Upgrade 18-200 IS lens

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

I purchased my Canon 60D with a 18-200 IS lens. This package was selected for my holiday to Canada. I have since purchased a Sigma10-20 F4-5.6 lens for landscape and a Canon 100-400 F4-5.6 L lens for bird and wildlife. The L lens has created a new level of expectation which I do not achieve with the 18-200 lens which I now want to replace. My plan is to purchase 2 lenses over a 1 to 2 year period to replace the 18 - 200. The one is a 70 - 200 F4 L IS lens and it is the second lens to fit in between the 10-20 and 70 - 200 that I am struggling with. I cannot afford the Canon 24 - 70L F2.8 so am looking at the Canon 24 - 105 L F4 IS, Canon 24 - 70L F4 IS and the Tamron SP 24-70 F2.8 lens. I am favoring the Canon 24 - 105 L F4 IS based on comparable performance to the others depending on which review you read, weight for portability and price. I have looked at a lot of my general and travel photos and they fit in the 40mm - 70mm focal length so they all meet this requirement. Low light is not a priority only a luxury so the F2.8 is not a big factor. Am I going see my expected improvement in image quality with the lenses and is there a reason why I should be going for any of the other lenses over the 24 - 105 for my use?<br>

Regards<br>

Gordon</p>

<p>Gordon, as you've found out, a hyperzoom (having in the neighborhood of a 1:10 zoom range) is often lacking in image quality. There are too many compromises that go into constructing that sort of zoom range. The more typical 1:4 zoom range of the 24-105 will by itself give you better results, perhaps somewhat lacking on the long end. </p>

<p>I'm a big fan of the 24-105 for its utility, but that's on a full frame camera. If you ever intend to grow your outfit with the addition of a full frame body, this would be a very useful lens. However, it's not very wide on a crop camera. You might consider one of the crop frame lens selections instead, maybe the 15-85. I admit I don't know much about the crop lenses, so I'm not one to make good specific recommendations -- aside from the really cheap and surprisingly good little 18-55 IS, which I use as a light-weight carry-everywhere lens for my 40D. I can recommend that little lens, but it's still perhaps not quite what you would want in your most commonly used optic.</p>

 

<p>Hi Sarah,<br>

Thanks for the suggestion. I had considered the 15-85 IS however it can only be used on cropped sensor camera's so if i want to upgrade my camera body in a few years time as you suggested it becomes surplus to needs. With the 24-105 being a L lens I would have thought this would offer at least the same if not better performance as the 18-85 but with the advantage of future proofing. In addition it fits in the coverage of my current lenses 10 - 22 and 100 - 400. Both the 24-105 and 15-85 are a similar price in New Zealand hence my favoring the L lens version. <br>

Gordon</p>

<p>Well, I did use the old 28-135 with my first dSLR -- the 10D. Of course EF-S lenses hadn't even been developed yet. I suppose the combo wasn't so bad. I then picked up the 17-40 for some wide coverage. By that time I had my sights set on a 5D. Anyway, if you feel a full frame is in your not-too-distant future, then you could do a whole lot worse than the 24-105! It's easily my most used/useful lens. The lens takes a lot of criticism on PhotoNet, but the one I bought greatly exceeded my expectations. It's a very nice lens. I bought it over the 24-70 because I didn't care about f/2.8, wanted the extra reach, and REALLY wanted the IS. In the end, I think it fit my needs much better than the 24-70 would have.</p>

<p>Gordon, if you think you might go full frame in the future, you could perhaps get a bargain by waiting on the 24-105 and buying it as a kit with a full frame lens where you can get quite a deal on it. B&H currently has the 5D Mark II priced at $2199 U.S., but they offer it with the 24-105 for $2699. Their price for the 24-105 by itself is $1049.</p>

<p>Or if you want to buy the 24-105 now, you might be able to find a deal on it (perhaps $700 US or so) from somebody who bought it as a kit lens in a bundle like the one above with the intention of immediately reselling it for a profit, though I don't know if you could get the full warranty going that route.</p>

<p>Another reasonably priced possible direction if you anticipate going to a full frame in the future, though it would leave you some small gaps in focal length, would be to buy a 17-40L f/4 and a 50mm f/1.4 prime for around $1000-$1100 U.S.. They would both be useful now with the crop sensor and if you went full frame you'd already be set with lenses as the 17-40 would cover the ultrawide. My primary landscape configuration with a full frame 5D Mark III is the 17-40, the 50mm f/1.4 and the 70-200 f/4 IS. The 50mm f/1.4 gives you a fast lens at a "normal" focal length on full frame for walking around, is very sharp on landscapes (probably as good or better than an L zoom lens; one review of it that did extensive testing describes it at f/8 as "as sharp as sharp gets") and is very small and lightweight. I've found it handy for shooting in low light in the woods and/or late in the day without a tripod, and I use it a lot on a tripod stopped down for landscapes. I can easily carry those 3 plus a 1.4X teleconverter to extend the 70-200 along with hoods, filters and miscellaneous stuff in a relatively small camera bag on long hikes (and a tripod separately) very comfortably. I don't find the focal length gaps from 41-49 and 51-69 to be much of an issue, but it sounds like you might shoot in that range more often.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The L lens has created a new level of expectation which I do not achieve with the 18-200 lens which I now want to replace.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that for most people, insisting on the L label is a mistake. There are many superb lenses that lack that label. I think it is in general better to decide on the characteristics you need, such as focal length range, AF speed, and aperture, and then select among the options based on reviews. I have two macro lenses, one L and one not, chosen for their focal lengths. No one, including me, can tell which prints were taken with which lens.<br>

<br />I agree with Sarah about the focal length range. I shoot with a crop sensor camera and own both the EF-S 15-85 and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which is the cheaper predecessor to the Tamron SP 24-70 F2.8 that you are considering. I end up using the Tamron mostly only when I want a wider aperture, for the reason Sarah mentions--that is not a particularly useful zoom range for a crop. The 15-85 is far more useful, and it is optically very good, so when I am outdoors and don't need the wider aperture, that is my walk-around. I figure that if I ever switch to full frame (which I am not all that likely to do, because for my mix of photography, crop has several important advantages), I can sell the 15-85 at a minor loss and replace it.</p>

 

<p>The addition of the 24-70/4 IS to Canon's line makes the decision a bit harder, but it's current price is 150% of the 24-105/4. While it is clearly a better optical performer than the 24-105/4, since price is a factor, I highly doubt the increased price will be worth it (currently), especially when a<em> used</em> 24-105/4 is likely to be able to bought and (should it fail to meet your standards) sold with no tangible loss.</p>

<p>As Sarah points out the focal range gives overlap (very very handy) w/ the proposed 70-200 (and meets your 100-400), and that is also a compelling reason to purchase a 24-105 over any of the 24-70s. In my experience with the lens, this was one of it's most important value adders.</p>

<p>Gordon: Have you considered the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM? This is probably the best EF-S lens there is (some say it is "L" lens quality), and is highly regarded. I use it with my 7D, and it had given me nothing but good results.</p>

<p>I found the 24-105 to be a great lens for my 7D, but I often found myself wishing for something wider. I ended up getting the Sigma 17-50, and that and the 70-200 f/4 are in my bag at all times, with the Sigma 10-20 joining when needed. Yes, it is for APS-C only, but you don't have a full frame camera yet. Since you're looking to get these lenses over the next 1-2 years, that means the full frame body is likely to be at least 2 years away. It's better to buy for the kit you have now. In the course of those 2 years, you may decide you don't want or need a full frame camera. You may decide to run a 2 format system and keep your 60D. If you buy the lens used, you will be able to sell it for about the same price you paid for it if you definitely go the full frame route (assuming you maintain the condition of the lens).</p>

<p>Initially, I always wanted new lenses too, but since then, I've learned that buying used from a reputable dealer, like KEH.com, lets me get more for my money and it lets the original purchaser take the depreciation hit.</p>

<p>I currently use a 24-105 on my 7D and love it. I used to own the 15-85 but sold it to fund other purchases, however I'd like to buy another (I chose to keep the 24-105 because I can use it on both my 7D and 1v--yes, I still shoot film too!). It's an outstanding lens and has a very useful focal range on the APS-C bodies, equivalent to 24-136 in 35mm. While it's not the fastest lens in terms of maximum aperture, the IS is excellent and along with the very good high-ISO capabilities of your 60D, it should work out very nicely for you. I would definitely consider putting the 15-85 on your short list.</p>

<p>Get a Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM,I would forget the 3rd party stuff no resale at all,but that's only my opinion so don't go crazy 3rd party lovers!</p>

<p>We have both the 28-135 and the 24-105, which we use on two Canon crop-sensor bodies. We also have the 10-22, and the 70-200f4. If I gave up any lens it would be the 28-135, and we would keep the 24-105 for its versatility, clarity and an undefiniable "warmth" that it seems to have over the 28-135. </p>

<p>The combination of the 10-22, the 24-105 and the 70-200 has worked well for us.</p>

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

Thanks for all your contributions. The FF camera option would be at least 2 years away and is not on my immediate radar but then neither was the 100-400 back in 2011 when I purchased my 60D. One can get hooked up at collecting kit and forgetting why you need it in the first place. Certainly the 60D meets my current and near future requirements.<br>

The 150% difference in price between the 40-70F4 and 40-105 F4 that Marcus mentions is a big factor. Having read a number of reviews I am not convinced that the 40-70 has such a large performance edge. The 40-105 has issues at the short focal length however I have my 10-20 for those wide landscape shots so not an issue in my opinion. It is more a walk around lens to improve on the 18-200.<br>

The approach from Don is very attractive however I would still class myself in the low intermediate area even though I have been using film on a Pentax Spotmatic since the 80s. I am really happy with my 60D and it meets my requirements fully however at some stage in the future when I do eventually replace the 60D I will then move to FF. So it is at least 2 years and may even be 4 to 5 years before this happens.<br>

Thanks Larry and Allan for complicating my life further with the 17-55 F2.8. It certainly has some advantages however am not into portrait or low light work so I would not be able to take advantage of the constant aperture F2.8.<br>

Having read through all your contributions and the useful comments from Andy and David has really helped me narrow it down to the 15-85 and the 24-105. As mentioned earlier a high portion of my travel and general photos fits in the 40-70mm range so both lenses would meet this requirement. As I don't have the 70-200 yet the 24-105 offers a bit more coverage at the longer end with the 15-85 providing a better fit between the 10-20 and future 70-200. It would appear that I won't be disappointed with either lens choice especially reading the reviews. At this point I am still favoring the 24-105 mainly because of the better build quality and the higher coverage at the long end. Maybe I should get the 70-200 first and then decide on the the 15-85 or 24-105 later? <br>

Regards<br>

Gordon</p>

Must you necessarily have a zoom lens to fit the range between the 10-20 and 70-200? I say that as it

might prove too heavy too carry all zoom lenses. A 40mm lens fits in there nicely; compact, light weight

and you may find yourself not letting other lenses behind because of the weight or bulk.

<p>I use a 24-105L as my standard walk-around lens on my 7D and I love it. Like you, I have an ultrawide zoom (Canon 10-22) for when it isn't wide enough and that's actually not very often for what I like to shoot. It is a great lens and you can find used ones on Craigslist or at KEH for less than a new one costs (I got mine at KEH a few years ago).<br /> I do not have a 70-200 but I do have the 100-400, so the 24-105 fit's nicely into my kit. If you know for sure that you're getting a 70-200 and you often shoot wide, then the 15-85 may make more sense than the 24-105, particularly given the $150-200 price difference for used copies. If it were me, then I would decide based on whether I used the current 18-200 closer to the 18 end or closer to 100mm. Even though you'll have the 15-20 and the 85-100 ranges covered with other lenses, it's a pain to constantly change lenses if you often shoot right where two zoom ranges meet.</p>

<p>I use the 24-105 f4 lens on a 60D and it is an excellent lens. It pairs very well with the Sigma 10-20. I prefer it to the 15-85 and 17-55 zooms because of its longer reach and also because it doesn't overalap so much with ultrawide zooms. You would effectively have a two lens combo for walking around giving you excellent image quality over an effective focal length of 16mm to 170 mm on a crop camera.<br>

At is widest end the 24-105 mm has a field of view of about 38 mm which is quite a useful fov.</p>

 

<p>As I said earlier, the 15-85 is truly a wonderful lens and I think you'd be very happy with it and impressed by its performance. But to bottom-line it for me, if I were only able to keep one lens out of all of the lenses I currently have and have previously owned, it would be the 24-105. Its build quality is superb and the image quality is excellent, at least to my eyes.</p>

<p>Hi Everyone,</p>

<p>Thanks for the further posts. I have two bags I use for carrying around my equipment, a Crumpler shoulder bag that holds my 60D with 18-200 and space for my 10-20 + one other lens or Speedlight flash as well as a LowePro Flipside when I want to use my 100-400 that has capacity for all my lenses. I used my Crumpler around Canada and it was brilliant, so having three lenses (10-20, 70-200 + ?) would work fine with either carrying option. So in reply to Kerry's comment I am comfortable with this approach.<br>

I think Geoff has answered the points raised by Mark and really do like my 10-20 so the 24-105 should fit in nicely without the pressure to get the 70-200 immediately. I agree with Andy in that the 24-105 for general and travel will be used for 80%+ of the time having reviewed the range of focal lengths in Adobe Bridge of the photos I have taken.</p>

 

<p>Hi Gordon,<br>

the 24-105mm IS will nicely complement your current setup! On crop it is crisp, contrasty and wide open at the tele end you can already produce some nice out-of-focus backgrounds depending on careful composition.<br>

It is especially great when you are outdoors in nature and there the limitation in 24mm wide angle is often not so noticable and, you still have your true UWA.<br>

Do consider to keep the 18-200mm IS for times when you want to go "light" with just 1 lens, especially in busy cities!<br>

In direct image comparison the 18-200mm IS blown out of the water, however at times its convenience as all what counts and ca not be beaten by any L-lens.</p>

<p>Hi Marcus<br>

Thanks for your comments and thanks to everyone's contributions my decision was made a lot easier to go ahead and purchase the 24-105mm IS lens. I intend to try it out over the weekend with some simple comparative photos against my 18-200mm IS. My goal over the next year is to purchase the 70-200mm IS F4 which together with 24-105 will cover the range offered by my single 18-200 which then becomes surplus to my needs. I like the idea of the single lens however you then have to make compromises and if I consider the focal length of my travel and general photos taken then the 24-105 will satisfy around 80% of them.</p>