24-70 EF USM L 2.8 or 28-80 3.5-5.6 USM and 24mm 2.8

[michael_sinopoli]

I am planning on purchasing a 35mm EOS 3, 70-200 4L and either the 24-

70 or 28-80 and 24mm from above. I currently have an old Canon and

one of my lenses is a 28mm which I like to use. I am interested in

using a 24mm lens which is why I like the 24-70 2.8 L. My first

choice is to go with the 24-70 2.8 for $1100 USD. Or my second choice

is to purchase the 28-80 3.5-5.6 USM for $60 USD and a 24mm 2.8 for

$330 USD. I would like to know if anyone has any recommendations for

what lenses to purchase. Without reading any threads on the 28-80

USM, because I didn't find any, I would be hesitant buying it because

it is included in almost every "kit" in the back of the photo

magazines. From what I understand the "kits" don't always include

the best items in order for the camera store can keep the price down

to attract consumers to purchase their camera equipment.

I am looking for someone to correct any misconceptions they think I

have and/or give a recommendation of what low range lens/lenses to

choose.

If anyone is wondering, the reason I chose the 70-200 4L is that I

read in other threads that the 4L has better optics then the 2.8 for

half the price and I don't feel it to be important to have the IS and

spend the money.

Thank you.

[tommyinca]

I got a EF24/2.8 together with a Tamron 28-75/2.8 instead of an EF24-70/f2.8L. I am happy with the result.

[John Crowe]

The 28-80 is probably, and I will add, hopefully, the worst lens Canon makes. A better fit for your other good choices and yet still on a gudget, would be the Canon EF 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM. It would also be a no brainer to get the EF 50/1.8 for around $80. Heck you could forgo the 24-85 and have the 24/2.8, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 for still less than the 24-70/2.8 L and get superior image quality. Good luck!

[John Crowe]

What's a "gudget"?

[danny_lee2]

Ditto. the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is very good.

[michael_sinopoli]

Thanks Tommy and John for your responses. Since you brought it up, why do you think there is such a price difference between the 24-70 EF L($1100 USD)and 24-85 EF USM($290 USD)that you mentioned. Is it because the "L" lenses have better optics?

Thanks.

[jim_larson1]

YES!

 

You are definately paying for better optics. . .and better build. . .and the 2.8 aperture.

 

Are you seriously wondering the merits of a $60 lens vs a $1300 lens?

 

I don't know why I bother. . but here is my take.

 

Canon standard range zooms fall into three pidgeon holes:

 

1) $100-$150 kit zooms with plastic mounts. Avoid. Plain and simple.

 

2) $200-400 prosumer zooms. Metal mounts, decent optics. (cheapest is 28-105/3.5-4.5 at $225)

 

3) "L" glass. Premo stuff. F4 stuff about $600. F2.8 stuff about $1100.

[digitmstr]

get the 24-70 - no comparison to the 28-80 and/or 24.

 

I have both the 24-70 and 70-200 f/4 and I can assure you it will be the best purchase you can make, and you'll keep those lenses for as long as you own an EOS system.

[yakim_peled1]

If money is an issue, I'd go the Tommy route. If not, 24-70/2.8.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jreades]

The 24-85 is a solid prosumer lens -- I bought it recently, and aside from the vignetting at 24/f3.5 (which it's easy to work around as long as you're expecting it) it's a great lens for $300, IMHO. I'd encourage you to read the reviews and the pros and cons in the Equipment section of this site.

 

Of course the "L" is going to be better, but it's also going to be four times the cost. Since you're indicating that you'd be willing to buy either a $60 lens or a $1200 lens, I have to say that the "L" seems like overkill because it suggests that you're not at the point where you need the "L" build quality.

 

If you're looking for a system that will be rewarding for many years, then I'd suggest looking at the 24-85/f3.5-4.5, the 70-200/f4, and a 1.4x TC to give you zooms ranging from 24 to 280mm and with *relatively* wide apertures. That would run you around $1000-1100. I'd then consider adding in some primes -- something like a 24 or a 35 and an 85 to give you fast lenses at useful lengths. I bought a used 35/f2 from B&H for, IIRC, $150 a few years back and am happy as a clam with it and I use it extensively for street shooting and for interiors.

 

HTH.

[John Crowe]

Actually, Jim, I think a $60 used EF 50/1.8 will quite handily beat an $1100 L zoom at that focal length. So, as long as you are not tied to zooms, it is possible to judge the merits of a $60 prime lens versus an $1100 zoom lens.

[jim_larson1]

The $60 50/1.8 yes. The $60 28-80 no.

[John Crowe]

Now, I understand! Thanks.

[catchlight]

Michael, you've received a ton of advice here, but you haven't told us the kind of shooting your will be doing (action, events, landscapes, portraits, etc.).

 

Also, will you be trying to achieve a professional level of quality and sell the shots, or are you content with pretty good quality just for enjoyment?

 

IMO, that info needs to be factored in before advice can be truly relevant to your needs.