What Lens next

Dino f

Dino f

Wiiiiilmmmaaaaaaaa
Messages
2,711
Name
Dean Feltimo
Edit My Images
Yes
Im gonna get a new lens to replace my trusty 28-135 IS.
I have:
Sigma 10-20
Canon 28-135 IS (to be replaced)
Canon 70-200 2.8 L

Should i go for:
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM or
Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM SLR Lens ?????

I know there is more range with the 24-105 + IS, but the 24-70 fits in nicely between the other 2 lenses and 2.8 will come in handy for gig photography.

What should i do??????
Dean:)
 
Just fancy a slightly faster lens for low light stuff, and really want to go L.
The 28-135 is a great lens it just stops down to 5.6 at the long end, and means i have to ramp up the iso. I have had a play on both the other lenses, and love them both. They both feel a lot more snappy than the 28-135.
Dean:)
 
if your shooting gigs, go for the 24-70.... i cant imagen going to a gig with only a f4 lens... could be painfull :)
 
The 24-70 IMHO, if you also want the versatility of the low light capability :thumbs:
 
24-70...just bought one and really impressed with it.
Great colour/contrast/sharpness and very solidly built, although quite heavy.

I bought mine primarily for portraits and gig shooting.
 
I think the 24-105L is more useful than the 24-70L as a general walkabout lens. But on a crop sensor the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is better still.

Do you think an f/2.8 zoom is really the best for gigs? Might you be better off getting one or two fast primes (eg 35mm f2) instead?
 
For gig photography I would be tempted to go with a 35 f2, 50 f1.4 and poss 85 f1.8 rather than the 24-105L or 24-70L, they are all small and fast and the ones you aren't using will fit in your pockets.
 
I would go for the 17-55 2.8 IS without hesitation. More useful range, f/2.8, IS, and sharp as any L.

This is my basic kit: 40D, 10-22, 17-55 2.8, 70-200 4 L IS.
 
Bachs said:
Agreed on that point...wouldn't a 24-105L 2.8 IS be lovely?!!!
Click to expand...

24-105 2.8 is a nice idea, but the reality is that if you want f/2.8 then 24-70 is as good a range as you're going to get before image quality falls apart. And it would be colossal, eg comparing Canon's two 70-200L lenses, the f/2.8 version is twice the weight of the f/4.
 
HoppyUK said:
24-105 2.8 is a nice idea, but the reality is that if you want f/2.8 then 24-70 is as good a range as you're going to get before image quality falls apart. And it would be colossal, eg comparing Canon's two 70-200L lenses, the f/2.8 version is twice the weight of the f/4.
Click to expand...

EDIT:"Agreed on that point...wouldn't an ultralight/small, reasonably priced 24-105L 2.8 IS, tack sharp across the entire focal range with an £100 cashback voucher and 10 year guarantee be lovely?!!!"

EDIT2: Sorry, I'm just being silly now. :cuckoo:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top