Which lens?

[t5Nitro]

I've narrowed my search down to the 24-70 f2.8L for my every day lens. From my understanding that lens is being discontinued? Are they coming out with an image stabilized version by chance? Or did the 24-105 take its place?

Now I want to narrow down a good wide angle lens. I've made a thread on this before, but I've found even more selection.

My few selections:

Sigma 10-20mm
Canon 17-40 f4L
Canon 17-55 f2.8

Personally I like to go with canon lenses. So if the sigma is that good please state it.

Just trying to figure out why the 17-55 is like 400$ more expensive. Is it because it's a 2.8? It is NOT an L series am I correct or not? At least when I took a quick glance it didn't say L.

For that extra $400 I could invest in the 430EX II flash.

Which would you pick?

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

The 24-70 f/2.8 is not being discontinued. The 24-105 is a whole different lens in its own right with a little more zoom, a full stop less of aperture, and IS. If the 24-70 f/2.8 does someday evolve into an IS lens, it would not necessarily be a replacement for the 24-70 f/2.8L. The 70-200 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L IS are two separate lenses. One doesn't replace the other. The 70-200 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS are two separate lenses. One doesn't replace the other. There have been rumors going around of a coming 24-70 f/2.8L IS for 7 years. I don't think it will happen any time soon, but if it does it will not discontinue the 24-70 f/2.8L, there will simply be an entirely different lens offered along with it for an extra $600. Because of the 24-105 f/4L IS, another completely different lens, the introduction of a 24-70 f/2.8 IS isn't likely. A 24-105mm f/2.8 IS? Who knows they are all meaningless fan rumors which have been going on since I was a little kid.

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is not an "L" lens. No EF-S lens ever well be, as "L" is Canon's PRO line and an EF-S lens won't fit on Canon's PRO cameras. Therefor being an EF-S (geared specifically for lower end cameras) eliminates any lens from being branded "L". The 17-55 f/2.8 IS should be compared directly to the 24-70 f/2.8. If you plan to get a dedicated wide angle lens, go for the 24-70 f/2.8. If you don't want a dedicated wide angle lens, go for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. The 17-40 f/4L is very wide on a full frame camera. On a 1.6x crop factor (the only type of camera you can use on a 17-55 f/2.8 IS), 17mm isn't all that wide. The Canon 10-22 is another EF-S lens which I think does a great job. Other 3rd party lenses seem to have gotten their wide angle department right on as well. So if you have the new 5DmkII the 17-40 f/4 and 24-70 f/2.8 sound like a great combination. Of course if you have a 5DmkII the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and Sigma 10-20 are terrible options.

 

[Montdj]

Yes the 2.8 that makes it more money. The f4 would be more suited for outdoor or higher light use. IMO witch lens you pick all depends on what your shoting.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I thought between the 24-70 f/2.8, 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and 24-105 f/4 IS long an hard for many months. In the end I decided speed (f/2.8) was more importiant than IS any day of the week. This knocked out the 24-105 f/4 IS. I also knew my next camera would likely be full frame or at least a 1.3x crop sensor. This knocked out the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Now it took me a couple months reading every single night to come to this conclusion and the decision was actually much more complicated....but there is my basic reasoning in a nut shell.

The f/2.8 AND the IS is part of what make the 17-55 f/2.8 IS so expensive. A constant f/2.8 aperture on a zoom lens and IS on any lens do not come cheap. The 17-55 also boasts superior engineering and higher quality parts compared to many lesser lenses. It costs more but with camera lenses you do get what you pay for.

 

[t5Nitro]

Yea, that's my problem. I WILL have a full frame (probably the 5DMKII) someday. Right now, I'd rather invest in lenses of course. Lenses are probably the most important. Could I go buy the whole kit with 2 lenses and a camera? Yea, why not. Just some people with me wouldn't be too happy or maybe not let me do it anyway hahaha.

I'm actually hoping by the end of the school year maybe I can go pick up a 5DMKII for a grad. present (with me dishing in most of it). :lol:

That's where I sit. I KNOW I will have a full frame. I don't know when.

Maybe just sit back for now and get a camera first and then the lenses will fall into place which to buy?

 

[t5Nitro]

That's also the thing. I want an amazing walk around lens. I've decided on the 24-70.

As far as the wide angle lens. Maybe it'd help for you guys knowing that some day possibly before the end of the year I may have a full frame? I also shoot quite a bit of things indoors. Only because places around here are pretty blah. In summer, I go outside when I'm bored and take pics of flowers. I normally use my 100mm macro. Otherwise I'd like doing landscape shots with a tripod. I just don't know where around here I could do that. Vacationing though. Mountains, lakes, whatever. Sunny conditions and probably indoor use too if there is a family thing going on.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Well the 24-70 is going to do a great job no matter what camera you use. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the Sigma 10-20 will literally break your full frame camera if you try to connect the two (your mirror will shatter). Therefor I would stay away from any EF-S lens.

 

[hypertech]

When comparing the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-105 4 IS, you need to ask yourself what you are shooting. If your object is moving, IS won't help you. You will have to add light or deal with the shallow DOF of the 2.8. If the subject isn't bouncing around, the IS can help you get a pic at f/4 that the 24-70 just can't take handheld many times.

In the end, I went with the 24-105 for the IS and the extra reach. Someday I'll add some longer lenses in the kit and then I may reevaluate and get myself a copy of the brick. Who knows, by then, maybe a new version with IS will be out (that would be sweet but I'm not holding my breath).

IF you are looking for wide, do some reading on the Tokina 11-16. It is fantastic and is designed for use on a crop body but it is an EF mount. I'm not sure if it will hit the mirror on a full frame or not - it would certainly vignette among other things. A 16-35 would be my choice for a full frame, but it isn't really all that wide on a crop. This is one lens you may need to buy for the crop body and sell if you upgrade to FF and get rid of the crop body later on.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

The problem with the 24-70 f/2.8 and IS is that...honestly it doesn't need IS. There are time I would turn it on if I had it just because I could...but at such a short focal length, I can shoot at 1/60 or even 1/30 just fine without it. Movement stopping capability is just so much more crucial. The DOF isn't much of a problem at such short focal lengths either. Now with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I am glad it is there. Around 150mm in the dark, the IS really shines!

 

[hypertech]

I'm not old but hands are not as steady as I would like. I don't get a sharp pic at 1/30 without it with any sort of reliability unless IS is on.

That's one of the reasons I like Canon's lens line up - so many good choices that there is at least one lens that will fit a particular person and their photography style.

 

[t5Nitro]

That 16-35mm. Now we're talking. :lol: A bit pricey for me though considering I want to save a bit for the FF. I think I may go with Titusville on this one and say I wouldn't need the IS on the 24-70. As far as the wide angle one, I guess for the price, the 17-40 would be pretty nice. For landscape you normally would use higher than f4 anyway, right? I could just try it out indoors and if it's not great, whenever I would get a FF the 24-70 would be nice too.

Comparing what I have now with a 1.6x crop, the lenses would look "wide" to me anyway.

Think I'll go that route then. 17-40 isn't too pricey and won't break my future camera.

Thanks again.

 

[hypertech]

What setup do you have now? I would not be happy with a 17 if I was looking for "wide" on a crop. A few mm isn't that big of deal on the long end, but that 17 is 70% longer than the 10mm. It makes a big difference on the wide end. Most kit lenses go to 17/18. Just check it out and make sure that is what you are looking for before deciding that will fit your needs.

You are right, for landscapes, you would be using a small aperture so it doesn't matter much there. I have used my Tokina at 2.8 indoors many times to get shots that would have been very hard without it.

 

[dendronepthya]

There are definitely two camps on whether wide angle lenses need any sort of IS. My take on it is, if I hand hold a lens, I would appreciate IS even if its benefit is minor. Yes, I'm probably a sissy for wanting IS on a 35mm or 24mm lens that can probably get a great shot at 1/20 without too much difficulty, but if the technology is there to get a crisp shot at 1/5, why not? I'm sure there are a lot of folks out there that think autofocus on wide angle lenses is for wimps.

 

[raddogz]

My pics with the L lens (discontinued 17-35L) shoots better than my 28-135IS. They are leagues apart. When I say shoots better I mean my hand doesn't shake as much - L lens has more glass giving me a more solid feel.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Not to mention the shake is much less apparent with a wider lens. It takes twice as much shaking to blur a 17mm image equivalent to a 34mm image for example.