L-Series Lens Advice: 24-104mm or 70-200mm?

kcui

So I've decided to invest in some more quality equipment after the past 2 years. I've been more of a hobbyist but I'd like to try and invest into some more pricier gear:

Current Setup:

Canon 30D
Sigma 18-125mm f. 3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

I just purchased a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, I wanted the lower focal length for landscape and nature shots.

I am currently happy with my 60mm Macro.

I am contemplating upgrading to a 7D in the next couple months (I want to stay APS C for the time being).

I've enjoyed my Sigma but have noticed its limitations and I have decided to replace it with one of the following lenses, but I am having trouble deciding, and wanted some opinions.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non- IS version)
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Both seem to the excellent lenses. I'm not too crazy about the jump in price on the 70-200mm from the non-Is to the IS USM II version, so with both proposed lenses I am staying in the low $1000s. but the nice thing about the 70-200 is the speed and the focal length.

That said the 24-105 is a bit smaller and cheaper, and I get 24 -70 while sacrificing longer focal length. But it is only f/4.

Does anyone have any opinions, or experience with these two lenses? I'm not dead set on Canon but if I was going to go third-party I'd like to find something that can match the L-series build and quality, or come close as long as I am getting a good bang for the buck.

To summarize, my final proposed setup would be:

Canon 7d (pending)
Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non- IS version)
OR
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Thanks!

Eclipsed

Well, the one thing I am not sure about is what you like to shoot. This is an important factor to consider when choosing lenses. Do you shoot sports, landscape, wildlife?

Also, if you are happy with your Sigma 18-125mm, then I would add the 70-200mm to your mix, but again, it really depends on what you shoot.

kcui

Eclipsed wrote:

Well, the one thing I am not sure about is what you like to shoot. This is an important factor to consider when choosing lenses. Do you shoot sports, landscape, wildlife?

Also, if you are happy with your Sigma 18-125mm, then I would add the 70-200mm to your mix, but again, it really depends on what you shoot.

I mostly shoot nature shots, not too much wildlife (moving targets). I don't shoot sports. I would like to do more night-time photography.

I currently don't shoot many events or groups of people(like weddings) but I would like something that would cover the gamut of group shots if need be.

Eclipsed

Well, the 24-105mm is a very nice lens. It is quite capable and IS is very useful. But, be aware that on a crop sensor, 24mm is not very wide and on FF is the equivalent of just over 38mm. For you, that may not be a problem though because you already have a UWA lens.

kcui

Would you recommend the 70-200 range over the 24-105 range, or vice versa?

As far as optic quality, I'm not too concerned with either, but I'm a little nervous of missing out on the 27-70 range if I got the 70-200 over the 24-105.

Eclipsed

I do a lot of nature/landscape shooting and rarely need a longer telephoto. Most of my shots are taken between 10mm and 55mm. I do use longer occasionally and it is nice to have. 105mm is plenty fine on the long end for most work and cropping with a nice L lens and a 7D is no big deal. You did say you have an 18-125mm lens and the 24-105mm is a great upgrade for that in many ways. Ultimately, if you don't feel a need to go longer you really don't need a long lens, get a lens that will be truly useful for what you do.

EOS_JD

kcui wrote:

Would you recommend the 70-200 range over the 24-105 range, or vice versa?

As far as optic quality, I'm not too concerned with either, but I'm a little nervous of missing out on the 27-70 range if I got the 70-200 over the 24-105.

The two ranges are almost completely different apart from a small overlap. If you shoot wider normally then the 24-105 is a fantastic lens. Might only be f4 but I rarely need the extra stop and when I do I use faster primes instead.

The 70-200 is also a fantastic lens and if you find you want to shoot at the long end of your lenses that is the one to look at.

Really depends what you shoot. For weddings and dark churches the IS lens is the one to have! Able to shoot at below 1/30th sec at 200mm is amazing! The non-IS really needs high ISO in l.ow light to maintain 1/200th at the long end.

Two totally diferent lenses and only you can decide because you know what you shoot, Actually they go well together. I use mainly the 10-22, 24-105 and 70-200 (2.8IS) as my main lens trio.

ChatKat

70-200
While the 70-200 is an awesome lens - I have both the f4 and 2.8 is versions. My most verstile lens is the 24 - 105 or 24-70 on the crop or full frame camera.

If you want a nice value lens that has a very wide range, the Tamron 28-300 VR covers both ranges and we use it for our personal travel photography and have never been disappointed.

kcui

Thanks for the opinions.

For weddings and dark churches the IS lens is the one to have! Able to shoot at below 1/30th sec at 200mm is amazing! The non-IS really needs high ISO in l.ow light to maintain 1/200th at the long end.

For the extra money, is the extra capability of the 70-200 IS worth it? I don't shoot indoors too much though I would like more nighttime shots, but most of it would be stills.

I just noticed there is an IS II version of the 70-200 but it is out of my price range...

EOS_JD

kcui wrote:

Thanks for the opinions.



For the extra money, is the extra capability of the 70-200 IS worth it? I don't shoot indoors too much though I would like more nighttime shots, but most of it would be stills.

I just noticed there is an IS II version of the 70-200 but it is out of my price range...

Indoors the IS excels BUT nighttime shots generally require a tripod - IS helps to a point - With the 2.8 it's down to about 1/30th sec. Remember IS doesn't stop subject motion.

pathfinder

I love my 24-105 on a full frame body, but on a crop body the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS is a fantastic lens..... Better for low light as well.

If thats too short, add the 135 f2 and you have a dynamite combo.

For a little less than price of the 70-200 f2.8 IS L ( $1899 ), you can have the 135 f2 ( $999 ) and the 200 f2.8 L II ( $769) - both of which are superb lenses.

Scott_Quier

I have both the 24-105 f/4L and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Additionally, I have ready access to the 70-200 f/4L (my son's). So, I have a bit of experience with all these lenses on both a full-frame camera (5DII) and on croppers (20D, 30D, and 50D).

I've quoted a bunch of your responses because there's information there that is helpful in making the decision:

kcui wrote:

I mostly shoot nature shots, not too much wildlife (moving targets). I don't shoot sports. I would like to do more night-time photography.

I currently don't shoot many events or groups of people(like weddings) but I would like something that would cover the gamut of group shots if need be.

This would point me to favor the 24-105 over the 70-200. The night-time photography can be accomplished with either lens - you just need to be using a tripod.

The 70-200 will, most likely, be a bit long for any group shots, especially in cramped quarters where you ability to back away from the crowd might be limted.

kcui wrote:

Would you recommend the 70-200 range over the 24-105 range, or vice versa?

As far as optic quality, I'm not too concerned with either, but I'm a little nervous of missing out on the 27-70 range if I got the 70-200 over the 24-105.

Your 60mm will cover a nice piece of the gap about which you have concerns. But, each mm gets more significant as you get shorter. I'm thinking your statement here would point you to favor the shorter zoom.

kcui wrote:

For the extra money, is the extra capability of the 70-200 IS worth it? I don't shoot indoors too much though I would like more nighttime shots, but most of it would be stills.

The only time IS is "worth it" is if you will be shooting hand-held. On a tripod, you should, in fact, turn the IS off.

Given everything you've mentioned, it seems clear to me that you would appreciate the shorter focal lengths over the longer reach of any of the 70-200 variants. I could easily recommend the following:

• EF 24-105 f/4L - but it as pathfinder has indicated, this might be a bit long on a crop
• EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS - build quality not quite as good as a "L" (in fact, I've had to send mine in to replace the zoom mechanism after a couple of seasons as my primary lens shooting weddings - lots of hard work there) but the optics are very, very hard to beat. This lens is an excellent, multi-purpose lens on a crop camera
• EF 24-70 f/2.8L - If the additional 1 stop of aperture is important to you. You stated that you are not particularly interested in shooting fast-moving subjects, so I suspect the additional aperture is not such a high priority.
• ETA - The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 ranks high on my list of gotta have lenses. I've had mine for years and use it on a regular basis.

ETA - Something else to think about ... both the 24-105 and the Tamron have a "close-focus" capability. I don't think I would call it Macro (though that does get thrown around a bit), but you can can get some reasonably close shots with either lens.

kcui

Scott_Quier wrote:

I have both the 24-105 f/4L and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Additionally, I have ready access to the 70-200 f/4L (my son's). So, I have a bit of experience with all these lenses on both a full-frame camera (5DII) and on croppers (20D, 30D, and 50D).

I've quoted a bunch of your responses because there's information there that is helpful in making the decision:

This would point me to favor the 24-105 over the 70-200. The night-time photography can be accomplished with either lens - you just need to be using a tripod.

The 70-200 will, most likely, be a bit long for any group shots, especially in cramped quarters where you ability to back away from the crowd might be limted.

Your 60mm will cover a nice piece of the gap about which you have concerns. But, each mm gets more significant as you get shorter. I'm thinking your statement here would point you to favor the shorter zoom.

The only time IS is "worth it" is if you will be shooting hand-held. On a tripod, you should, in fact, turn the IS off.

Given everything you've mentioned, it seems clear to me that you would appreciate the shorter focal lengths over the longer reach of any of the 70-200 variants. I could easily recommend the following:

• EF 24-105 f/4L - but it as pathfinder has indicated, this might be a bit long on a crop
• EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS - build quality not quite as good as a "L" (in fact, I've had to send mine in to replace the zoom mechanism after a couple of seasons as my primary lens shooting weddings - lots of hard work there) but the optics are very, very hard to beat. This lens is an excellent, multi-purpose lens on a crop camera
• EF 24-70 f/2.8L - If the additional 1 stop of aperture is important to you. You stated that you are not particularly interested in shooting fast-moving subjects, so I suspect the additional aperture is not such a high priority.
• ETA - The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 ranks high on my list of gotta have lenses. I've had mine for years and use it on a regular basis.

ETA - Something else to think about ... both the 24-105 and the Tamron have a "close-focus" capability. I don't think I would call it Macro (though that does get thrown around a bit), but you can can get some reasonably close shots with either lens.

Thanks for the opinions everyone, and Scott for the breakdown. Right now I am leaning toward the 24-105. Not only will it be more of a 'like for like' replacement of my Sigma, but I can evaluate if it is too short (or too long), and perhaps save up for a longer piece of glass. I feel confident between my Tokina and Canon Macro I will be decently covered in the lower focal ranges for my purposes, for the time being.

Scott, a bit off-topic: do you find crop sensors sufficient for your wedding or event photography or do you prefer full-frame?

Richard

kcui wrote:

As far as optic quality, I'm not too concerned with either, but I'm a little nervous of missing out on the 27-70 range if I got the 70-200 over the 24-105.

Rightly so.

I have a 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and I am very happy with the combination. You can get both new for about $1100 and less if you look for used. You might also want to be on the lookout for the original 70-200 f/2.8 IS on the used market. It's an outstanding lens, but with the release of the Mark II version, some people are selling the older ones.

kcui

Richard wrote:

Rightly so.

I have a 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and I am very happy with the combination. You can get both new for about $1100 and less if you look for used. You might also want to be on the lookout for the original 70-200 f/2.8 IS on the used market. It's an outstanding lens, but with the release of the Mark II version, some people are selling the older ones.

Has anyone done a Mark II vs the standard 70-200 f/2.8 IS comparison? I'd be interested to see how the new one stacks up to the original.

Scott_Quier

kcui wrote:

Scott, a bit off-topic: do you find crop sensors sufficient for your wedding or event photography or do you prefer full-frame?

I don't do this any more (I still have to clean up the loose ends here and there), but when I did, I was satisfied with the croppers. I used 30D and 50D cameras.

Then, when I got the 5DII, it all changed. I found the difference in IQ to be immediately obvious and very much in the favor of the 5DII. But opinions vary. Some say the faster shutter speed available with the cropper is an advantage. I didn't find it so. I never felt cramped by the slower shutter of the 5DII. But, then again, I never set the camera to high-speed shutter and held the button down. Each exposure was intentional.

YMMV

ziggy53

kcui wrote:

Has anyone done a Mark II vs the standard 70-200 f/2.8 IS comparison? I'd be interested to see how the new one stacks up to the original.

Best comparative review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Real image crop comparisons:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103

kcui

ziggy53 wrote:

Best comparative review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Real image crop comparisons:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103

Funny I usually check out Ken Rockwell but I must have skimmed over that article. I didn't see the comparitive sections.

poker

kcui wrote:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non- IS version)

I had this on a 30D with a 580EX during an event. The banquet hall was huge so the zoom and crop was fine.

I regret not getting IS though.

CaiusMartius

I really like my 24-105 and find it extremely versatile. (I typically carry one lens at a time and it is my most used.) I do sometimes wish that it was a 2.8, but I have a light tripod that I take with me all the time. I find that it is a good lens for general photography, but I will agree that it is a little long on a crop body for any wide angle work. I have a Tamaron 17-50 f/2.8 for that.

I don't hesitate to shoot wide open on the 24-105, so the 1 stop difference has rarely been an issue for me.