I Would love your input and advice on a lens purchase

Dante

I'm looking at buying a 3rd lens and I would welcome any and all input and advice :nod

I currently have an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I’m looking to fill the focal range between these two lenses and was considering the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM.

Thanks!

-Dante
__________________________
-New to DGrin and loving it!-

ziggy53

Dante wrote:

I'm looking at buying a 3rd lens and I would welcome any and all input and advice

I currently have an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I’m looking to fill the focal range between these two lenses and was considering the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM.

Thanks!

-Dante
__________________________
-New to DGrin and loving it!-

Dante,

I know it's natural to think about "filling the millimeter void" with the closest matching zoom, but I prefer to choose lenses based on their use.

You don't mention how you will use this lens, but I notice you don't have a lens in the medium-wide to medium-tele range. This is a really handy zoom range for a crop camera and event photography.

My recommendation would be either a Canon EF-S, 17-55mm, f2.8 IS or a Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8. I don't think the 24-70mm lens has enough of a wide angle of view for interior work.

ziggy53

Khaos

I have what you want to get. One nice thing is that I use those three on trips away from home. I'm always tempted to take everything, but that's a lot to haul. These three lenses serve me well.

The 10-22 works on landscapes, the 24-70 as a walk around, and the 70-200 as a closer range when the the 24-70 doesn't quite cut it.

Some will recommend the Tamron 28-75 if price is an issue. It's a good lens but it focus hunts a tad, isn't built as solid, and is noisier. However, if price is an issue, it is a very good lens.

System

you also might consider the

Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS zoom-

george

Dante

Thanks!
Ziggy,

I am a fairly new photographer and I haven’t gravitated toward any one type of shooting or another, so my use of a new lens would be fairly open. That being said, event photography is the one thing I know for sure that I’ll be doing with the new lens, so a medium-wide to medium-tele fits the bill.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm is one of the lenses that I had researched. I developed a few reservations about buying a 17-55mm after reading reviews about cost vs. quality for the lens. I haven’t had a chance to personally use this lens and I would certainly be grateful to hear input from anyone that has.

I haven’t looked into the Sigma 18-50mm at all, but I certainly will – it sounds like a viable option.

I really appreciate your input and I think that not just “filling the millimeter void” is sound advice.

Thanks again!

-Dante

David_S85

Khaos wrote:

Some will recommend the Tamron 28-75 if price is an issue. It's a good lens but it focus hunts a tad, isn't built as solid, and is noisier. However, if price is an issue, it is a very good lens.

I will recommend it. About the best you can do lens-wise for under $400US, or even under $600. Tack sharp, good contrast, and I don't mind the extra millisecond of focusing time. (not a sports lens). Noise issue? Not really, considering the mirror slap noise on the 20D

Here's a revie from Bob Atkins' site:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/

Make sure you get to part IV where he compares with the Canon 24-70. That's what made my mind up for the Tammy.

Dante

Khaos/David,

Money isn't a deciding issue for the lens. I'll definately read through the info on the Tamron 28-75mm on Bob Atkins' site. Never can have too much research info :

George,

A good suggestion and a lens with IS too.


Thanks for the feedback guys, it's always welcomed and appreciated.

-Dante

thebigsky

I have the 24-70 and I really like it, however you should be aware it's relatively heavy. I don't find it an issue but I've spoken to others for whom weight is a greater consideration and they did find it an issue.

You should also consider the 24-105, I was torn between the two and a bit of overlap does save on the lens swapping.

Owen

The 24-70 is an excellent lens. I use it for all my studio portraiture work and when shooting weddings it is my primary. At first I was surprised by the weight (coming from the Sony 828) but once it is put into regular use the weight just becomes a symbol of how solid the lens is. If you get a sharp, proper focusing copy it is a valuable tool. I also have the 70-200 and I do prefer it for location portraiture although 70 is quite long once you actually put it into the field. The bokeh on the 24-70 is a bit more bulbous then the 70-200 but still very pleasing.

Steve Cavigliano

Dante,
If money isn't a problem, then I'd suggest the 24-70L. It is a fine zoom and is heavier, better built and AF's better (faster and less hunting) than the Tamron in low light. Centerframe IQ is very similar, with the Canon winning out on edge sharpness. The Canon is way more costly, but it also holds its value longer and better.

I love my 28-75 F2.8, but if money was no object, I'd probably never buy any other AF lens brands than Canon

Steve

wxwax

As always, Ziggy has great advice and an excellent point. I will say that I have the 24-70 and am very happy with it.

Dante

Sky, Owen, Steve & Sid - Thanks for the feedback!

I'm looking into borrowing a 24-70mm from a friend in the next couple of weeks. I'm also looking further into the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS.

With a little luck (and a little extra funding from a side contract ...) I'll also be ordering a 30D in the next week or so to replace my 300D. My 300D has served me well, but I have found it lacking when it comes to shooting action shots.

-Dante

Poseidon

I have both the 24-70 2.8L, and now the 24-105 f4 IS. I have to say if your SUBJECT is not moving, then get the 24-105. If your SUBJECT is mobile then the extra stop of light will make all the difference in the world.

Pros on the 24-105 are smaller and lighter, with IS!
Cons, slower shutter speed will allow motion blur from subject motion.

Pros on the 24-70 extra stop of light, "feels" more solid.
Cons, HEAVY!!! I also get more lens flare, even with the HUGE hood attached then I have seen with limited use of the 24-105.

Dante

Thanks for the input Poseidon.

I don't mind extra weight (I'm used to shooting with a 70-200 2.8 IS) and I'll definately be shooting in lower light situations at times - so between the two lenses, I would probably lean more towards the 24-70mm.

-Dante