Lens dilema - canon

S

SouthernSnapper

Junior Member
Messages
170
Name
Sandra
Edit My Images
Yes
What to do....? My birthday is just round the corner an my OH has offered to buy me a new lens. Now I'm struggling choosing something...:cuckoo:
I have
ef 100mm macro
ef 50 f1.4
ef 70 -200 f4
ef-s 17-85
1.4TC
I was considering a longer lens... though whether I can truely justify the expense for the amount of use...probably not just yet, so one to save for later.
Replace my walk about 17-85 for 24-105. Would be nice to have the extra reach though I'd loose a bit on the wide side.
Is this lens 'that' good. Obviously on a cropped sensor its 38 -168. So less need for lens changes. I like to have IS...not as strong as I used to be.
What would you do in this situation?
 
I upgraded my 17-85 to a 24-105L and have never looked back. It so much better you won't regret it.
 
It would depend on what you shoot really unless you have a problem with the quality of a lens that you already have.

The majority of the lenses you already have are very good, with the weakest link seeming to be the ef-s 17-85 (which is also not that bad a performer) but if you are staying with a crop body then maybe the ef-s 17-55 f2.8 IS will give you f2.8 across the range, or a ef-s 15-85 IS which gives you a little more at the wide end.

The only real reason I can see for you getting the 24-105L would be if you were contemplating moving to a FF camera .

My suggestion would be to look at why you are thinking of changing and maybe buying something that will suit more exactly what you shoot. Perhaps not even a lens, maybe a macro flash, lighting equipment better tripod etc.

If it must be a lens, I would look at a Tokina 11-16mm or Sigma 12-24 EX DG (also works on FF) or a Canon 300L f4 IS (also works with your 1.4x to give a 420mm IS) which can be had for about £750 s/h as these will suppliment your current kit.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Mr Bray.... I have always liked the 24-105 but now prefer the 17-55 IS on my crop body, which is similar to a 24-70 of FF. It's as good a lens as you will get without an "L". You have 70mm upwards covered anyway.

Have you considered a decent flash unit (430EX or 580EX) or as Ed says, maybe a decent tripod, or even one of the Lencarta lighting kits ?

Steve
 
As above really and also what lenses do you currently have?

Do you feel you want something wider or longer than you currently have ??
 
Before i had even read your full post i was thinking sell the 17-85 and put the money toward something better. I would sell it and go for the 17-55 IS as it's far better and you'll use it all the time due to the range.
 
'Tis a happy dilema. I have a manfrotto tripod. Don't have a flash, though thought I may get one for macro next spring.
I discounted the 17-55 f2.8 in favour of more reach on the long end.
I have gone through the exif on a lot of my photos to determine which focal length crops up the most. Quite a few on the 18-22mm, though the bulk of the pictures are at longer end. So if I went with the 24-105 would I miss the wide angle? My 17-85 is on the camera 80% of the time and I like the idea of the longer reach. May mean I only take 1 lens on holiday(sure!!)
Really happy with my other L lens. I'm assuming this is also of equal quality. I read a post somewhere( On here), that didn't rate the 24-105 at all. So although I've been happy with the 17-85, I now wonder is it such a big step up on quality to warrant the expence. Then the flash would be a good idea to go with my current kit.
My 500d is my first DSLR. Though I chose my lenses thinking that should I ever go the FF route then its just a change of camera, and not a total change of kit. So will I go FF - I don't know...may be
.....thanks for your thoughts guys...just one thing though he is a she. Sandy is short for Sandra. Easy mistake to make
 
I have a 24-105L, but on a full frame 5Dmk2. Not really used it on the 450D as that's my other halfs now and she goes with the 18-55 IS kit or 70-200 F4L. I've had some stunningly sharp shots from it that just make you want to pixel peep to see how sharp the images are. It does have some pincushion distortion at 24mm which is correctable in software, but can sometimes be a bit disconcerting when you first see it (especially if taking pics of anything vertical or structured). My lens also front focused when I first had it and that lead to a feeling something isn't right with the lens. A quick trip to Canon sorted that out (under warranty).

As to missing out on the shorter lengths - only you can decide. Try cropping a couple of the 17mm length ones by 30%, ~19mm by 20% and ~21mm by 10% as this will simulate what you'll lose by only having 24mm as your shortest length. Could you have got them by walking backwards a bit? Does it matter if you just didn't take the shots? Could you get something like a 12-24mm wide angle and just use 2 lenses for most of what you do?

One other thought. In terms of image quality, I'd put it just about on a par with the 70-200f4L non-IS I have. When you look at photos taken with the 70-200 F4L you have, does the image quality look much better to you than images taken with the 17-85? If so, then you should get an increase going to 24-105.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top