What walk about L-series lens?

Kryptix

Kryptix

Messages
1,730
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm after an L-series walk about lens.

How much difference will f/2.8 make compared to f/4.0? I've never used a f/2.8 lens so it's hard to compare. I kind of regret getting my 70-200mm f/4.0 because at the time I didn't know any better...

Is the 24-105mm L lens any good? What else would you suggest?
 
The 24-105 is a fantastic lens and mine lives on my body, its not very wide though and i made the mistake of getting a 10-22 to go with it, should have got the 16-35 L instead. 10mm is far too wide i never got that wide.
 
So you'd suggest getting 24-105mm and 16-35mm?
 
For me there isn't really an L series walk about for a crop sensor camera the 24-105 is just not wide enough and the 17-40 lacks the length that I'd like to see. What really needs to happen is canon to release something like a 17-70 L but that seems unikely as it would probably need to be an EF-S lens to cover that range and canon won't release L series lenses with EF-S mounts.

If I was looking to splash serious cash on a walk about lens for a crop sensor canon I'd get the 15-55 f2.8 which is by all reports outstanding and practically L quality.
 
If you can afford a combination of two how about the 17-40 and the 24-105. I have this pair and it suits me fine.
 
well it kind of depends on what you want to shoot.

I do a lot of landsscapes and possibly with hindsight the 16-35mm would have been more use to me.
however, like you i wanted a walkabout lens and the 24-105 is great for that with about as much telephoto length as i need.

But both would be fantastic :D - not that i have ever used the 16-35mm

Given the inexperience that you have expressed in your other threads wound renting them be a good idea?
 
As I have the 70-200mm L, would I be better off with the 24-70mm? It's f/2.8 but has no IS. It's also more expensive.

What would you get?
 
Although it's not an L lens (and only because it has an EF-S mount), don't rule out the canon 17-55 f/2.8. It's a bit more expensive than the 17-40, but you do get IS as well. It won't fit onto full-frame cameras, so if you're thinking of upgrading it's not a good choice, but on a 450D it would be great....it's what I'm saving up for anyway! It uses the same glass as the L range as well, and comes very highly regarded!

Chris
 
Kryptix said:
As I have the 70-200mm L, would I be better off with the 24-70mm? It's f/2.8 but has no IS. It's also more expensive.

What would you get?
Click to expand...

Tricky, what you asked for origionally was a walkabout lens now to me that is a lens you can stick on the camera go our for a day and hopefully not need to change. Ideally on a crop sensor you probably want something like an 18-300mm f2.8 IS as it would cover just about anything sadly it's not going to happen anytome soon. The current crop of super/travel zooms are very good and you could do alot worse than something like a sigma 18-200 OS but it won't give you the L quality you desire. For me the 24-70 while a cracking lens wou;dn't fall into the walkabout category especially on a crop sensor as it's not very wide or very long.

What you seem to be leaning towards now is an ideal lens line up made up of L series zooms and for me that would be a 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200. However if I had full frame I'd probably want a 24-105 as well for those times when you only want to carry one lens.

I'm not being much help I know, but I think you need to decide what you think will most benefit your photography style and needs.
 
Would the 24-105 be worst quality than the 24-70 as it's more of a zoom or doesn't it work like that?

I think I'll always carry my 70-200mm and to be honest, I consider my 18-55mm kit lens as a walk around lens so 70mm should be fine, I'd imagine.

If you took a picture with both of them at 70mm, what would be the better quality?

If I'm correct, I believe the 24-105mm has IS but the 24-70mm doesn't? Isn't that deciding it for me? They're both pretty similar priced and I will only be able to afford one lens.

What would you value more? Ignore the zoom... f/2.8 with no IS or f/4.0 with IS?
 
depends what you need it for.

If you need f2.8 for low light where a higher shutter speed is important, or f4 will do with the added benefit of image stabilisation is something you need to consider. I find the extra reach very useful which is why I use the 24-105 rather than a 24-70. There are times I wish I had f2.8 which would mean the other lens.
 
on a crop body just get a 17-55 f2.8 and be done with it. Flog it if you go full frame, you won't lose much on it. For me, there isn't a better general walkabout lens for the croppers.
 
Toothie said:
The 24-105 is a fantastic lens and mine lives on my body, its not very wide though and i made the mistake of getting a 10-22 to go with it, should have got the 16-35 L instead. 10mm is far too wide i never got that wide.
Click to expand...
thats exactly the same as i have only i would not call the 10-22 a mistake as i plan on selling mine and replacing it with a 16-35 if and when i move to full frame(y)
 
I have the 17-40 f4'L' and it's a cracking bit of kit either on a 1.3 or 1.6 crop body, never had a problem with it 'only' being f4 either, to me it's a keeper

Alan
 
Why do you regret buying the 70-200? I think it's one of the best lenses out there for the money..

As for a walk-about L-series, what do you mean by walk-about? If it's a lens you can stick on and head out when you don't know what you're going to be doing, I'm not sure if you need L-series at all.

As for 2.8 vs IS, it's been discussed a million times before, and you have to decide what's more important for you. Fast shutter speeds and shallow DOF, or slow shutter speeds without a tripod. (2.8 will help focussing as well in some situations). Or as suggested, you could get a 17-55 and grab yourself 2.8 and IS in the one lens.

After reading all the threads you've been posting this past week, my suggestion would be to spend a few months taking pictures, and reading up. Then think about where and what you like to shoot, and where you're current kit is lacking.
 
if you already have the 70-200 then I would go 24-70 then when funds allow 16-35. simaliar to what I have chuck in a T/C and you are pretty much covered
 
ady 554d said:
thats exactly the same as i have only i would not call the 10-22 a mistake as i plan on selling mine and replacing it with a 16-35 if and when i move to full frame(y)
Click to expand...

ok mistake might be a bit harsh, but i really don't use it as it was intended.
 
Kryptix said:
I'm after an L-series walk about lens.
Click to expand...
Why?

The EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS is arguably more suitable than any of the obvious "L" candidates. The 24-70L and 24-105L aren't wide enough at the wide end; the 16-35L and 17-40L aren't long enough at the long end. OK, it doesn't have a red ring round it, but optically it's as good as the 24-70L and 24-105L. And of course you don't have to choose between f/2.8 and IS.
 
Yeah, but EF-S won't fit on all EOS cameras when I upgrade will it? :shrug:

I kind of regret the 70-200mm f/4 IS because I wish I saved money on the non-IS, or spent £300 more on the f/2.8 IS. :thinking:
 
Kryptix said:
Yeah, but EF-S won't fit on all EOS cameras when I upgrade will it? :shrug:
Click to expand...

When will you be moving to full frame?

You need to decide whether you're buying for photos you're going to take now or at some point waaaay down the line.

There's no crime in buying a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, shooting some wonderfully sharp landscapes to portraits in low light and then selling it on when you're ready to go full frame. I've done this within a 12-month period and have no regrets whatsoever.
 
Kryptix said:
Yeah, but EF-S won't fit on all EOS cameras when I upgrade will it? :shrug:

I kind of regret the 70-200mm f/4 IS because I wish I saved money on the non-IS, or spent £300 more on the f/2.8 IS. :thinking:
Click to expand...

why? the f4 is is a superb lens, as sharp as the primes I have, unmatched in the zoom stuffy stuff

appears to me you need to learn what you need rather than what you want
 
It just seems like the 70-200mm f/4 IS is the worst choice out of the 3 of them...
 
Kryptix said:
It just seems like the 70-200mm f/4 IS is the worst choice out of the 3 of them...
Click to expand...

The 3 of which? If the 70-200mm f/4 IS really doesn't suit you then what is it you're wanting from a lens?

Have you tried the other 2 lenses which you think are better? Which are they and why are they better?
 
I'm with the other folk in recommending that you spend the next few months taking pictures and working out what you actually would benefit from. I rushed into a couple of purchases that I really don't need and can see you doing the same (not meaning to preach, but you did ask).

It might be that in a few months the Yen/£ rate will have recovered a bit and you'll save a bob or two.
 
Kryptix said:
Yeah, but EF-S won't fit on all EOS cameras when I upgrade will it? :shrug:

I kind of regret the 70-200mm f/4 IS because I wish I saved money on the non-IS, or spent £300 more on the f/2.8 IS. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Read all the posts.

Someone above your post suggest the 17-55 f2.8 IS which Yes is an EF-S mount and wont fit on the 1D / 5D/II but then Lenses of that quality rarely devalue very much so you wont loose out, or you could go for the Tamron 17-50 which is a cracking lens at just over £250 you get alot of the money tbh.

Or you could flog your 70-200 f4IS and get the Non IS 2.8 and unless your shooting things standing still in which case you can use a tripod the IS wont be much good and with the saving compared to the IS you could get the 17-50 tamron.

P.S. My 17-50 Practically lives on my 40D.

P.S.S. The 17-55 after reviewing it myself is WELL expensive at the moment so another point towards the tamron :).
 
If its a Canon lens of L quality you want the 17-55 f2.8 is the best choice as has been said, The tamron is a cracking lens for the cash, build quality is not so good and the motor is loud but if you can live with that its superb.

All of the L glass at walkabout range, on a crop sensor camera is going to be a compromise in some way unfortunately.
 
My vote would be for the 35L. It's bloody expensive (especially now) but, to be honest, it stays on my body now more than the 24-105! Focal distance is just right for portrait and small group shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top