CANON L LENS-NEED HELP CHOOSING

[stephanie_costello]

<p>I have been reading forums on the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 vs. 24-105 f4 both L lenses. <br>

So here I go.<br>

What I currently have: Canon 50D, EFS 17-55mm f2.8 (has canon uv haze filter, sharp cut & canon hood), 50mm f1.4, ef 70-300mm f4-5.6 (has b+w uv-haze filter), Gary Fong light sphere II, Canon speedlite 580ex. So thats it.<br>

NOW: what I was planning to do is to sell the 17-55 to get 24-105 f4 L lens or 24-77 f2.8, take back the 70-300 back to costco and get a 70-200 f2.8 l lens, and keep my 50mm.<br>

But im torn to what the forums have been saying about 24-70 vs 24-105. I love to carry with me, point and shoot of my kids and friends and family, but love landscape images. I go out riding on my quad and love to get the guys riding around and jumping, but I love my surroundings. There is no vegitation, just vast amount of sand and dunes. But I will get an occasion when I can take a trip up the mountain, peace.<br>

So what say you all, I value Photo.netians opinion. So opinion/suggest away.<br>

HERE ARE SOME IMAGES FROM MY CANON 17-55:<br>

<a href="http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/lazystef/Glamis2009181.jpg">http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/lazystef/Glamis2009181.jpg</a> <br>

<a href="http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/lazystef/Glamis2009202.jpg">http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/lazystef/Glamis2009202.jpg</a> <br>

<a href="http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/lazystef/Glamis2009276copy.jpg">http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n253/lazystef/Glamis2009276copy.jpg</a></p>

[tdigi]

<p>Why not just keep what you have? with a 50D neither will really be wide enough. </p>

<p>this debate is posted all over photo.net. just do a search. I can tell you the results will be about 50/50 because both are very good it just depends on what you value more.<br>

Basically the 24-105 is lighter, has IS and a bit more reach while the 24-70 is 2.8 but heavier with no IS. </p>

<p> </p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I have the 24-70, and I love it. You should get it!<br>

Honestly, you'll get recommendation like that when you ask this type of question. People recommend you based on what they own. Very few people have both lenses to truly give you the pros and cons of each.<br>

I think it's best that you rent them and try them out for a week <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com">www.lensrentals.com</a></p>

[py-photography]

<p>I had to make the same choice just before the holidays, I selected the 24-105 and love it.<br>

I choose the 24-105L for the extra length. You might find 24 not wide enough, after having the 17-55. The IS feature has helped get me shots I may have not tried without it. <br>

I still sometimes miss the 2.8. For most part I use the extra length more then wanting extra f stop of light.<br>

I suggest doing something that helped me, I sorted my LR catalog by focal lengths and found most of the time I was shooting 60+ (with my old 28-135) So based on that info, I choose the 24-105L.<br>

I let my shooting style choose for me. I couldn't be happier. <br>

In the end its a tough choice but really you don't lose out with either of the these lens. IMO<br>

Good luck and let us know what you select in the end.<br>

-Peter</p>

<p> </p>

[frank kennedy]

<p>I have the 24-70 f/2.8. It is very heavy and dense. I don't like to carry it. It takes good pictures though. I bought the 18-55 is for $120 used, and I usually use it instead. If I had the 17-55 I think I would prefer that to the 24-70. I don't have the 24-105 but people say that it is nice. You already have a good kit. Do you think that these lens changes will improve your photos?</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I would not recommend the 24-70 for a crop body. You will probably not find it wide enough and the lens will make the camera balance poor due to it's weight. You need a camera the size of the 5D or 3 (or a bigger 1 series body) to get a good balanced feeling with this lens. The 17-55 F2.8 is not a lens I have used but I suspect that it is your bext option until you go full frame. If you go full frame there are pros and cons to both lenses and I suspact that very few people have used both - they just advocate the one they have as they are both good lenses. An objective analysis is that the 24-105 is lighter, cheaper and can combat camera shake. Conversely the 24-105 is better at stopping motion (it gives you an extra stop of shutter speed), can produce a reasonably shallow DOF of portraits (there are better lenses for this) and gives higher quality images. I chose the24-70 but since I still shoot film as well as digital the F2.8 is a big deal.</p>

[lmwalker]

<p>Either the 24-70 or 24-105 are great general purpose lenses on FF, but I would stick with the 17-55 for the 50D. 24mm just isn't wide enough for a general purpose lens on APS-C bodies, IMO.</p>

[lou_miller]

<p>I personally find the 24-105 to provide a great range for getting candid close ups of people (esp. kids). Also, based on your photos, It doesn't look like you need an extra stop to get the shot when out in the sand (ie, I assume all that sunlight gives you plenty of flexibility to get action stopping shutter speeds when necessary, even at F4). I spend more time in the woods than in the desert, but I don't usually bring a tripod on such adventures. As such, I find that the 24-105's IS is nice when trying to get a still-life pic in low light at the optimal f stop (like F8). So it seems like the longer reach and IS might be more useful than the extra stop for your stated purposes. Also, your 50 1.4 gives that fast lens to use indoors without flash when you need it. I agree with the earlier comment that a review of your photos to see how much you are shooting at the longer focal lengths (and also how much you are at f 2.8) would be a great exercise as well.</p>

[mattb1]

<p >I have the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS and the 24-105 L f4, besides the build quality difference I'm not very blown away yet by the 24-105. I miss 2.8 more than what I thought. I have not done any in depth comparisons, and the photos I've take with the 24-105 so far have been under poor conditions. So, its probably a unfair opinion at this point. Still, I had hoped to see a bigger difference. So, you may not gain much image quality from the 24-105 or at least it may not be worth it from a cost point of view. So, not sure I would give a thumbs up for an upgrade yet.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I do not have the 24-70 2.8L. I’m currently trying to decide between trading the 24-105 for it or just having both. From what I gather it is somewhat better image quality wise than the 24-105, and f2.8. So, that may be a better jump in IQ from the 17-55 2.8 IS, or at least more of a jump per dollar. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Or just keep the 17-55 for a while, but in that sand I would be afraid it would not have a long life.</p>

[gorasinski]

<p>Stick to 17-55, that is an incredible lens! Make sure you are using hood and UV protective filter when in sandy conditions, and you will not go wrong...<br>

To be honest you will not gain anything, or at least not much by going to L from what you have got, apart from 70-200 - go for that!</p>

[dandem]

<p>I use the 24-105....EXCELLENT lens...lacks a little on the wide side. You will get tremendous results. I can highly recommend it. Don't cut back spending on a good filter for it.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>Both the 24-105 and 24-70 are meant to be used on Full Frame sensor cameras like the 5D and one series. The 17-55 is the crop sensor version of those lenses that goes with your 50D. It's likely that the lens you already have will yeild the same if not better images than those you are considering. </p>

<p>As for the longer lens, if you are upgrading to get faster Fstop then that's fine. If you are looking for better image quality you will be dissapointed. The 70-300 is among the sharpest lenses in the lineup. And it has IS. The only downside is that the front element rotates during focus which can complicate the use of a polarizer.</p>

<p>BTW looks like Y'all are having fun out there, from your pictures.</p>

[hstelljes]

<p>You will not cover the wide angle with either of the 24s. I don't know if thats important to you, if it is than consider the efs 10-22mm lens, it's L quality. I also agree with Bob O about the 70-300 IS, it's a very good lens and think about the 100mm you would be giving up. So it really depends on what kind of shooting you do. Both lenses you are considering are great but you may be let down a little after giving up the current lenses you have. It sounds like most of your shooting is outdoors so I guess I would opt for the 24-105 with IS if I had to choose.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If I were in your shoes I would not sell the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS in exchange for the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS... just because the latter is a "L" lens. The former is a really fine lens and I'd argue that it provides more utility on your camera. (And I own the 24-105m, although I shoot it on full frame.)</p>

<p>The main problem is that 24mm is barely wide at all on your camera. You'll exchange a "wide to slightly telephoto" lens for a "slightly wider than normal to telephoto" lens and lose one stop of aperture in the bargain... and not likely see any improvement in image quality.</p>

<p>I'd also point out that buying a lens when you are going back and forth on this stuff is often a sign that you are about to make an unwise decision that is perhaps driven more by desire to own a new lens than by a careful appraisal of your needs. Unless the 17-55 is failing you in some way, keep shooting with it. And take your time thinking about what your real needs might be for other lenses - not just what sounds like a cool lens or what might "complete your kit" - but what features you actually need for your photography.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[stephanie_costello]

<p><strong>I want to thank you all for your wonderful responses. I truly value everyones opinion. I have taken some to heart and will consider my options. </strong><br>

<strong>I want to thank </strong><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3989561"><strong>G Dan Mitchell</strong></a><strong>, by far you have made alot of sense with my options. I really appreciate it. Not that you all werent helpful, but he made me see what I guess my uncle was promoting "L lenses are the best!"......</strong><br>

<strong>So I have concluded that I will be staying with my 17-55, but I may upgrade my 70-300 to a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. </strong><br>

<strong>Anybody want to give me more opinions on that decision. LOL</strong></p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I agree with all the opinions that the 24mm zooms may not be wide enough on the crop body. Down the road you could consider either the 16-35/2.8 L or 17-40/4 L to replace your 17-55 or perhaps by then you may have a full frame body as well which would be more appropriate for the 24mm zooms. In any case you won't miss much between 35mm and 70mm, and you have the 50/1.4 anyway.</p>

<p>If you are interested in some excellent used lenses to save some money you could consider the 16-35/2.8 L version 1, the 17-35/2.8 L, or the 20-35/2.8 L. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Stephanie, glad I could help. I think a lot of people need "lens lust aversion therapy" from time to time. :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[alan_myers]

<p>You've made a good decision Stephanie... exactly what I'd have suggested (even tho I use the 24-70/2.8 myself... but I compliment it with a wider zoom, too).</p>

<p>Stick with the 17-55 and upgrade the tele zoom to a 70-200 IS.</p>

<p>Before you commit to the f2.8, I'd suggest you rent it and use it for a couple days. It is a big, heavy lens. I use it 10 and 12 hours straight some days, but my arm is always sore the next day! The f4 lens is a lot more compact and lighter. Judge for yourself if you really want to lug around the f2.8 version. The f4 lens will usually be a lot easier to pack and carry on a quads or take along on a hike or camping trip. Any of the 70-200 lenses will be better sealed against dust and moisture than your current tele zoom.</p>

<p>If you ever feel you need more reach that 200mm gives you, all these lenses work well with the 1.4X teleconverter (Canon or Kenko are prob. the best, but I haven't tried them all). Don't get the 2X teleconverter, though. With an f4 lens you'll have trouble with autofocus and a dim viewfinder to try to manually focus, plus the image quality with my 70-200 + 2X keeps me from using that combo.</p>

<p>16 and 17mm really isn't very wide on crop sensor cameras like yours (and mine) either, so I see little benefit to 16-35 or 17-40 lenses unless and until you buy a full frame camera. I just sold a 17-35/2.8L and replaced it with a 12-24/4 Tokina. In your case, if you feel the need for something wider, the 11-16/2.8 Tokina might be a good choice, if you really need f2.8 on this range. If not, there the 12-24, Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 or the new Tamron 10-24. The latter three all have variable apertures, which I try to avoid because I use manual studio strobe lighting some times. But, that might not be a concern for most people.</p>

[farmer on the hill]

<p>I would keep the 17-55 as you are using Full frame. Just in case you want a perfect prime, look at the Sigma 70mm f/2.8, this is the sharpest lens I have ever used, all my other lenses are Canon L glass.<br>

See the link to see what Popular Photography Magazine has to say......."CONCLUSION: With a lens like this, Sigma makes it difficult for us to sound objective. In practical terms, it's faultless"<br /> <br />Get one!<br>

You can see the link here..... <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/3407/test-sigma-70mm-f28-ex-dg-macro-af.html">http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/3407/test-sigma-70mm-f28-ex-dg-macro-af.html</a><br /> <br />Regards<br /> <br />JF</p>