Jeff Fletcher wrote:
I will be shooting the following, outside construction photo's and landscape, some flowers and birds.Inside picture of my daughter and son. I had L lens and that's what I want.
You probably need to cross "birds" off that list. The closest you could possibly get to a one-lens solution for all of those would be the 28-300L
Start with a lens for everything else. If you must have L for some reason, 24-70 or 24-105 should be fine, though personally I would choose the 17-55IS over both of those every time if I were shooting a crop body like the 50D. 24 just isn't very wide on APS-C.
@Jeff,
I was actually on the same boat. I have a 17-40mm L and Canon 50mm combo, and found that I keep wanting it a longer focal length. I don't think you can get landscape and birds using the same lens.
If you have not considered it, think about 17-55mm IS, that's the one that end up stays in my 50D body as my walkaround. You get 28-88 equivalent on an APS sensor.
From the replies so far, it sounds like the 24-105L is the way to go. I know some of you say go to 17-55is, how ever, if am going to spend that much on non L lens, then i think the 24 -105L would be better, it sound like it can do everything i need it to do. More comments on this.
24 is not very wide on a crop body. I'd go with the 17-40, and if you need something longer then maybe look at the 85/1.8. Not an L but one of Canon's sharpest non-L lenses.
I think you are wasting your limited money on only one L lens. A Tamron 28-75 and a few EF primes would serve you much better and be cheaper than most the L's you list. Maybe the 17-40L and one fast prime (surly you can afford a 50/1.8)?
For the price of the 24-70L you can probably get the Tamron, an EF 35/2 and 100/2... or if you are willing to only have the 135L (on a crop camera, this is a HUGE mistake IMO), why not get 3 non-L primes...
If all you care about is getting an "L," the 24-70L would be my choice... as big and heavy and expensive as it is.
Jeff Fletcher wrote:
From the replies so far, it sounds like the 24-105L is the way to go. I know some of you say go to 17-55is, how ever, if am going to spend that much on non L lens, then i think the 24 -105L would be better, it sound like it can do everything i need it to do. More comments on this.
thanks for all the help.
Don't get caught up in the 'L designation' thing. The 17-55 is every bit as good optically than any L zoom ever made, better than most in fact, and its construction is solid. It is arguably the best standard zoom for APS-C. If you plan to shoot in lower lighting f/2.8 is invaluable. All of the above in addition to an IS system is what makes it worth the cost.
I don't get it. what % of people suggesting the 24-70 are using theirs on a 1.6x cropper?
17-55 IS is cheaper, lighter, has IS, has focal lengths better suited to the OP's needs...
well, I guess he did say "L" ... but like others say, you don't need to spend on L to get L images. for me, 40D + 17-55 2.8 has been dreamy.
maybe a more helpful answer is the 17-40 now; 100 macro later. Oops another non-L suggestions! Ahh! I know that's two but maybe a progression would make sense... plan it out a little now. the 100 macro is really fun for kid shots in my experience. and could be used for birds if you're close enough.
ta78 wrote:
Based on your requirements on a crop camera I think only 17-40 fits your bill, apart from much more expensive 16-35. I think you would find 24 not wide enough for shots inside and outside building shots, but that depends on your shooting style. When I used to have a crop camera I have chosen 17-40 as the first L lens due to it's price and range. Never looked back.
Edit: forgot about birds and flowers- 24-105 would probably be better than.
I think the 16-35 is the one on a crop. 17-40 if F4 is ok with your subject matter, indoors though I'm not a huge fan of F4.
I've been using the 17-40 on my 7D quite a bit and I really like the two together. I have also been using the 85/1.8 more when the 17-40 isn't mounted. The 50D has pretty decent high-ISO capability, at least up to 3200, so the f/4 on the 17-40 isn't as much of a limiting factor as it would've been in days past.
M Vers wrote:
Don't get caught up in the 'L designation' thing. The 17-55 is every bit as good optically than any L zoom ever made, better than most in fact, and its construction is solid. It is arguably the best standard zoom for APS-C. If you plan to shoot in lower lighting f/2.8 is invaluable. All of the above in addition to an IS system is what makes it worth the cost.
+1
If you move to FF, then sell the 17-55 and pick up a 24-70 or 24-105. It's a great lens, and as far as I'm concerned, it lack of L designation only means you need to buy your own hood.
17-55/2.8. So it isn't technically an L (only because Canon apparently won't give an EFS lens that designation). Any of the 24-xxx lenses is too limiting on a crop body if it is your only lens (38mm effective on wide end). I have 4 L lenses currently (including the 17-40 many are recommending) and the 17-55 gives up absolutely nothing to them, except maybe a small bit of build quality (but it is still built very well).
I wouldn't trade my 17-55 for a 17-40 (if I didn't already have one). It has better image quality at any given aperature, is one stop faster, longer in FL range, and has IS. No comparison. If you really want a 17-40 I might sell mine if you are interested. I was only holding onto it for a possible future FF body.
Bottom line get the 17-55 if you want 1 quality lens.
Oh and I don't agree with the logic if getting a 24-xx L because it works with FF. Buy what works best for the CAMERA YOU ACTUALLY OWN. Top quality glass like the 17-55 is easy to sell if you get a FF body sometime in the future.
This thread has been very helpful.
I too, have a crop body and want the 24-70L for when I graduate into full frame, but since that will be a while I'm going to look into getting a 17-55IS because I've shot with min 24mm and it just wasn't wide enough.
78 wrote: