Lens Recommendation Cant non

Bullysrus

Bullysrus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,948
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
No
Okay, i have sold my 24-105 as i never used it.

I have my 70-200. my 100-400 and my nifty 50.

I want an everyday lens, i was thinking about the 24-70

I want a L series lens but nothing to expensive.

I mainly shoot the following

Dog Agility
Dog Potraits
Potraits
And just anything that takes my fancy.
 
Well frankly you MUST buy the 24-70 Canon L lens then, as it's the only thing that fits your demand of L lens and 24-70.......but it's expensive. Sigma do an equiv lens, no idea if it's any good though.

Why didn't you use the 24-105 and what do you want from a lens that the 24-105 didn't offer you?

Sorry but your post doesn't make a huge load of sense.
 
shabba said:
Well frankly you MUST buy the 24-70 Canon L lens then, as it's the only thing that fits your demand of L lens and 24-70.......but it's expensive. Sigma do an equiv lens, no idea if it's any good though.

Why didn't you use the 24-105 and what do you want from a lens that the 24-105 didn't offer you?

Sorry but your post doesn't make a huge load of sense.
Click to expand...

I just never used it.

But now feel i have nothing for that close up shot and walk about lens.
 
Did you get the Manfrotto head btw?

Coming back to your OP, you're not really giving us a lot of info to work on...

You need to work out what you need and why you didn't like the 24-105 if you want any further advice...
 
Yes i did thanks.

Went to shoot some close ups of my dogs and thats when i missed the 24
 
Why not get the 24-105 again. If you didn't use it to start with the 24-70 might end up the same. If you want an cheap L then maybe the 17-40.
 
Well since you are on FF and presuming you want anything but the 24-105 your only options for your criteria of not too expensive and 'L' is:

17-40L F4

I would have thought the 24-105 is more suitable for your uses though.

- I would have thought that statement of 'L but not too expensive' is an oxymoron - Certainly most would think the 17-40 is an expensive lens let alone the 24-70, but if you can buy it then both are good lenses, albeit for difference uses.
 
Odd, you are thinking of buying a lens with a focal range covered by an equally good unit you sold that costs more when you are after something not too expensive!
 
Its a little bit of a leading problem this there isnt really a solution based on the criteria
L lens, and cheap, you just got shut of the cheap L lens that covers 24m+

So there is 1 possibly 2 solutions 17-40 if you want wide and inexpensive and don't want to buy the same lens you just sold. but if you want to push the boat out on the price then 24-70 but would it end up the same way as the 24-105?
 
Thanks All, im going to go with the 17-40 for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top