Advice: Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM or Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM

unclened

unclened

Messages
4,009
Edit My Images
No
I have been tasked to buy a lens for a friend who has £1k to spend. What lens would be better for low light photography and wedding photography. I read that the IS allows you to stop down 3 times more, but is restricted to F4. Whereas the F2.8 allows you to shoot alot faster!

You see my dilemma!
 
hsuffyan said:
I have been tasked to buy a lens for a friend who has £1k to spend. What lens would be better for low light photography and wedding photography. I read that the IS allows you to stop down 3 times more, but is restricted to F4. Whereas the F2.8 allows you to shoot alot faster!

You see my dilemma!
Click to expand...

If you know a handy wedding photographer, who's good with low light, I would ask him ;)

Being more helpful, I would get the 24-105L 4 but then I don't shoot weddings in low light. If I did, I think the 24-70L 2.8 wins everytime, mainly for the shallower DoF effect.
 
yeah the 2.8 is more expensive. Is there a lens by sigma or tamron that comes close to the L glass?
 
hsuffyan said:
yeah the 2.8 is more expensive. Is there a lens by sigma or tamron that comes close to the L glass?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have thought so, but you can certainly get a constant 2.8 lens from both manufacturers.
 
i would suggest your friend looks at his style of pictures and thinks about what he is shooting, static/slow moving objects the 24-105 for the extra range, moving subjects the 24-70 for the faster shutter speeds.

both are very good lenses, but it does depend what you want from it
 
What camera does your friend have? If it has a crop sensor, then the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM gives you the best of both worlds, plus a more useful focal length range.
 
he has a cropped sensor, and currently switches between 28-85 and 70-300. I think he wants something wider than 28mm due to the cropped sensor. If the F2.8 L had a bit more reach it would be perfect. I think 70 isnt enough for him.
 
supposedly the only reason the 17-55 isnt an L is because it is a crop camera only ef-s lens
 
24-105 and suppliment with a prime or two...

but as above, the 17-55 does it all
 
If he is using a crop sensor then the 17-55 is a good bet, the quality is good from this lens, some say it is as sharp if not sharper than the 24-70... remember the 24-70 on a crop sensor is not wide it will give him a start at roughly 38mm so losing that initial 10mm makes a hell of a difference at the wide end... the same can be said for the 24-105 not wide but more reach! I have used all of these lenses and the 17-55 is a good choice for your friend given the info you have supplied. Hope this helps! :)
 
the 17-55 is the f2.8 IS USM version right?
 
inaneredstripe said:
sigma just bought out a 24-70 if ex dg usm.f2.8
about £750 will get you one.
works on full frame too.
my 18-85 IS is off for repair.works well on my 30D
cant remember if its f3.5 or 2.8.
Click to expand...

isnt it a 17-85? and its not f2.8(y)
 
StewartR said:
If it has a crop sensor, then the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM gives you the best of both worlds, plus a more useful focal length range.
Click to expand...

rgrebby said:
But how does the quality compare to the 24-70 and 24-105?
Click to expand...

fletch5 said:
supposedly the only reason the 17-55 isnt an L is because it is a crop camera only ef-s lens
Click to expand...
That's certainly one reason. Canon won't give the "L" designation to a lens which won't fit on their top professional cameras (1D series).

To be honest, the 17-55 doesn't have the build quality of the two L zooms we've been discussing. It does feel a bit plasticky by comparison, though I don't have any evidence as to whether it is actually less robust.

But optically, most comparative reviews suggest that the 17-55 is at least as good as the other two.

hsuffyan said:
the 17-55 is the f2.8 IS USM version right?
Click to expand...
That's right.
 
stewart, just out of curiosity do you sell any ex hire lens?
 
Didn't realise we were talking crop format here, in which case the 17-55 2.8 IS becomes the obvious contender. That's what I have.

Edit: To Stewart - sorry to hi jack, but did you get my reply to your PM? Or is your mailbox full ;)
 
I have heard the 17-55 is known to malfunction so a backup in that focal range is essential, although you should have backups in all your lenses for weddings I'd feel more secure not having a backup for the 24-70.

The 17-55 is on my list though, heard great nothing but great reviews, apart from build quality and malfunctions.
 
I've used both the 17-55mm and 24-105mm before and decided to keep the 17-55mm IS because it's wider (don't have to keep changing lens) and the f/2.8 with IS in low light is awesome =)

Only worry is that people are complaining that the IS can malfunction and you have to off it when not using it.
 
so im really getting sold on the canon 17-55 is usm, but i am thinking if the extra £300-£400 for the IS is worth it, over the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di ll LD. also i read that the canon has dust issues?
 
The EF-S 17-55 dust issue was a non-issue for me. Yes, I did see some dust behind the front element, but it did not affect the images at all.

If you're concerned about the effects of dust inside a lens, check this out.
 
hsuffyan said:
so im really getting sold on the canon 17-55 is usm, but i am thinking if the extra £300-£400 for the IS is worth it, over the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di ll LD. also i read that the canon has dust issues?
Click to expand...

Canon 17-55 2.8 is superb, and I think you get a bit more than IS for the extra cost over the Sigma. It's quality throughout, if not quite L quality.

I've not heard of a malfunction issues. Is it IS failure we're talking about, and is this any less reliable than any other IS lens (usually very reliable)?

Yes, it can be a dusty lens though to be fair I don't think it's necessarily any worse than most other lenses that changes size when you zoom. It has to suck air in and out and if that air is dusty, some of it might stay behind. I would rather it stayed in the lens than got pumped all over the mirror box and sensor, which it otherwise might, where it would show up instantly and maybe need constant cleaning. My 17-85 IS was worse for this than my 17-55 2.8 IS, but I did use that travelling quite a bit.

When my 17-55 needs cleaning, and I think I have to accept that it will do eventually, I'm going to do it myself. Ease off the ID bezel, undo three Philips screws, and the front element pops out. It could almost have been made that way ;) Here's a quick tutorial: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/drp
 
I use 24-105 f4 for weddings and iQ is first class. Personally, 70mm would not be enough reach for me (especially on full frame) for shots during the ceremony and candids.
 
Kerso does canon 17-55 IS USM's for £639 :D, well thats what quote I got the other day, obviously its subject to change, but for that sounds damn tasty. Ended up going for the tamron 17-50, as I just couldn't justify £400 more for something that does essentially the same thing, would rather spend the £400 on the 10-22 :)

Isn't it a similar thing with the 10-22 not being L? Its only for crop (and down to 1.3x crop if you take some plastic ring out of it), otherwise it would have got the weather proofing and L status?
 
well to get on to the canon professional service the 10-22mm is listed as one of thier 3 Pro Lenses. I think but not sure the 17-55 IS is listed as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top