Help me choose my zoom lens please

[angel_bocanegra]

I am want to purchase a normal zoom lens to compliment my gear that I love

shooting weddings with. But I sometimes feel the need to just relax and have

only one lens on my camera and also for a normal walk-around. I have canon 30D,

Eos 1, 430ex, 580ex ef-s 10-22mm, ef 24mm f1.4L, ef 50mm f1.2L and ef 70-200

f2.8. I want to keep buying canon, and I cant decide between the ef 24-70L or

the 24-105L. I might also copnsider the 17-55 but its an ef-s and wont work with

my film body.

Thanks in advance.

[ashley_w.1]

Angel, I have the 17-55 and it barely ever leaves my camera (I have a 20D and 30D also)! Between that one and the 70 - 200 2.8IS those are my weapons of choice.

 

The only problem with that lens is that it is ef-s (like you mentioned) isn't compatible with all bodies. If you are planning on upgrading your body again anytime soon(to the 5D or Mark) I probably wouldn't get this lens. It is a shame that it doesn't work with those cameras, because it is my all-time-favorite "walk around" lens.

 

Good luck with your next purchase!

[picturesque]

The 24-70 is definitely not a walk-around lens. The 24-105 might be if you don't need wide. If it were me, I'd just get a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and consider it my walk around lens for crop digital only.

[elaine marie]

Check out the review on the home page for the 24-70. I use this as my all around lens and love it on my 20D.

Elaine

[ronald_moravec1]

24/70 is very nice with very low distortion unlike the 24/105. It is large and heavy as is the 24/105, but both handle well. But big is big.

 

I got a Nikon for the 18/70. To me that is the perfect lens. Canon does offer the 18/85, but it is very consumer grade as is the 18/55. That is my whole complaint with Canon. 16x24 sensors are not supported with quality glass.

[conraderb]

angel - COME ON. why are you worried about your film body? you obviously have lots of money, so what does it matter if the EF-S is only for your digital?

 

I used to have the 16-35 and 24-70L and switched between one and the other, but not it is replaced by the 17-55. great lens. it lives on one of my 20D bodies. I sold the 16-35 and I use the 24-70 almost exclusively for studio work or portraits where I don't go wide.

 

17-55 is just BEGGING to be used - a walkaround lens is exactly what canon designed this as.

 

not working on a film body is a pretty silly reason for someone who has a lot of $$ tied up in glass! you can find it cheap used. go for it.

[angel_bocanegra]

I am worried because I am saving some cash for my mark III

[overtoom]

the 17-55?? i would never buy a lens that i cant use on all my bodies....

the 24-70 is just perfect, the 24-105 is nice but not very powerful

[matt_mcculloch]

Hey all. I'm a newbie to the forum. I came here via a review page on these lenses. I thought I would piggyback my question on this thread since it is in a similar vein.

 

I am currently a photo student, just starting to do weddings. For now I have a cannon 1n for film and an xt for digi. I am pulling the trigger next week on a 5d and looking also to score some more L-glass. I currently have the sigma 24-70 f2.8, canon 70-200 f4L and the canon 50 f1.8. In addition to school stuff and events I also shoot concerts for fun and want to maintain some speed.

 

I bought the sigma 24-70 f2.8 and at first I liked it. Slides blown up 5' tall look good, and 8mp digi shots look good at modest size. But now that I have had it for a while, and now that I have a taste of L-glass it just isn't sharp enough for me at the extremes of the aperture range.

 

My plan was to get the 5d and the 135 f2L because I LOVE the bokeh that it is capable of and I love a nice clean blur for my portraits. This lens would also be a godsend for concerts where at f2.8 I am always shooting burst and hoping the gels pop at the right time.

 

However, now that I am seeing the limitations of the sigma I'm thinking about selling the sigma and going for the canon 24-70 f2.8L. If I do that, then it is going to be tougher for me to afford the 135 which is basically my dream lens. I then thought that maybe the 24-105 f4L IS may be the answer to my dilemma and just keep the sigma for shooting concerts so I still have a reasonably fast lens. Having the IS would be cool although I find myself shooting people mostly and my style tends to be a little to the PJ side so IS is not really that big of a thrill for me (subject movement) until I get a little longer lens where I'm forced into really fast shutter speeds.

 

So I guess my question is, from the standpoint of bokeh, can somebody rate the quality of the 24-105 f4L IS to the 135 f2L? I know there will be a difference but I'm wondering how much. Let's just say the 135 f2L is a 9 out of 10, how would the 24-105 f4L compare in terms of bokeh? overall sharpness? How does my 70-200 f4/L fit into the rating? If anyone has experience with the sigma you can comment there too since I have very limited working experience with the nicer canon lenses.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Matt

[gregory_c]

Looks like you need something in the middle of your other lenses at a good price, how about the Tamron 28-75 2.8 ?

[john_harrold1]

Matt...I am just curious about the kinds of concerts you are shooting.

[matt_mcculloch]

Hey there. Thanks for the responces. I have been off-line for a week due to a move.

I decided to just pony up and get both the 24-70 f2.8L and the 135 f2L. As for concerts, I mostly shoot bands that are "taperfriendly" because I am an avid concert taper. Jambands, bluegrass, and jazz mostly. Clubs are usually in the 200-1000 seat range and sometimes they have extensive stage lighting and sometimes it is the equivalant of a couple flashlights taped to the ceiling. attached is one from a place called Park West in Chicago. They have a nice lighting array. This band is called RAQ.