Lens to fill the gap - Another 24-70 f2.8L Question!

abooth2909

abooth2909

Suspended / Banned
Messages
399
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, I know a similar question has been asked before but I have different requirements to that OP and different lenses in my bag.

I currently have what is in my Sig below and am looking for a Zoom lens to fill the gap between the Sigma 10-20 and the 70-200.

I am planning on sticking with the 40D for the forseeable future and have no immediate plans to go to full frame.

I will mainly be using the lens to take pics of my children (age 1 and 2 1/2) in a mixture of indoor / outdoor settings. I will also use the lens at family parties / weddings as a guest.

If I am going to shoot Landscape / wide stuff I will simply put the 10-20 on and longer stuff the 70-200.

Budget isn't a major consideration as I am being given some money soon so budget is up to £1000.

Will the Canon 24-70 f2.8L be good for my requirements or would I find the focal length a pain for shots of the kids. I dont struggle with the 50mm as a snapshot lens.

Opinions / other options welcome from people who have been in the same position.

Many thanks in advance.

Andy
 
If the canon is anything like the nikon 24-70 then that will be a great lens and cover you from 10-200.
 
I used the 24-70 on my 40D for about 12 months (before going full frame). I was really impressed with it, and never felt it was too long at the wide end. The improvement over the previous lens (which I'd had from my film days) just had me thinking "wow".

It's easily my most used lens.

It still goes on the 40D from time to time, but that usually just to fill the hole in the front of it when I've swapped lenses. ;)
 
If you have no plan to move to FF, I'd recommend getting the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It's slightly cheaper than the 24-70 and has IS, and IQ is amazing. Also, the main advantage imo is the focal range is perfect for a crop body.

I also have the Sigma 10-20, and whilst it being good for those dramatic landscape shots, its not always ideal to use for the general wide angle/landscape shots, and more often I find myself leaving the 17-55 on and using the 17-24 focal range a lot, unless I want that ultra wide look at 10-12mm. Also, with that focal range, there is much more use as a walkabout lens when travelling, group shots etc, because it is wide enough on a crop body. 24mm simply isn't wide enough to use as a general purpose lens on a crop body imo, whereas 24-70 on a FF camera will be similar to the 17-55 range on the crop.

This also saves you having to change lenses all the time, when you DO want to use anything below 24mm. So it comes down to.......which focal range would you miss more, 17-24mm or 55-70mm? For me personally, it is definitely the 17-24mm range, since there is a much bigger difference in what I can shoot than there would be at 55-70mm.

This is what made me decide to get the 17-55mm over the 24-70mm anyway.
 
As above.....beat me to it...As you have no plans to go full frame yet is it worth considering the quality 17-50mm f2.8's? I think that these lenses are worth looking at as they have good image quality and also because they are more compact than the 24-70mm f2.8's.
 
PS. With the 17-50mm f2.8's you can have IS too :)
 
Aww, Damn! I thought this was going to be an easy choice! :bang:

I guess I am going to have to get my hands on both the 24-70mm f2.8 and the 17-55 f2.8IS and see how they compare....

Thanks for the input guys :thumbs:, I may have a look through all my old photos and see what focal lengths I have mainly been shooting at. May help me decide what length I can live without.
 
To confuse you further, you might want to consider the 24-105 L too as you have the wide end covered off with the Sigma.

Having some overlap with the 70-200 at the long end will cut down on lens changes quite a bit. Although you did mention shooting your kids though so the extra stop of the 24-70 vs the 24-105 might be more important to you than the IS of the 24-105.

As others have said though, don't let the none L aspect of the EF-S 17-55 IS put you off. It is a fabulous lens on crop.
 
I have the 24-70 L on a 40D and I love it. I went for that one because I'd like to own a FF camera at some point in the future. Although I would keep my 40D too (hence I went for a 10-20 too).

I replaced my kit lens with the 24-70. I don't really find that 24mm too long other than for indoors in small rooms, which is pretty rare. The lens is very sharp, great colours and much less barrel distortion than my 17-85 (although that was still a good lens).

If you got the 27-70 you'd have the same line up as me through the 10-200 zoom range. Can't say I have any problems :)
 
MatW said:
If you got the 27-70 you'd have the same line up as me through the 10-200 zoom range. Can't say I have any problems :)
Click to expand...


That does look like a line up that I would not have too many sleepless nights about owning!

Think I need to get hold of a 24-70mm to have a look and play.

Can anyone reccomend a good shop in the noorth west that doesn't mind you taking your camera along to try the lens out with?

Thanks again all, even if i am more confused now! lol :bonk:
 
Wilkinsons in Southport looks like it is near you Andrew. I have been in when we visit father in law.
They are very friendly and have a good stock of Canon lenses. Have a look at the Canon 800mm at the back of the shop, in the glass case, if you want a thrill. It's enormous!

Cheers,
Paul.
 
seltechpc said:
Wilkinsons in Southport looks like it is near you Andrew. I have been in when we visit father in law.
They are very friendly and have a good stock of Canon lenses. Have a look at the Canon 800mm at the back of the shop, in the glass case, if you want a thrill. It's enormous!

Cheers,
Paul.
Click to expand...

Thanks, must say I haven't been in there before even though I've lived in Southport for years!

Will have a look for the 800mm!
 
Take a look at the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 f2.8 both have great optical performance, constant f2.8 aperture and all at a very very good price especially if you pick up a good used one.
 
The 24-70 is one of the best lenses around to be honest and well worth every penny. It's so sharp it would almost cut you :) You are unlikely to use the IS option on the 17-50 too often anyway as you can handhold the 24-70 at about 1/30.

It was my first L lens that I bought and I was so impressed that I ended up selling every lens I had and replacing them with L lenses when the cash was available. The difference between the L stuff and non L is like night and day especially for portraits and close up images. For landscape stuff the difference isn't as noticeable unless you are look at 100% views.

So, if you want to spend every penny you have over the next year or two upgrading all your lenses then go for the 24-70, otherwise go for the 17-50 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top