replacing Canon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

[muenchphoto]

Hello,

 

I am very unhappy with my Canon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lense. For this

reason I like to sell this lense as soon as possible. I am thinking

about getting a 70-200mm lens, which I got to try first.

 

my problem is: what to do with the range in between my 10-22 mm EF-S

lense and then perhaps a 70-200m lense. With my analog Contax Camera I

mostly use a 50mm 1.4 lense which I like a lot. Due this reason I

thought about getting a fixed lense for my Canon body aswell. Should I

go for a 35mm lense which will be a 56mm due the crop factor?

Or better go for a zoom lense because for having a larger range of

angle and to be more flexible?

 

what's your suggestion, what says your experience?

 

thanks for answers! bye, marcel

[dogbert]

Without knowing what you like to shoot and why you dislike your 24-85 USM it is difficult to give useful advice.

[PuppyDigs]

Sheesh, the EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM is among my fav lenses: small, light, easy to carry, perfect

walk around range for my 10D and takes sharp images once stopped down a bit. I use it a lot

more than my EF 17-40 4L USM and 70-200 4L USM.

 

However, I usually keep an EF 35 2.0 in my bag for low light situations. It's so small and light

I hardly notice it. It's also deadly sharp if at F2.8 and higher.

[mark u]

Maybe you should consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you are used to using your Contax wide open.

[terry_smith2]

It looks like the 24-70 fills the gap nicely. For a fixed lens, try the 28/1.8, either Canon or the newest Sigma.

[dariusz calkowski]

28mm f2.8 + 35mm f2.0 +50mmf1.8 or f1.4

[whwhitejr]

Man, I agree with Puppy Face I let this lens go when I sold my 10D and I still miss it. I'll Give you $100 for it. I replaced it with the 28-135 IS but it is heavy compared to the 24-85. The 28-135 is better in low light but I can't tell any difference in good light. Regards, Bill

[KenPapai]

The lens I bought when I got my first 10D was the 24-85; it was a nice little lens; I sold it having replaced it with a 24-70L. I miss its lightness but nothing else. All in all though the 24-85 is one of the better EF midrange, non-L zooms from Canon.

[sloopjohne]

Over two years ago I bought a used but mint "champagne edition" 24-85 for about half the price of a new standard (black) one. It's very sharp, even wide open, and still works like a charm on my 10D and EOS-3.

 

I was briefly tempted to dump it for the new 24-105/f:4L because I wanted IS for low-light shooting. But common sense got the better of me: Instead I saved over 500 bucks by keeping the 24-85 for general/walk-around shooting and buying a good used 28/f:1.8 and 100/f:2 for low-light shooting (and from what I've read both are just as sharp as the 24-105/f:4L).

 

As nice as having IS in that focal range would be for low-light shooting, IMO having 2-or-3-stop-faster glass is much better.