17-40/f4 24-70/f2.8 24-105/f4 Which to buy?

[ronald_anderson1]

I just picked up a used 1ds and was using a 300d before. I wanted a camera that I will not

have to change for a few years. I want to start to upgrade my lenses. I would like to have

sharper lenses.

I have a 75-300Is usm, 50mm 1.8, 28-135 Is usm. I was at the canon dealer and I looked at

these 3 lenses. The thing I am stuck on is buying a lens with 2.8 or buying the new lens with

f4 or the 17-40. The 24-105 has a longer range but the 24-70 is a 2.8. Does anybody have

any other sugestions as I only want to spend $1000 to $1200 . Photograghy is my hobby and

right know my passion. I do use my 28-135lens alot. Ron a

[alton]

Just get all 2.8s. It will help the autofocus.

[mike butler]

If the 28-135mm is your favorite lens now, I'd suggest the 24-105 f/4L zoom. That'll

pretty much bust your budget, and you might lose a couple of shots now and then in low

light, but unless you're a PJ, I don't think you'll regret it.

[lovcom_photo]

Fasts lenses are only for PJ's?!? Not at all true.

 

It is most often best to get the fastest lenses you can afford. I'd go F2.8, a few reasons:

 

1. Better Low Light performance.

 

2. More selective focus possabilities.

 

3. Better auto-focus performance.

 

4. Brighter viewfinder.

 

5. Better creamier bokeh (background blur).

 

6. You're less likely to bump up the ISO, so your images will often have less noise.

 

I would for sure sell off the 75-300 IS as it is slow in aperture and because of the long focal length range the optics are compromised, so image quality suffers...I know, I had that lens. The 28-135 IS is not a bad lens.

 

You want "sharper" but remember there are other lens qualities to look out for: Color Rendition, and Contrast, and aperture speed.

 

I would suggest the Canon 24-70 F2.8L....F2.8 trumps 70 versus 105 focal length. F2.8 trumps IS too.

[touchinglightphotography]

...depends on your priorities...and how much you want to carry...and what subjects you shoot most often.

<p>

One possibility might be to keep your 28-135, and pick up some primes. You could probably pick up a set of 3 prime lenses for about $1200, and you'll get very sharp lenses with wide apertures, but won't have the "all-in-one" flexibility offered by a zoom.

<p>

In my experience, shooting on my 5D, my 24-70 f2.8L is probably my most used "standard" lens. I also opt for my 50mm f1.4 in really low light, and use my 100mm f2.8 macro a lot. This is a nice set of lenses to cover the range from 24mm to 100mm, and having the macro adds a nice macro capability (and the lens is one of Canon's sharpest). You already have the 50 1.8, which is a pretty good value and a good, sharp lens.

<p>

Richard Mitchell

<a href="http://www.touchinglightphotography.com">Touching Light Photography</a>

<a href="http://www.touchinglightphotography.com/blog1">(Blog)</a>

<p>

<a><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3310714-sm.jpg" width="138" height="199" /></a>

<p>

[daniel_taylor]

If you're looking to replace your 28-135, replace it with the 24-105. This is digital, one stop is one click of the ISO dial and maybe a quick Noise Ninja filter in Photoshop. And that's only when you need extra shutter speed to arrest subject movement because all the other times IS will cover you for more than that one stop.

 

Since you have full frame, the 17-40 is only a contender if you're looking to keep your 28-135 and go wider. If you do wish to go wider, look at some of the primes out there. I like my 17-40 on a 1.6x crop digital, but full frame the corners can get really soft.

 

I do agree with the advantage lists posted for wider aperture glass, I just don't see why, if those things are important to a photographer, that photographer should settle at f/2.8. If low light shooting, background blur, and low light AF accuracy are paramount, you don't stop at a f/2.8 zoom. You get f/1.x primes. I'm not saying the 24-70 f/2.8 doesn't have its place and uses, but I think in your case you would be better served by the 24-105.

[phoneguy]

If you use your 28-135 a lot, you might want to consider a 70-200, f/4, or 2.8 w/ or w/o IS. You have gone full frame. A 105 is going to seem short now. If not, I'd deffinately get the 24-105 at the least. Did you find yourself shooting at the 135mm end a lot?

 

Mike

[lovcom_photo]

As for bumping up the ISO...well, you can often get away with it as you have a 5D, as I do, but even with it's awesome low noise performance, I would only bump the ISO past 800 as a last resort. Using Noise-Ninja and other noise reduction programs often comes with a big price; that being image detail, especially if you want to enlarge your image. Also be mindful of the fact that F2.8 is DOUBLE the light of F4. The 24-105 is a great lens and provides sharp, contrasty images with great color rendition, but I tend to prefer the F2.8...to each his own.

[John Crowe]

The question is do you use IS at slow shutter speeds a lot? Forget that thought, you've got the budget for the 17-40/L and the 70-200/4 L. Get both and keep your IS lenses for when you absolutely need them. The 24-70/2.8 L is way over priced for the service it provides. It is not terribly wide, it certainly isn't long, and it is slow compared to your 50/1.8. Oh yeah and its heavy!

[jim_larson1]

dudes. . .we are talking a 28-135 and 75-300 on a 1Ds!

 

These lenses just won't stand up to the resolution of that camera! Clearly. . sharper lenses are needed.

 

Fortunately. . you already have the fabulous 50/1.8. Keep that one.

 

Now. . . .the problem is that you have an unrealistic budget of only $1200.

 

If I was to suggest only one lens. . .I would go for the 24-70/2.8L. That is the biggest bang for the buck.

 

However. . .I have another alternative. Right now your widest lens on the 300D is a 28. That equates to a 44 on the 1Ds. How often do you shoot in the 28-44 range on your 300D? If the answer is "not much". . .then I would suggest getting the 70-200/4L. You don't want the 17-40/4L, as this is MUCH wider than what you currently shoot.

[lovcom_photo]

John, the 24-70L over priced? Not wide enough? Not long enough? For a full-frame body? You're kidding right? The 24-70L can often be had for $1,100 - $1,200, and it is a great normal/standard zoom on a full-frame body. It is very usable wide open, tack freakin sharp, one of the best in color rendition, and is oh so contrasty.

 

The 3rd parties have NOTHING that comes close to the Canon, especially wide open.

 

When I use the 1DM2's, zoom wise I prefer the 16-35L as the 24-70 is a bit too long, but when I use my 5D, I much prefer the 24-70L as it is perfectly standard/normal, and with most shooters of full frame what focal lenghths are used more then the normal range? None other.

[robin_sibson1]

The EOS-3 and EOS-1V have high-precision AF down to f/4 at the central AF point, and I assume this is also true of the 1-series DSLRs. So as far as AF is concerned, f/2.8 is less advantageous than it would be on a camera like the 5D with no f/4 HP AF. Of course, there is still a tradeoff in other respects. You already have the 50/1.8, so don't discount the slow zooms plus fast primes option. The real weaknesses in your curent lineup are the lack of anything wider than 28mm - less of a problem now you are on FF - and the poor quality of the 75~300IS. Even so, if the standard focal length range is of most interest to you, upgrading from the 28~135 may give you the best VFM as a first step, and unless you are desperate to have a fast zoom then the 24~105 is probably the most appropriate choice.

[rodney_gold1]

The better AF sensors used at 2.8 etc (at least on my 5d - dunno bout the 1 series) is only relevant when using AI servo mode , its does very little for one shot. I do find the 24-105 on my 5d does not have the snappy AF the 24-70 does , espcially under low light conditions (thats where a built in flash comes in handy - Af assist)

The 24-105 is not a quantum leap better than the 28-135 , albeit I only used the older lens on a cropped body camera

One of the problems with the 24-105 is the severe light fall off compared to a 24-70. Even at F8 with the 24-105 this is evident. It is NOT easy to PP out the fall off when the 24-105 is used wide open at the wide end in some cases - seems to be worse or far more noticeable with flash photography than under normal circumstances as well. The 24-70 is not immue , but stop down to F4 or so with the 24-70 and it mostly goes away. IS is not a magic bullet, it is no real substitute to using the correct shutter speed and the thinking IS = 3 "perfect" stops is also not quite correct , 1-2 stops is practically what will work. 3 stops of IS will give you a useable pic , but it wont give you superb pic in terms of sharpness.

I do however use the 24-105 as the lens that is on my 5d in the bag as its the lightest lens thats most likely to get the grabbed or opportunistic shot and it is a very nice walkabout when I dont fancy using my 28-300L IS (weighs a ton). One other problem with longer range zooms is the lenshoods , they are far more of a compromise than those used on shorter zooms , like my 28-300's hood is not ideal at either end of the spectrum and I find the same but to a lesser extent with the 24-105.

My suggestion is the 24-70 2.8 L usm and buy a Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4x TC to slip in your pocket if you really want the extra bit of range.

[whwhitejr]

Hi Ronald, You have the ff camera so get the 24-70f2.8L and save up your cash and when you can get the 70-200f2.8L IS. I bought mine(70-200) for about $1000 used from B&H a couple of years ago and have seen them for just a little over that sense. You just have to check them every day to see what they have. Most of the #10 ratings are factory referbs. I am very happy with mine after two years use. It also works great with the 1.4 telextender. I still kept my 28-135IS for a walk around lens. regards, Bill

[John Crowe]

Hi Dan. I wasn't actually kidding but I guess my habits are quite different. The most useless range to me is between 35 and 100mm. I am either doing sports at 200 and 400 or landscapes and architecture at 14mm, and 200mm. I have a 50 for the few times I need it and it fits in a pocket, so what the heck. I will eventually get a 28mm prime to fill in the gap. Not so sure I'll use it, I did not use a 35mm when I had it and I bought an 85mm once and used it only twice in 3 years. To me mid-range zooms are great for snapshots at family and friends events, but then who needs to spend $1200 for that. I can understand wedding photographers putting these expensive pro zooms to work for the flexibility they provide.

 

 

I can crop from a 50/1.8 to provide the same view as a 70mm and a 35mm is not much wider than 50 so really a 28mm prime would be fine. I'd rather have a 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 for about 1/3 the price of the 24-70/2.8 and save the bucks for superwide, superlong, real portrait, or macro.

[pieris_berreitter]

I'm disenchanted with the 17-40 AF accuracy on a 350D. It may be perfect with the 1DS but as there is nobody doing quantitative testing of AF accuracy you might want to investigate further.

[m_barbu1]

This has been said before, but the 28-135mm lens on a 300D would be like using a 44-216mm lens on the 1Ds. If you want sharper lenses, stick to constant aperture L lenses. Determine whether or not you can get sufficient light at f/4. If so, get the EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM. Otherwise, figure out a way to get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. Since sharpness is a concern, I would urge you to get the one that has IS. Mine (with IS) is my most used lens. My second most is the EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM.