Which lens? Cannot decide.....opinions welcome!

Diego Garcia

Diego Garcia

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,238
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking for a new lens for my 30D to compliment my collection and pretty much nail down what I have (until next week) :D

My shortlist includes -

Canon Lens 17-40 f4.0 L USM

A superbly reviewed lens. Amazing build and PQ thought the lack of IS puts me off. slightly short but not a big deal.

Canon Lens 24-70 f2.8 L USM

Similar to above, slightly longer. Again no IS but highly regarded by all who use it. PQ is fab. Nice and fast at 2.8 but again no IS.

Canon Lens 24-105 f4 L IS USM

Again, inherently similar to the above, but the 105 would compliment my 100 -400L nicely, would make my ideal everyday lens, leaving my primes and wide for special/lower light stuff though fixed f4 no slouch. The only downside to this lens is that some people have been quite critical of it whilst others rate it highly.

What are you thoughts folks? Any users of the above lenses on here? All advice readliy accepted. The reason I mention IS is that my 17 - 85 had it and it became very useful considering I expected it not to be.

Thanks for reading.

Diego.
 
I've got the 17-40, superb but as you say a bit short and too wide for most of my stuff. 24-70's on my wish list, probably the next lens I go for.
 
I think you need to do a comparison of the 24-70 and the 24-105. As you know the IS is very addictive.
 
If you want F2.8 and IS then checkout the new Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS
It's no L lens in terms of build quality (same as 17-85) but image quality is up there :)
 
Just remember, f4 wont give you as true low light performance as an f2.8, it will allow handholding as much as 3 stops (I think:thinking: ) but its not going to be able to freeze action like a f2.8 can. Really different lenses for different purposes - despite the fact that people compare them to one another so often (I've done this myself).

If you can afford it I would go th 24-70mm f2.8 - very well built and recognized for its performance from everyone that uses it, this is particularly if you shoot low light stuff.

If however most of the stuff you shoot is probably going to have decent lighting, or involves more static subjects - go for the 24-105 f4.

(All IMHO):thumbs:
 
Sound advice, thanks all.

Have struck the 17 - 40 off due to length.

Now down to the 105 and 70 but ebbing toward the 105 for some reason, though the 2.8 appeals massively. What to do eh?!?!?!!?

Diego.
 
Is the IS going to give you what you want. I am guessing that at 40mm - 70mm there shouldnt really be that much shake unless you have Parkinson's disease or your hand holding technique isnt good. (Not meant to be derogatory to anyone who has Parkinson's or any other ailment which gives the shakes/tremors).

Saying that, I have the IS on on my 17-85 permanently. Might have to do a few on/off pictures to see whether it does aid or not.
 
For what it's worth, I would most likely go for the 24-70.

I would not like to give up the extra stop, 24-105 is a little to much "zoom" at > 4 to 1 and why would you want IS at that focal length. At 1/24 you should be on a tripod.

There is the 16-35 f/2.8L at US$1350 if you want wider. (I had one but I didn't like what it did on my 1Ds MII.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top