They're both in my cart... which do I delete?

[o._wagner]

I am upgrading lenses from my Tamron 18-200. I shoot with a 20D. My budget

is roughly $1,700 so I'm getting the Canon 70-200 f/4 AND either the:

 

Canon 24-70 f/2.8

or

Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS

 

I can't decide. Since they are roughly the same price that is not a factor.

I don't shoot a whole lot of wide angle so I'm not *too* concerned about

losing that with the 24-70. I want image quality. Is the L glass *better*

than having the IS? I am a child photographer and assist with weddings in

case you're wondering.

 

I am also selling my Tamron and am thinking of getting an 85 f/1.8 or a

flash. I rarely use flash so I would rather rent that for an upcoming wedding

when I need it and have a nice prime lens.

[lovcom_photo]

The L glass provides better color and contrast, so yes. Is it sharper? Wide open, probably.

 

You ever going to full-frame? If so then stay clear of EF-S.

 

By the way, Forget about the 70-200 F4, and get just the F2.8 IS now...then once your wallet recovers, get the 24-70L. If you're shooting portraits and weddings, go for aperture speed, and if you're doing commercial shoots (paid weddings, portraits) then get commercial get (L glass primarily).

[PuppyDigs]

The review and tests I've read indicate the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS has an optical edge over the

24-70 2.8 L. It's basically L quality and price without the L build. It certainly qualifies as

Canon's most enticing EF-s optic yet. Of course if you plan to go FF it won't prove very useful

and, being designed for a reduced image circle, will suffer some light fall-off wide open at

the wide end. I'm sure the price will drift down in time and mayhaps a rebate next year.

[oceanphysics]

<i>The L glass provides better color and contrast, so yes.</i>

<p>

Is this based on actual experience with the lenses in question, or are you just blowing smoke? Sounds like the latter to me.

[oceanphysics]

Incidentally, there's nothing about the "L glass" in the L lens that's in any way different than that in the 17-55. Actually the 17-55 is arguably more exotic, having a super-UD element instead of the regular UD, and an extra aspherical as well.

[fourfa]

I don't recall ever hearing wedding photographers demanding 38-110mm zooms in the film days. Sounds like the 24-70 would be a big compromise for your purposes.

 

Resale value on EF-S lenses appears to be no different than ordinary EF lenses; i.e. if you sell your 20D and buy a full-frame camera you're not going to lose much money. The used market for Canon is so inflated, there's very little risk with any mid- or pro-level lens you buy. Certainly, it's nothing compared to the cost of a full-frame camera.

[lovcom_photo]

Ocean, I have used both lenses for a considerable time.

 

L glass is doesn't not necessarily mean exotic glass....it means they delivery superior image quality, build, etc.

 

Physics, So are you speaking from experience, or are you just blowing smoke Physics? I suspect the latter......as usual.

[jon_austin]

Dan Lovell: "By the way, Forget about the 70-200 F4, and get just the F2.8 IS now...then once your wallet recovers, get the 24-70L."

 

This is good advice IF you think you'll want to upgrade to a 70-200/2.8 IS in the short term. Otherwise, you're better served by the 70-200/4 and the 24-70 or 17-55; whichever you choose. (I chose the 24-105, instead.)

 

I'm completely satisfied with the 70-200/4, but then, it's my least used focal length. I don't plan to upgrade this lens unless/until Canon comes out with an IS version (and, no, I don't wish to restart the debate about whether they'll do so!).

 

The 85/1.8 is an awesome piece of gear for the money.

[mcara]

<p>You might be interested to take a look at this <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0">

comparison</a> between ISO charts for these two lenses (unfortunately made with different cameras) from <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/">www.the-digital-picture.com</a></p>

<p>If I were you I would get 24-70 because I rarely need anything wider than 24mm and hopefully sometime I will have enough money to get a full frame camera. I would hate to sell the 17-55 for 1/3 price.</p>

[fourfa]

why would you sell it for 1/3 the price?

[grant g]

"Ocean, I have used both lenses for a considerable time." -Dan Lovell

 

Huh? I don't see how that is possible as this lens is NEW. From the way you speak of EF-S lenses, I find it hard to believe you've used any of them save for the kit lens. And what the heck is 'probably sharper'?

 

 

 

S-FEar and EF-S angst are over rated. The 17-55/2.8IS delivers PRO IQ. My copy is sharper than my 24-70, and it's no slouch.

 

I think you can't go wrong with either, but if you get the 24-70, you might want to consider *gasp* another EF-S lens for now...the 10-22 for your wide shots. (Dan dislikes that one even more)

[kbroderick]

I think that it's a lot easier to get by not having the focal range from 55mm to 70mm on a

1.6-crop camera than it would be not having 17mm to 23mm.ﾠ However, if that truly isn't an

issue for you, the IS may or may not be a significant benefit; your subject would have to be

pretty darn static for camera shake to be a problem at those focal lengths, and then you'd

have to decide whether it's worthwhile using a good support system (i.e. tripod) to get the

shot.

 

I would agree with the others who suggest you seriously consider the 70-200/2.8 IS if you

haven't already done so.ﾠ Particularly if you expect to be doing any indoor shooting, the

ability to handhold at 200mm without excellent light will probably be of significant benefit.ﾠ

I'd also suggest that you try to source the 70-200 (of whichever variety you choose) used, so

as to reduce (or eliminate, if you can get a good deal) the loss you'd take in the event you

decide to switch lenses in the future.ﾠ Also, if you can't afford the 70-200/2.8L IS, consider

Sigma's 70-200/2.8 HSM; it's got the same aperture, good build quality, fast AF, and good

image quality for a little less money.ﾠ Again, if you buy used, you may be able to sell it later

for less of a hit.

 

As far as a good prime to go along, I'd also consider the Sigma 30/1.4.ﾠ It's a focal length

that seems a lot more useful (at least to me) on a 1.6-crop camera; if you want a medium

tele prime, the 50/1.8 is a reasonable (and cheap) option.

 

With regards to a lens vs. flash: just keep in mind that a good flash can be used with any of

your lenses and will give you that much more flexibility in shooting.ﾠ I don't know how much

it costs to rent a flash, but you could get a 550EX for about $250 used.

[oceanphysics]

<i>L glass is doesn't not necessarily mean exotic glass...</i>

<p>

Actually, L glass in each and every case indicates exotic glass -- either UD, S-UD, fluorite or aspherical elements. There are no exceptions.

<p>

<i>Physics, So are you speaking from experience, or are you just blowing smoke Physics?</i>

<p>

Well, brainiac, it's pretty clearly a little difficult to apply the concept of speaking from experience when you're simply stating a simple fact. What I stated can be looked up in Canon's literature. Experience has nothing to do with it.

<p>

I'm with the above poster. I don't for a minute believe you've shot with the EF-S lens for a considerable time (since that isn't possible), or any length of time. From your lengthly gear list it's pretty clear you're a fondler.

[KenPapai]

Dan uses all his gear to good effect and for real money. He is not blowing any smoke. He also doesn't feel he has anything to hide.

 

I would ask "Ocean" how many L lenses he owns and how much better they perform than the non L glass he owns (or sold to pave the L highway)?

[o._wagner]

I have thought long and hard about getting the 70-200 IS. In fact, at first, that was my original plan to spend my $1,700. I drool over that lens but it really wouldn't be a carryaround for me. I'm done with the mediocre Tamron so I figured if I got the 24-70 or 17-55, I could also get the 70-200, not the IS, but the f/4 still seems pretty great according to all of the reviews I've read. My main use for the 70-200 would be outdoor portrait work. The 2.8 IS would come in handy during ceremony shots but I don't know that I can justify the extra $1,000 on that right now when I could also have a decent walkaround lens too. I already have the 50/1.8 so the 85/1.8 would be a sweet bonus lens for me after selling my Tamron.

 

I lust over the 2.8 IS, please don't make me second guess myself again! ;) I am trying to get the most bang for my buck right now.

[picturesque]

If you're trying to get the most bang for your buck, stop asking others what to do. Only you know if the money for the extra stop and IS is going to be worth it to you. Actually, only you know what lenses would make sense for you. I would advise you not to spend your money at all until you are sure of what lens(es) you want. I would rent them first and then decide. Then save up what you need to get the lens(es) you want. Everyone, and especially pro photographers, has an opinion, and they all differ depending on that person's experience, needs and wants. That's why you're getting different and conflicting answers. Do your own homework and make your own decisions, and don't be pressured into spending money based on someone else's opinion.

[fourfa]

hear hear

[marknagel]

O,

 

I say screw the budget, whip out the Visa and buy the 24-70L and the 70-200Lis. Transfer the balance to another Visa to get 0% interest for 6 months and enjoy your glass!

 

Mark

[mcara]

<p><b>To Andy Radin:</b>Of course I do not know that the lens <i>will</i> be sold at 1/3 of its original price. But, I can (an will soon enough) sell my Tamron 28-75mm for about $150 at KEH (I bought it for $330). The EF-S 10-22mm I think (but not sure) was costing about $1000 when it first came out and now it is under $700 (new). What can you get for it now if you would like to sell it? Probably less than $500. How about when full frame cameras will cost as much as 30D costs now? Of course when money is not a problem then the selling price really does not matter...</p>

<p><b>To Wagner:</b>If you intend to stay with 1.6 crop camera for long time then you should really consider 17-55 IS. IS is nice (but I do not know if it is really necessary for such small focal lengths). The fact that it is not L does not matter. The 85mm f/1.8 is not L either but it is not much worse than the L version. Actually it is <i>much</i> better than the L version: it focuses faster - and therefore much better for <i>me</i>. Who cares that the L version has better bokeh if it cannot get the kids fast enough in focus.

[geoffm]

Nadine's answer should be automatically posted in bold print at the top of every thread that asks "What XXX should I buy?"

[o._wagner]

You don't think it's okay to ask other people's opinions in regards to making a major purchase? That's funny, if other people's opinions didn't matter, then what are forums like this one any good for? Yes, I know the decision is mine to make but sometimes hearing other points of view is very helpful. Especially when maybe there are certain perspectives I wouldn't have thought of myself. If you are so annoyed with my question, then why would you take so much of your time to reply?

[grant g]

Ms. Wagner,

While this forum is to share opinions, you really do not seem ready to make the decision

just yet, hence the agreement with Nadine. Your previous thread sounded like you were

pretty certain that you'd get the 70-200/2.8IS. Now this thread is talking about the f/4

version...totally different animals despite the shared focal range. And for what you will be

using it for, possibly a mistake. Now, I too think you could wait a little more before

deciding. And why not?...The next Canon rebates should be just around the corner. :)

 

Mihai Cara,

Please no offense, but your figures are wrong was the other poster's point. Even your last

example is not correct. The 10-22 originally MSRPd for $800, sells new now for about

$640 at a reputable dealer, and sells used in the $550+ range or so. Canon brand lenses

do not depreciate that quickly, except when newly released. Past that, it's not that bad.

Every lens that I bought brand new can be sold for 75% or more than what I paid. Pretty

good, IMO. Can't say that about anything I bought which is 3rd party.

[marknagel]

Mihai Cara, you should be able to get twice that on Ebay for your 28-70/2.8 Tamron.

 

 

O Wagner, VISA! 24-70L and 70-200IS two most used lenses. 24-70L most used, 70-200is bings in the most $$$. (for me at least). If you buy the best, you won't have to replace it.

 

m

[PuppyDigs]

mong-mong! bow-wow! arf-arf! you guys are breakin' serious wind over nuthin'

[picturesque]

I'm not annoyed, and the reason I took the time to respond was to help you, although I guess you don't look at it that way. I also answered your other thread on this decision with my own opinions. Yes, it is reasonable to ask for opinions but it is also dangerous, because if you aren't strong enough to keep your own council, you can end up spending a lot of money on a lens you'll regret getting. It also sounds like you haven't actually used any of the lenses in question--a big part of this kind of decision, in my opinion. Also, many beginners don't really know what lenses would "fit them", because they haven't done enough of the kind of work that would tell them. My opinion, for what it's worth--for you--I would buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS now, because you obviously want that lens, and it would make sense for the kind of work you plan to do. Then, I would save for the 24-70mm f2.8, because that is the other lens you want, even though I think it is a little long for weddings. I don't think stretching the $1700 over two lens with a compromise on the one lens you want is the answer.