50 or 24-105 range but hopefully $700ish (used is ok)

Any recommendations?

And it's for a 5D so it can't be an APS-C lens.

Thanks in advance!

Jack

Tamron 28-75 and Canon 50 1.4. If you buy used you can get both for less than your budget.

Canon 17-40 f/4L. I have a 5Dc, and the 17-40 is made for full frame...IMO

Jefferson

i thought the reviews of 17-40 complained about edge sharpness?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Jefferson

Edge sharpness is not the 17-40s strong suit, but it is a fine ultra-wide lens, which is the reason to get it. From your lineup, I suspect you would want some more standard focal length options.

24-70 would compliment your 70-200 all day and well into the evening.

24-105 would be less expensive and more in your price range and also be a nice counterpart to your 70-200.

I think a 16-35 or 17-40 would be fine (the early 16-35 is probably around $800 used) but that's really limiting on FF. I had nothing between 35 and 70 on my 1.3 APSH camera for about 9 months and it drove me nuts. YMMV, it depends on what you shoot.

I would choose between the 17-40 and the 24-105.
I soon as I moved up to full frame with the 5D mk2 a couple years ago, I immediately bought the 17-40 because I really like ultrawide perspectives, especially with landscapes. I resisted getting the 24-105 for a very long time, but broke down a few months ago and find that I'm using it a great deal. It's very versatile and the perfect compliment to my 70-200f4 IS when ultrawide isn't a neccesity. 24mm is quite wide, it's quite a bit wider than my old Tamron 28-75, which I always wished was wider.
Yes, the 17-40 isn't stellar in regards to corner sharpness, but that doesn't stop the many pro landscape photogs from producing some brilliant images. If it's good enough for them, then...

I recommend the 24-105

I would second the recommendation for the 24-105; IMHO the perfect complement to a 70-200 - a little focal length overlap will prevent your having to change lenses just to get that one more millimeter...

The perfect compliment for your 70-200 f/4 would be "My, what a fine lens you are! And telephoto, too!"



(Sorry, it's my editing background coming out, after all these years... )

24-105 and 70-200 are perfect together.

I really like my 24-105 on FF. But I also think if you have all f/4 zooms, a fast prime somewhere in the middle range is a good idea (if you like to shoot at wider apertures occasionally).

Thanks guys! I ended up buying a 24-105L so my good lens lineup looks like this:

24-105L IS
100mm macro (non L)
70-200L IS

As mentioned before I have the canon 24-85 standard and tamron 28-300 as well. I'll probably sell the 24-85 but the 28-300 I'll keep for my backup camera which my wife is using.

I'd like to get a 50 1.4 and an 85 1.8 to use for available light concert (night club) photography but at least I have a pretty good basic setup.

jzucker wrote:
Thanks guys! I ended up buying a 24-105L so my good lens lineup looks like this:

24-105L IS
100mm macro (non L)
70-200L IS

As mentioned before I have the canon 24-85 standard and tamron 28-300 as well. I'll probably sell the 24-85 but the 28-300 I'll keep for my backup camera which my wife is using.

I'd like to get a 50 1.4 and an 85 1.8 to use for available light concert (night club) photography but at least I have a pretty good basic setup.


I have the 50 1.4 & the 85 1.8 and believe you would be pleased with both.. Congrads on your purchase.. It is a nice lens...

i know you have to judge on a case-by-case basis but how do the Tamron, Tokina and Sigma lenses fare compared to Canon? For example, I saw the sigma now makes an EX DG version of the 50 and 85 prime lenses. How do they compare to the canon L counterparts?

24-70 or 24-105