Lens advice please

DJ-S1 · January 10, 2007

My current lineup for my 20D:

canon 17-55 kit lens *rarely use*
tammy 28-75 f/2.8 *75% on camera*
canon 70-200 f/4L *24% on camera*
sigma 50-500 "bigma" *never use*

My shooting:

hate flash, so available light stuff
portraits, family snaps
some field & street, architecture
sports, mostly kids baseball, soccer, some NFL

My question:

Should I get the Canon 24-105 F/4L IS? Ideally it would replace the Tamron, but is it worth the extra coin and will the loss of a stop make me need to keep the Tamron?

I will be selling the bigma anyway - could I get away with just the 24-105 and the 70-200 in my kit?

DoctorIt · January 10, 2007

Hmmm. Tough one. I've read good and bad about the 24-105. I had the 28-135 once and hoped it would be a do-all, but I've found that as a walkaround, I prefer to have something that can really do a bit of wide. I had the Canon 17-85 and was a bit disappointed by it. My current fav 95%-of-the-time lens is the 18-50/2.8 Sigma EX. I find I don't miss the longer end at all.

So here's to not helping you: if money was no object, that 17-55/2.8 IS EF-S lens looks pretty hot as THE walkaround.

jdryan3 · January 10, 2007

DJ-S1 wrote:

tammy 28-75 f/2.8 *75% on camera*

hate flash, so available light stuff

Given the low light concern, have you considered the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L? There are a number of threads in this section (and every other photo website

) that discuss the pros/cons of those 2 lenses, so youc an go looking or do a search. They are about the same price also.

DoctorIt · January 10, 2007

that's a good point, for about the same as the 24-105, you can have a lens that you will never regret buying, 24-70L (at least in terms of quality, it's definitely on the "big heavy" side for a walkaround).

DJ-S1 · January 10, 2007

DoctorIt wrote:

I've read good and bad about the 24-105.

Anything bad besides the flare issue? I think that's been resolved.

DoctorIt wrote:

My current fav 95%-of-the-time lens is the 18-50/2.8 Sigma EX. I find I don't miss the longer end at all.

I think I would miss the longer end. I also want wide somewhat, but 24 vs 28mm is a step in the right direction.

DoctorIt wrote:

If money was no object, that 17-55/2.8 IS EF-S lens looks pretty hot as THE walkaround.

Well, the reason for this whole line of questioning is the 24-105 in the Flea Market. That's a good price...

DJ-S1 · January 10, 2007

jdryan3 wrote:

Given the low light concern, have you considered the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L? There are a number of threads in this section (and every other photo website ) that discuss the pros/cons of those 2 lenses, so youc an go looking or do a search. They are about the same price also.

Good thought, but I have that lens range and speed now; not an L to be sure, but not $1100 either. Imax's 24-105 is $850 right now.

I guess it's the slightly wider range and the IS that is tempting me to jump on a good price.

Duckys54 · January 10, 2007

Do you only walk around with your camera and lens or do you bring another lens? Id the latter have you considered getting 2 lenses? A wide to medium and medium to longish?

DJ-S1 · January 10, 2007

Duckys54 wrote:

Do you only walk around with your camera and lens or do you bring another lens? Id the latter have you considered getting 2 lenses? A wide to medium and medium to longish?

Good question - I normally have one lens with me. If I'm shooting sports (my son's games) I'll have the 70-200 on and I may keep the Tamron in the car just in case. There are occasions where I'll bring the whole bag, but normally I walk around with just the Tamron.

I really like it, but I'm thinking the IS will make up for the lack of f/2.8. I don't like to shoot at 2.8 all the time anyway because of the shallow DOF.

I think I'm gonna dive in - that price is too good; even if I end up not liking the lens I'm sure I can get my money back out of it.

DoctorIt · January 10, 2007

DJ-S1 wrote:

Good question - I normally have one lens with me. If I'm shooting sports (my son's games) I'll have the 70-200 on and I may keep the Tamron in the car just in case. There are occasions where I'll bring the whole bag, but normally I walk around with just the Tamron.

I really like it, but I'm thinking the IS will make up for the lack of f/2.8. I don't like to shoot at 2.8 all the time anyway because of the shallow DOF.

yeah but having it makes it all that much faster to focus when you're at f/4. IS is good and all, but there is still no substitute for fast glass.

I think I'm gonna dive in - that price is too good; even if I end up not liking the lens I'm sure I can get my money back out of it.

this is very true. shall I mark it sold?

DJ-S1 · January 10, 2007

DoctorIt wrote:

shall I mark it sold?

Just waitin' to hear back - he's out shooting.

Now I have to get off my a$$ and post the bigma!

claudermilk · January 11, 2007

DoctorIt wrote:

yeah but having it makes it all that much faster to focus when you're at f/4. IS is good and all, but there is still no substitute for fast glass.

Which is why I have never looked back from getting the 24-70/2.8. I get 3 things from it over the IS: 1) faster shutter freezes moving subjects better, 2) brighter viewfinder, 3) activates the high-precision mode on the always-on center AF point.

Looking at the f2.8 vs f4 + IS and all the comments on the lenses, in my mind they fill two different purposes: 24-70 is the low-light midrange zoom monster, while the 24-105 is more a general-purpose walk-around with IS for the occasional lower-light situation.

Now of course if Canon were nice & gave us a f2.8 + IS mid-range (24-70/2.8IS or 24-105/2.8IS) I would start looking at replacing my beloved 24-70, because fast glass PLUS IS kicks butt.

DJ-S1 · January 11, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

...while the 24-105 is more a general-purpose walk-around with IS for the occasional lower-light situation.

Sounds perfect for my needs! Too bad I wasn't fast enough snapping up that deal from Imax. :cry

TylerW · January 12, 2007

DoctorIt wrote:

yeah but having it makes it all that much faster to focus when you're at f/4. IS is good and all, but there is still no substitute for fast glass.

Absolutely. the L glass may make for good portraiture, but for family snaps (if your family is anything like mine), they don't hold still, and the IS and F/4 combination would let you down. If you think this lens is right for you, pick it up. Just make sure that you get the 50mm f/1.8 while you do it. That's my catchall "I want candids and I've got no control over the light" lens, and its never let me down.

Lens advice please

Comments