Canon 24-70, 24-105, or 18-55?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Burt, May 16, 2006.

  1. Burt

    Burt Guest

    I am giving myself a headache trying to decide on a midrange zoom. Am I the
    only one having difficulties choosing?

    I am using a 20D at the moment, but would like to go full frame when the
    full frame bodies like the 5D come down in price, as I can't afford a 5D at
    the moment. Going back to 'normality' (35mm) would suit me, combined with
    better quality over APS-C sensors (although the longer 35mm equilelent focal
    length and 5FPS would be missed with the 5D).

    The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM sounds good on the 20D, however even though it
    is a 27-88 35mm equilalent, it isn't really, as lens optics are lens optics
    (DOF, distortion, etc). Constant 2.8 appeture and IS are great though and
    would give a decent wider end on the 20D. I have also seen some fantastic
    shots with the EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM on a 20D, so this should be pretty
    capable.

    The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM seems to be unmatched for optical quality and also
    the 2.8 appeture gives a huge advantage in low light with moving subjects.
    The 2.8 appeture could mean getting a photo you would have missed if you
    didn't have the extra stop of light. Maybe heavy, but a great lens from the
    reviews I have read. Not too good for the wider end on the 20D, but better
    future compatability for full frame.

    The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM seems a great lens for focal range and allows
    more flexibility for framing subjects when foot zoom doesn't work or you
    don't want to be invasive. The extra focal length could mean getting a
    photo you would have missed if you had to change lenses to get the extra
    reach. IS maybe handy for non moving subjects in low light. Not too good
    for the wider end on the 20D, but better future compatability for full
    frame.
     
    Burt, May 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Burt

    lmelendez Guest

    I tried the 24-70 and the 25-105. I liked the optics and focusing speed
    of the 24-70 better. It is heavy, but it will last forever.

    I would not get an EFS lens myself, since I'm not sure what will be the
    compatibility in the future.

    Leo.
    http://www.bluejaygallery.com
     
    lmelendez, May 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Burt

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Burt writes ...
    >
    >I am using a 20D at the moment, but would like to go full frame when
    >the full frame bodies like the 5D come down in price ...
    >
    >The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM sounds good on the 20D ...


    The "S" lenses won't work on the full frame bodies so skip this one if
    you are serious about FF later on, unless you want to sell it.

    >The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM seems to be unmatched for optical quality
    >and also the 2.8 appeture gives a huge advantage in low light with moving
    >subjects ...
    >
    >The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM seems a great lens for focal range ...
    > IS maybe handy


    I have the 28-70 f/2.8 L but rarely use it because the focal range is
    too short ... nice lens, heavy, but just doesn't get used much. I
    bought the 24-105 f/4 in January and took it to Africa twice and I
    really like that one because of the IS and the wider focal range.
    However at 24 mm with a full frame digital (1Ds for me) I have to stop
    down a couple stops to get rid of the vignetting.

    To me it's a no brainer because of the IS and longer focal range, the
    24-105 is the one I prefer. The extra f/stop you refer to isn't a big
    deal with digital since you can simply increase the ISO if need be (I
    rarely shoot lenses this focal length at wide apertures anyway).

    Here's a review comparing the 24-70 f/2.8 to the 24-105 f/4, in which
    the two testers (who own both lenses) decided the 24-105 made more
    sense for them ...
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml ...

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, May 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Burt

    Bill Guest

    Burt wrote:

    >I am giving myself a headache trying to decide on a midrange zoom. Am I the
    >only one having difficulties choosing?


    You're not alone...

    >I am using a 20D at the moment, but would like to go full frame when the
    >full frame bodies like the 5D come down in price


    Choosing lenses can be a problem...you need to know what your priorities
    are before you buy.

    I have the 17-40 L for the simple reasons - it's sharp and reasonably
    sized and doesn't weigh a ton. I don't care about FF sensors so I would
    have been happy with the EFS 17-55 if it was available when I switched
    to digital.

    But since FF is your goal, I would stick to the regular lenses, like the
    16-35 or 24-70. Which one depends on how badly you want wide angle.
     
    Bill, May 16, 2006
    #4
  5. "Burt" <> wrote:
    '>I am giving myself a headache trying to decide on a midrange zoom. Am I
    the
    > only one having difficulties choosing?


    None of the above. The 24-70 and 24-105 are heavy and expensive, and the
    18-55 is slow and won't work on a FF camera.

    My recommendation: the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is fast, light, sharp, and cheap. At
    the cost of cheap build quality and slow AF. Works great on both APS-C and
    FF. In my experience. The "L" thought police will squawk, though.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 16, 2006
    #5
  6. Burt

    Pat Guest

    Another great option is the Tokina AT-X 287 AF Pro Sv. It is 28-70mm
    f.2.8. Nice lens. Also, it has a cool autofocus override for fast
    focusing in dim light and other situations where AF goes haywire.
    Basically, you slide the focusing collar back and you go into manual
    focus mode without trying to fiddle for the switch. But yes, the "L
    police" will object. But for the money, it's a great lens.

    However, if money is no object, it's hard to beat an "L" lens. So go
    get one and send me some cash, too.
     
    Pat, May 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Burt

    Mark² Guest

    Burt wrote:
    > I am giving myself a headache trying to decide on a midrange zoom.
    > Am I the only one having difficulties choosing?


    If you decide you want the 24-70, I may be selling my (basically) brand new
    24-70 2.8 L lens...
     
    Mark², May 17, 2006
    #7
  8. Burt wrote:
    > I am giving myself a headache trying to decide on a midrange zoom. Am I the
    > only one having difficulties choosing?


    Your analysis of the options and their capabilities seems pretty much
    spot on. What you've not mentioned is what you intend to do with the
    lens. You should be choosing based on fitness for requirements, not a
    specification sheet.

    Do you really need the wide end? Do you really need the long end? Do you
    need f/2.8 or will f/4.0 do the job? Is weight a concern for you? Will
    you get a real benefit from IS?

    You're going to have to compromise somewhere. Tell us what are your
    important or "must have" features, and people will be able to tell you
    what compromises you have to make.
     
    Derek Fountain, May 17, 2006
    #8
  9. Burt

    jean Guest

    I have both the 24-70 f2,8 L and the 17-40 f4 L and for travelling, the
    17-40 is the one I take because it is a LOT lighter and just as sharp, it
    loses on the long end but gains on the wide end. There is no substitute for
    fast lens but higher ISOs are just a click away in low light.

    Have you considered a prime lens instead of a zoom? I have just bought a
    28mm f1,8 and so far I love it, there is nothing a little foot zooming can't
    do ;-)

    Jean

    "Burt" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > I am giving myself a headache trying to decide on a midrange zoom. Am I

    the
    > only one having difficulties choosing?
    >
    > I am using a 20D at the moment, but would like to go full frame when the
    > full frame bodies like the 5D come down in price, as I can't afford a 5D

    at
    > the moment. Going back to 'normality' (35mm) would suit me, combined with
    > better quality over APS-C sensors (although the longer 35mm equilelent

    focal
    > length and 5FPS would be missed with the 5D).
    >
    > The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM sounds good on the 20D, however even though

    it
    > is a 27-88 35mm equilalent, it isn't really, as lens optics are lens

    optics
    > (DOF, distortion, etc). Constant 2.8 appeture and IS are great though and
    > would give a decent wider end on the 20D. I have also seen some fantastic
    > shots with the EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM on a 20D, so this should be pretty
    > capable.
    >
    > The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM seems to be unmatched for optical quality and

    also
    > the 2.8 appeture gives a huge advantage in low light with moving subjects.
    > The 2.8 appeture could mean getting a photo you would have missed if you
    > didn't have the extra stop of light. Maybe heavy, but a great lens from

    the
    > reviews I have read. Not too good for the wider end on the 20D, but

    better
    > future compatability for full frame.
    >
    > The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM seems a great lens for focal range and allows
    > more flexibility for framing subjects when foot zoom doesn't work or you
    > don't want to be invasive. The extra focal length could mean getting a
    > photo you would have missed if you had to change lenses to get the extra
    > reach. IS maybe handy for non moving subjects in low light. Not too good
    > for the wider end on the 20D, but better future compatability for full
    > frame.
    >
    >
     
    jean, May 17, 2006
    #9
  10. Burt

    Julie Meikle Guest

    Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.

    I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:

    17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is lighter.
    10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
    24-105L for a bit more reach.

    There is overlap there but I thought the 17-40 would be on the camera when I
    only want to carry camera with attached lens.
    The other 2 complement nicely if I want to take 2 (or more) lenses.

    Works for me.

    Julie


    "Burt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am giving myself a headache trying to decide on a midrange zoom. Am I
    >the
    > only one having difficulties choosing?
    >
    > I am using a 20D at the moment, but would like to go full frame when the
    > full frame bodies like the 5D come down in price, as I can't afford a 5D
    > at
    > the moment. Going back to 'normality' (35mm) would suit me, combined with
    > better quality over APS-C sensors (although the longer 35mm equilelent
    > focal
    > length and 5FPS would be missed with the 5D).
    >
    > The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM sounds good on the 20D, however even though
    > it
    > is a 27-88 35mm equilalent, it isn't really, as lens optics are lens
    > optics
    > (DOF, distortion, etc). Constant 2.8 appeture and IS are great though and
    > would give a decent wider end on the 20D. I have also seen some fantastic
    > shots with the EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM on a 20D, so this should be pretty
    > capable.
    >
    > The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM seems to be unmatched for optical quality and
    > also
    > the 2.8 appeture gives a huge advantage in low light with moving subjects.
    > The 2.8 appeture could mean getting a photo you would have missed if you
    > didn't have the extra stop of light. Maybe heavy, but a great lens from
    > the
    > reviews I have read. Not too good for the wider end on the 20D, but
    > better
    > future compatability for full frame.
    >
    > The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM seems a great lens for focal range and allows
    > more flexibility for framing subjects when foot zoom doesn't work or you
    > don't want to be invasive. The extra focal length could mean getting a
    > photo you would have missed if you had to change lenses to get the extra
    > reach. IS maybe handy for non moving subjects in low light. Not too good
    > for the wider end on the 20D, but better future compatability for full
    > frame.
    >
    >
     
    Julie Meikle, May 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Burt

    George Deliz Guest

    Julie Meikle wrote:
    > Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.
    >
    > I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:
    >
    > 17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is lighter.
    > 10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
    > 24-105L for a bit more reach.
    >
    >SNIP

    I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
    decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
    something wrong with it that keeps people away?

    George Deliz
     
    George Deliz, May 18, 2006
    #11
  12. "George Deliz" <> wrote:

    > I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
    > decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
    > something wrong with it that keeps people away?


    The Tamron 28-75/2.8 gets slightly better reviews (in the Japanese reviews
    at hand), and there are some AF sensors that are more sensitive/accurate at
    f/2.8 (although the USM Canon should focus a lot faster than the slow
    Tamron).

    http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/24-85

    Here's some folks agonizing about vignetting.

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003vP2

    FWIW, the Tamron does vignette somewhat at f/2.8 and f/4.0. I haven't
    noticed it at f/5.6. (All on FF.) IMHO, essentially all lenses vignette wide
    open on FF.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 18, 2006
    #12
  13. Burt

    George Deliz Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "George Deliz" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
    >>decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
    >>something wrong with it that keeps people away?

    >
    >
    > The Tamron 28-75/2.8 gets slightly better reviews (in the Japanese reviews
    > at hand), and there are some AF sensors that are more sensitive/accurate at
    > f/2.8 (although the USM Canon should focus a lot faster than the slow
    > Tamron).
    >
    > http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/24-85
    >
    > Here's some folks agonizing about vignetting.
    >
    > http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003vP2
    >
    > FWIW, the Tamron does vignette somewhat at f/2.8 and f/4.0. I haven't
    > noticed it at f/5.6. (All on FF.) IMHO, essentially all lenses vignette wide
    > open on FF.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >

    I like the 24mm bottom end as opposed to 28mm as I would rather not buy
    an additional wide lens. The 24-85 is much easier on the budget than the
    24-105. Question is how much difference does it make on a sparsely
    arrayed sensor like the one in the 5D.

    George Deliz
     
    George Deliz, May 18, 2006
    #13
  14. "George Deliz" <> wrote:

    > I like the 24mm bottom end as opposed to 28mm as I would rather not buy an
    > additional wide lens. The 24-85 is much easier on the budget than the
    > 24-105. Question is how much difference does it make on a sparsely arrayed
    > sensor like the one in the 5D.


    I'm of two minds about the "sparsely arrayed sensor" argument.

    In the extreme, at f/4.0 or faster (in a FF lens) you are going to be a lot
    happier with the 5D than with a D2x. Probably even at f/5.6. With any FF
    lens.

    On the other hand, the 5D sensor resolves over 40 lp/mm, so a better lens
    will have better contrast at 40 lp/mm, and you will notice the difference.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, May 18, 2006
    #14
  15. Burt

    Mark² Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "George Deliz" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I like the 24mm bottom end as opposed to 28mm as I would rather not
    >> buy an additional wide lens. The 24-85 is much easier on the budget
    >> than the 24-105. Question is how much difference does it make on a
    >> sparsely arrayed sensor like the one in the 5D.

    >
    > I'm of two minds about the "sparsely arrayed sensor" argument.
    >
    > In the extreme, at f/4.0 or faster (in a FF lens) you are going to be
    > a lot happier with the 5D than with a D2x. Probably even at f/5.6.
    > With any FF lens.
    >
    > On the other hand, the 5D sensor resolves over 40 lp/mm, so a better
    > lens will have better contrast at 40 lp/mm, and you will notice the
    > difference.
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    Hi David,

    Speaking of the 5D...
    ....My first few snaps with this new body (which arrived this morning) have
    left me very very impressed.
    :)
    On the other hand...some of them have also reminded me of what you CAN'T get
    away with on a FF sensor (flash coverage, distortion, etc.). It's a nice
    feeling though, as I also recognise my new possibilities with digital.
    Even though I occasionally pull out the EOS 3...it was still an amazing
    sight to see my 16-35 actually look like a 16mm. Yipeeeee! :) :) :)

    -Mark
     
    Mark², May 18, 2006
    #15
  16. In article <paPag.1656$>,
    George Deliz <> wrote:

    > Julie Meikle wrote:
    > > Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.
    > >
    > > I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:
    > >
    > > 17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is lighter.
    > > 10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
    > > 24-105L for a bit more reach.
    > >
    > >SNIP

    > I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
    > decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
    > something wrong with it that keeps people away?
    >
    > George Deliz


    The 24-85 USM works well for me. The 17-85mm IS kit lens is more useful
    in daylight, though. 24mm is never quite wide enough so I don't use the
    lens much.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, May 19, 2006
    #16
  17. Burt

    Mark² Guest

    Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > In article <paPag.1656$>,
    > George Deliz <> wrote:
    >
    >> Julie Meikle wrote:
    >>> Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.
    >>>
    >>> I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:
    >>>
    >>> 17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is
    >>> lighter. 10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
    >>> 24-105L for a bit more reach.
    >>>
    >> >SNIP

    >> I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
    >> decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
    >> something wrong with it that keeps people away?
    >>
    >> George Deliz

    >
    > The 24-85 USM works well for me. The 17-85mm IS kit lens is more
    > useful in daylight, though. 24mm is never quite wide enough so I
    > don't use the lens much.


    Isn't that an EF-S lens?
    If so, then FF is locked out of the future for him.
    He may not care...
    -I carefully avoided buying EF-S, and now that I finally have my full-frame
    digital (two days ago), I'm glad of that.
    :)
    -Mark²
     
    Mark², May 19, 2006
    #17
  18. Burt

    George Deliz Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    >
    >>In article <paPag.1656$>,
    >>George Deliz <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Julie Meikle wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.
    >>>>
    >>>>I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:
    >>>>
    >>>>17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is
    >>>>lighter. 10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
    >>>>24-105L for a bit more reach.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> >SNIP
    >>>I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets a
    >>>decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is there
    >>>something wrong with it that keeps people away?
    >>>
    >>>George Deliz

    >>
    >>The 24-85 USM works well for me. The 17-85mm IS kit lens is more
    >>useful in daylight, though. 24mm is never quite wide enough so I
    >>don't use the lens much.

    >
    >
    > Isn't that an EF-S lens?
    > If so, then FF is locked out of the future for him.
    > He may not care...
    > -I carefully avoided buying EF-S, and now that I finally have my full-frame
    > digital (two days ago), I'm glad of that.
    > :)
    > -Mark²
    >
    >

    I am going to buy a full frame DSLR, probably the 5D but I'm not buying
    anything until Photokina. I now have a Rebel XT which I've had for about
    a year, and I wouldn't want a 24-anything zoom for use with it. The
    24-85 has a range comparable to the 24-105 and I thought it was peculiar
    that the 24-105 somehow became the must have lens for the 5D while the
    24-85, although of similar range and speed was never mentioned. If the
    24-105 makes noticeably better images then that's the one I'll buy. I
    already have the 50/1.8 and the new 70-300 IS so a 24-something zoom
    would be the only lens I would need to buy for the full frame camera.
    Although I used to carry around a bag full of lenses (6) for my old FD
    bodies, I no longer wish to go that route.

    George Deliz
     
    George Deliz, May 20, 2006
    #18
  19. Burt

    Mark² Guest

    George Deliz wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <paPag.1656$>,
    >>> George Deliz <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Julie Meikle wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hmm. Depends on what you want it for.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I had a similar debate , but settled on the following:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 17-40L as a general lens as it has good image quality and is
    >>>>> lighter. 10-22 EF-S as the best (IMHO) way to get wider angler
    >>>>> 24-105L for a bit more reach.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> SNIP
    >>>> I never see any recommendations for the Canon 24-85. The lens gets
    >>>> a decent review from Photozone and it's pretty inexpensive. Is
    >>>> there something wrong with it that keeps people away?
    >>>>
    >>>> George Deliz
    >>>
    >>> The 24-85 USM works well for me. The 17-85mm IS kit lens is more
    >>> useful in daylight, though. 24mm is never quite wide enough so I
    >>> don't use the lens much.

    >>
    >>
    >> Isn't that an EF-S lens?
    >> If so, then FF is locked out of the future for him.
    >> He may not care...
    >> -I carefully avoided buying EF-S, and now that I finally have my
    >> full-frame digital (two days ago), I'm glad of that.
    >> :)
    >> -Mark²
    >>
    >>

    > I am going to buy a full frame DSLR, probably the 5D but I'm not
    > buying anything until Photokina. I now have a Rebel XT which I've had
    > for about a year, and I wouldn't want a 24-anything zoom for use with
    > it. The 24-85 has a range comparable to the 24-105 and I thought it
    > was peculiar that the 24-105 somehow became the must have lens for
    > the 5D while the 24-85, although of similar range and speed was never
    > mentioned. If the 24-105 makes noticeably better images then that's
    > the one I'll buy. I already have the 50/1.8 and the new 70-300 IS so
    > a 24-something zoom would be the only lens I would need to buy for
    > the full frame camera. Although I used to carry around a bag full of
    > lenses (6) for my old FD bodies, I no longer wish to go that route.
    >
    > George Deliz


    The 24-85 and the 24-105 f4 IS L lenses are in entirely different leagues.
    The latter is an L class lens with a constant f4 aperture...has image
    stabilization, and special lens elements. It's also built like a tank. The
    full-frame sensor of the 5D (and other Canon full-frames) really exposes ANY
    flaw in a lens because of its large sensor and quality rendition. I
    wouldn't encourage anyone to buy a 5D who wasn't going to invest in serious
    lenses. The 24-105 also costs about $1300. :)
     
    Mark², May 20, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. J. Cod
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    471
    J. Cod
    Sep 29, 2004
  2. Derek Fountain

    Canon 28-105 vs Canon 28-135 lenses

    Derek Fountain, Mar 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    565
    David Griffin
    Mar 12, 2005
  3. Joel Dorfan

    Old vs New Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5 - 4.5 II USM Lens

    Joel Dorfan, Aug 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    958
    Joel Dorfan
    Aug 17, 2005
  4. Mark²

    Yipe! Canon 24-105 big $

    Mark², Sep 3, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    839
    Mark²
    Sep 6, 2005
  5. deryck  lant

    Canon 24-105: A User Report

    deryck lant, Sep 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    293
    Dirty Harry
    Sep 15, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page