I am looking to get a lens for my new 5D that is about to arrive!! :barb Hurray! I am also purchasing the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I need another lens! Any recommendations and why you would recommend that lens? :scratch
Lens choice
You're gonna want a wider zoom (like the ones in your title) for everyday use. The 70-200 is great, but not for close action or indoors.
I personally keep the 24-105 L IS on my 50D almost all the time. Others have said they do the same with the 17-55 IS as well. I found the 17-40 a good one for that too, but I like the increased range of the 24-105.
If you can't afford L glass, the 17-85 IS or even better the new 18-135 IS would also be great choices.
I've moved this over to cameras (you originally posted it in 'the flea market')
The 24-105 and the 24-70 really are different animals if you ask me. The 2.8 vs 4 can be a big difference, if you need it. On the other hand, the IS can be just as great in certain (other) situations.
I have the 24-105 as a 'walk around' lens (the 70-200 2.8IS definitely is not one, just for the weight alone ), on the 5d2 as well. It's excellent. It's f/4 so no low-light lens, but I've found myself starting to use primes more and more anyway. I prefer the 24-105 because of the longer reach; especially on a full frame, 105 really isn't that much if you are coming from a crop body. For low light I choose to use primes.
The EOS 24-105 IS L is very sharp, and I keep one on one of my bodies all the time. I have 24x36 in prints from it, so it will do the job out of doors, or with flash. Indoors, without flash, the 24-70 f2.8 is a more versatile choice. It focuses better in dim light, but is bigger and heavier than the 24-105,
For walking around out of doors, I prefer the 24-105 IS L.
Indoors, where I don't have to carry the weight all day, I prefer the EOS 24-70 f2.8
Both are great lenses, just better for some tasks than others.
I have the 24 - 105 lens and love it on my 5D as a walkaround, everyday lens. The range is wonderful for the FF camera. I also used it on my 40D previously and had the 10 - 22 to complement it.
So between the 24 - 105 and the 24 - 70 are definite differences which you will have to decide based on your needs and shooting style. These include, but not limited to:
f/4 v f/2.8
105 mm v 70 mm on the long end
weight and size
image stabilization
(and don't think that having the 70 - 200 f/2.8 will negate the 70 - 105 range or the f/4 on these lenses).
I bypass the f/4 limitation by having prime lenses in my bag.
The 24-70mm f/2.8L and 24-105mm f/4L IS are both fine lenses. Personally I prefer the 24-70mm because I want the faster aperture, but there are definitely times when I wish it had IS. (There are rumors of a soon-to-be-released 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, but nothing has been officially announced yet.)
What else you want depends a lot on what kind of pictures you like to make. If you pick up either of those two standard-range zooms and an EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, then you have complete coverage from 17mm to 200mm, which is a good start. After that it's mostly a matter of what primes you want. The EF 35mm f/1.4L USM and EF 50mm f/1.4 USM will come in handy for low-light situations. On the ultra-wide end, there's the EF 14mm f/2.8 II USM and the EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye; for portraits, the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM and the EF 135mm f/2L USM; and various super-telephoto lenses as well.
Btw, some of the lenses that Tolleyman mentioned (the 17-55, 17-85, and 18-135) are only for APS-C cameras, not full-frame models like your 5D.
You are getting lots of good advice and the EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM and EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM are both good choices.
It would help us to know how you intend to use the lens.
Do you have an external flash yet?
I would also suggest looking at third party lenses and older/used Canon lenses. I have the very old (and no longer supported by Canon) Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM that still produces excellent images on a Canon 5D MKII.
I recently tried a 24-105mm on a 5D II and was impressed by the range and
sharpness in the center at f4. Corner performance however was a different
story. Especially at the wide and long end. If you've ever shot with a 24mm
prime or a fixed focal 100mm lens you will realize how big the difference
in quality actually is. In the end I chose not to buy the lens because the trade of
versatility and money vs image quality was not worth it to me. But everyone
is different. I'm looking to try a 24-70mm f/2.8 soon, it is supposed to be
a super lens stopped down... I'll see.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Thank You! Now some of you having me taking a closer look at the primes! I know I will need to keep adding lenses to my collection, but trying to get the fewest that would fit my needs for the time being. I do a bit of everything. I attempt to photograph the kiddos sports events. I do weddings for couples that can't afford a photographer, I am in the process of getting an in home studio set-up and then I do outdoor photo sessions. I do have a few external flashes (430EX). I am even more torn between those two lenses. I refuse to do wedding indoors, with low light, so the one would be great in that area (or a prime). But I do like the idea of the zoom and IS. Thank you everyone for all your opinions. You all have added some pros and cons to both and added some new ideas. This is the first time I have been on DGRIN and love it!
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> Thank You!
Life is full of compromise. Ideally you would want both. 24-70L for indoors and 24-104L for outdoor activities. If you prefer large apertures for shallow DOF, you would want to have 24-70L. Also keep in mind that the IS won't freez the movement. But if you have couple of Primes like (28/35, 50, 85), you can get 24-105L and use short to medium Primes for indoor, if you can live up with lens changing or you have more than one camera bodies.
A good pairing
I have both the 24-70 and 24 105 on my 5d2's. My go to lens is the 24-105; The 24-70 can have some focus issues on some copies. Mine is tack sharp. The 24-105 has a crisper look to the images than the 24-70 and the color is more contrasty.
The 24-105 is not a good indoor choice without flash in many circumstances. I frequently have a 50 1.2 with me for the low light capabilities, but you could have the 50 1.4 as a companion lens.
I have both the 24-70 and 24 105 on my 5d2's. My go to lens is the 24-105; The 24-70 can have some focus issues on some copies. Mine is tack sharp. The 24-105 has a crisper look to the images than the 24-70 and the color is more contrasty.
The 24-105 is not a good indoor choice without flash in many circumstances. I frequently have a 50 1.2 with me for the low light capabilities, but you could have the 50 1.4 as a companion lens.
The 24-70 is an old, old lens. Its glass is rather slow even with the 2.8. It really needs a higher f stop before it starts to perform, the 2.8 is not really an option. This lens is never razor sharp, no matter how perfect the conditions. It has beautiful color, but lacks clarity. It is big and heavy, and well-constructed, focuses quickly, smoothly and quietly.
The 24-105 performs right from f4. It is faster than that f stop would imply, and with the IS the gap between it and the 24-70 closes somewhat, even for moving subjects in low light, as seen in the images produced. Images have good color and better clarity. They are very sharp. It is lighter but still well constructed. It is one of the newer lenses and the improvements in optics manufacture, configuration and mechanics, over the 24-70, are appreciable.
People have already made very valid points about the f/2.8 being better for freezing action, however this is something that recently swayed me to get the 24-105 f/4L IS instead of the 24-70 f/2.8L:
I can't remember the correct wording, but IS claims to allow hand held shooting at 2-3 stops better than you could do without it.
f/4 to f/2.8 is 1-stop difference, or "twice as fast". So in low light (and handheld) you may get much more usable shots from a f/4 with IS than from a f/2.8. Even though the f/2.8 is better at freezing the action the camera shake will be a noticeable problem.
People have already made very valid points about the f/2.8 being better for freezing action, however this is something that recently swayed me to get the 24-105 f/4L IS instead of the 24-70 f/2.8L:
I can't remember the correct wording, but IS claims to allow hand held shooting at 2-3 stops better than you could do without it.
f/4 to f/2.8 is 1-stop difference, or "twice as fast". So in low light (and handheld) you may get much more usable shots from a f/4 with IS than from a f/2.8. Even though the f/2.8 is better at freezing the action the camera shake will be a noticeable problem.
Comments
You're gonna want a wider zoom (like the ones in your title) for everyday use. The 70-200 is great, but not for close action or indoors.
I personally keep the 24-105 L IS on my 50D almost all the time. Others have said they do the same with the 17-55 IS as well. I found the 17-40 a good one for that too, but I like the increased range of the 24-105.
If you can't afford L glass, the 17-85 IS or even better the new 18-135 IS would also be great choices.
"Just my 2 cents"
The 24-105 and the 24-70 really are different animals if you ask me. The 2.8 vs 4 can be a big difference, if you need it. On the other hand, the IS can be just as great in certain (other) situations.
I have the 24-105 as a 'walk around' lens (the 70-200 2.8IS definitely is not one, just for the weight alone
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
For walking around out of doors, I prefer the 24-105 IS L.
Indoors, where I don't have to carry the weight all day, I prefer the EOS 24-70 f2.8
Both are great lenses, just better for some tasks than others.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
So between the 24 - 105 and the 24 - 70 are definite differences which you will have to decide based on your needs and shooting style. These include, but not limited to:
- f/4 v f/2.8
- 105 mm v 70 mm on the long end
- weight and size
- image stabilization
(and don't think that having the 70 - 200 f/2.8 will negate the 70 - 105 range or the f/4 on these lenses).I bypass the f/4 limitation by having prime lenses in my bag.
What else you want depends a lot on what kind of pictures you like to make. If you pick up either of those two standard-range zooms and an EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, then you have complete coverage from 17mm to 200mm, which is a good start. After that it's mostly a matter of what primes you want. The EF 35mm f/1.4L USM and EF 50mm f/1.4 USM will come in handy for low-light situations. On the ultra-wide end, there's the EF 14mm f/2.8 II USM and the EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye; for portraits, the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM and the EF 135mm f/2L USM; and various super-telephoto lenses as well.
Btw, some of the lenses that Tolleyman mentioned (the 17-55, 17-85, and 18-135) are only for APS-C cameras, not full-frame models like your 5D.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
You are getting lots of good advice and the EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM and EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM are both good choices.
It would help us to know how you intend to use the lens.
Do you have an external flash yet?
I would also suggest looking at third party lenses and older/used Canon lenses. I have the very old (and no longer supported by Canon) Canon EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM that still produces excellent images on a Canon 5D MKII.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
sharpness in the center at f4. Corner performance however was a different
story. Especially at the wide and long end. If you've ever shot with a 24mm
prime or a fixed focal 100mm lens you will realize how big the difference
in quality actually is. In the end I chose not to buy the lens because the trade of
versatility and money vs image quality was not worth it to me. But everyone
is different. I'm looking to try a 24-70mm f/2.8 soon, it is supposed to be
a super lens stopped down... I'll see.
― Edward Weston
Now some of you having me taking a closer look at the primes! I know I will need to keep adding lenses to my collection, but trying to get the fewest that would fit my needs for the time being. I do a bit of everything. I attempt to photograph the kiddos sports events. I do weddings for couples that can't afford a photographer, I am in the process of getting an in home studio set-up and then I do outdoor photo sessions. I do have a few external flashes (430EX). I am even more torn between those two lenses. I refuse to do wedding indoors, with low light, so the one would be great in that area (or a prime). But I do like the idea of the zoom and IS. Thank you everyone for all your opinions. You all have added some pros and cons to both and added some new ideas. This is the first time I have been on DGRIN and love it!
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Thank You!
Eric
I have both the 24-70 and 24 105 on my 5d2's. My go to lens is the 24-105; The 24-70 can have some focus issues on some copies. Mine is tack sharp. The 24-105 has a crisper look to the images than the 24-70 and the color is more contrasty.
The 24-105 is not a good indoor choice without flash in many circumstances. I frequently have a 50 1.2 with me for the low light capabilities, but you could have the 50 1.4 as a companion lens.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
I hav also just changed to full frame(5d) and have been trying to choos how to spend my $1000. thanks for letting me lurk and learn
Let us know if you have any questions
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
The 24-70 is an old, old lens. Its glass is rather slow even with the 2.8. It really needs a higher f stop before it starts to perform, the 2.8 is not really an option. This lens is never razor sharp, no matter how perfect the conditions. It has beautiful color, but lacks clarity. It is big and heavy, and well-constructed, focuses quickly, smoothly and quietly.
The 24-105 performs right from f4. It is faster than that f stop would imply, and with the IS the gap between it and the 24-70 closes somewhat, even for moving subjects in low light, as seen in the images produced. Images have good color and better clarity. They are very sharp. It is lighter but still well constructed. It is one of the newer lenses and the improvements in optics manufacture, configuration and mechanics, over the 24-70, are appreciable.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I can't remember the correct wording, but IS claims to allow hand held shooting at 2-3 stops better than you could do without it.
f/4 to f/2.8 is 1-stop difference, or "twice as fast". So in low light (and handheld) you may get much more usable shots from a f/4 with IS than from a f/2.8. Even though the f/2.8 is better at freezing the action the camera shake will be a noticeable problem.
Mcfang, welcome to the Digital Grin.
Thanks for your observations.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums