I'm looking to get a lens soon but I'm torn between two lens.
I currently have a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (kit lens that came with my 40D). The two lens I want are the 24-105mm f/4 IS and the 70-200mm f/4 IS.
If you were in my position (I have a 40D and a 50mm f/1.4) which would you choose/upgrade to?
I want to get a telephoto lens but at the same time I want my normal range picture to have a better IQ as well.
I mainly take portrait but I've used my friend's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and I love the range on that as well. It's great for candid photos. I'm hoping that the responses will be able to help me decide which would be best for me. Thanks in advance.
apthai86 wrote:
I'm looking to get a lens soon but I'm torn between two lens.
I currently have a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (kit lens that came with my 40D). The two lens I want are the 24-105mm f/4 IS and the 70-200mm f/4 IS.
If you were in my position (I have a 40D and a 50mm f/1.4) which would you choose/upgrade to?
I want to get a telephoto lens but at the same time I want my normal range picture to have a better IQ as well.
I mainly take portrait but I've used my friend's 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and I love the range on that as well. It's great for candid photos. I'm hoping that the responses will be able to help me decide which would be best for me. Thanks in advance. ...Show more →
If I had a 40D I would definitely get the 17-55f2.8IS and not the 24-105 you loose a lot on the wide end with the 24-105.
Welcome to FM. You'll get no end of opinions and advice, but the only one that really counts is your own. On one hand, the 70-200/4L IS will expand your range, and provide better IQ in the overlap range from 70 to 135mm. On the other hand, you don't have anything at all from the wide-side of the picture, say 17-40L or 17-55/2.8, or even wider at 10-22 or similar. On the other other hand, if it's that difficult for you to decide, then why not just flip a coin? You know that you'll start thinking about the other one as soon as the first arrives. Lcoholics anonymous meets Sunday mornings at 420 9th Avenue, New York.
dnenciu wrote:
If I had a 40D I would definitely get the 17-55f2.8IS and not the 24-105 you loose a lot on the wide end with the 24-105.
That depends wether the OP feels he is loosing on the short end with the lens he has now (28-135) I went for ages with a 28-105 and 70-300 and only felt I had to use the (pretty bad) kit 18-55 a few times. Now I got myself a 12-24 to cover the wide end it still does not come out of the bag that much and I seem to have the 28-70 in use most of the time.
My vote would be the 24-105 first annd then the 70-200 later. Or better still get the 2.8's
I'm not considering any EF-s lens because I plan on going Full Frame in the future and would rather just invest in EF lens.
I have not really run into a situation where I wanted a wider focal length so there's no need for anything in the 10-20mm range. Thanks for everyone input so far.
So far I'm leaning towards the 24-105mm as of right now.
The bokeh of the 24-105L is rather funky for portraiture unless you're studio based, I'd buy it and a 100mm f2, I have those lenses and each has its very well deserved place. Together with your 50mm that should give you a very nice all rounder shooting package that will still shine on the 5D that will come in the future (heck in 6 months they will cost less than filling up your gas tank!).
Beni wrote:
The bokeh of the 24-105L is rather funky for portraiture unless you're studio based, I'd buy it and a 100mm f2, I have those lenses and each has its very well deserved place. Together with your 50mm that should give you a very nice all rounder shooting package that will still shine on the 5D that will come in the future (heck in 6 months they will cost less than filling up your gas tank!).
What do you mean by funky? I have a Speedlite 430EX II that I normally use when I'm indoors where I can bounce off wall/ceiling whenever possible.
I have been using my 40D with the 28-135 and a 17-40 and I've used, but don't own, both the lenses you are looking at. In your place, I'd be inclined to go with the 70-200. The 24-105 is a nice lens on a full frame, but unless you really yearn for the short portrait range (which I would think your 50 1.4 would cover pretty well), I think you'd get more use out of the longer zoom.
dnenciu wrote:
If I had a 40D I would definitely get the 17-55f2.8IS and not the 24-105 you loose a lot on the wide end with the 24-105.
Many, keep saying this, it's only 17-24, that's 27-38. Not many miss it, to me the big thing it you gain 55-105, 88-168. Unless you need that close FL, the pay off is much better with a 24-105 than the 17-55 IMO.
The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is a lame duck. The pics out of it are alike hard antialias photos made by good prosumers; i.e., looking flat, crisp and some how artificial. I suggest 24-105/4 IS and 70-200/4 IS. You will get two IS’s, back up by a real L optics and engineering. As an alternative of 70-200 might be 200/2.8L, but both should be better.
D
I have quite a few lenses and a 5D and the 24-105 is my most used lens. It gives great results and I often print images from that combination up to 17" x 22". I also have the 70-200 f4.0 IS, and while it is, in fact, sharper I often find it too long for many situations. For landscapes the 24mm wide end produces striking images, is great as a city/travel walkaround lens and the 80-105 end is great for portraits and medium telephoto work.
For me the 24-105 L is most definitely a lifetime investment.
OK, reading this again, you already have the lower end covered with your 28-135. Do you want a better lens of that? Or do you want/need the reach of the 70-200mm?
I say get the 70-200 4.0 IS, it's the sharpest of the four made, it sounds like that's want you want.
i will sell 28-125 first, and get a 17-55 lens.
24-105 is not very good for aps-c, first it's not fast enough on aps and it loses wide end on aps too. beside it's a kit lens on 5D, i dont think it's a good idea to purchase a kit lens unless you bought a used one. If you purchase it with 5D, you only pay $700-800 for this lens.
oajlu wrote:
i will sell 28-125 first, and get a 17-55 lens.
24-105 is not very good for aps-c, first it's not fast enough on aps and it loses wide end on aps too. beside it's a kit lens on 5D, i dont think it's a good idea to purchase a kit lens unless you bought a used one. If you purchase it with 5D, you only pay $700-800 for this lens.
Did you read the earlier posts? The OP isn't interested in EFs lenses as he plans to go full frame eventually. Additionally, while the 24-105 is sometimes sold as a kit with the 5D it remains a Canon L lens with all that means. It is a f4.0 lens on any body, crop or full frame and the "speed" or aperture does not change with the sensor size.
the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is a very versatile lens; you can't go wrong with it.
THE ZOOM ROUTE:
most users will end up with 3 "core" lenses
-a good wide... 10-22 for APS-C bodies, 17-40L or 16-35L for APS-H or FF
-a good mid... 24-70L or 24-105L
-a good telephoto... any one of the 70-200L's or an older 80-200L "magic drainpipe"
those three lenses you'll use the most, and you can't really interchange them. if you don't think you'll do a lot of wide you can go for a 17-55 f/2.8 instead of the wide and mid but then you really miss out on the wide portion of the focal length spectrum...
any other lenses... macros, fisheye, super telephotos, etc... you'll use those less so get them after you have your core lenses...
at some point you'll want a 300 f/2.8L... but will probably settle for the baby 300L...
OR
THE PRIME ROUTE
you could go the prime route... start with a 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 100 macro, 135L, 200L, 35L, 24L, 14L... you'll get awesome lenses that way, but pay lots of money... (85L and 50L are nice too but more on the "luxery" end)
both paths are valid (or do both and get the best of both worlds, for even more money)
Thanks for everyone's responses. I've been doing some thinking and can't believe I have not thought of this before.
Since I plan on going Full Frame in the future, it will most likely be a 5D. It just dawn on me that if I got the kit, I would get the 24-105mm with it and it will be cheaper as well for the lens (roughly $800 compared to ~$1,000).
I guess I'll be going with the 70-200mm f/4 IS for now and when I upgrade to the 5D, I'll get the Full Frame and the 24-105mm f/4 IS.
Before I registered, I was browsing this forum for awhile and I must say, everyone is very helpful on here. Thanks again!
