DSLRUsers.com

Up to this stage I have been using the EOS350D with the 18-55 kit lens, and am planning on upgrading.

The lens I am leaning toward is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. Does anyone have experience with this lens?

An alternative would be the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

Any advice would be appreciated.

I would take the 24-105 as a walk around lens - that bit of extra reach and IS would sell me. Unless you think you need F2.8 for DOF - which I don't think you would if it is a walk about lens.

if your planning on sticking with crop for a long time, then the 17-55 f2.8 IS would be pretty aweseom if its as good as canon claim it to be.

It'll have L optics, just not L build, yes its EF-S, but the range, f2.8 and IS? How can someone complain. Unless your planning on going full frame in the next year, then i presonally would get it (and i will).

10-22, 17-55 f2.8 IS and 70-200IS would be an awesome arsenal (i have 1 of 3 there , the 17-55IS will be mine sooner or later, and the 70-200 will be also there one day )

I tend to worry about getting the shots i want now, then worrying about the future, you can always sell the ef-s lens, yes you will proably loose some money, but just think of all the photos that you would have taken with the lens that you will sell once you've gone full frame.

24mm is not wide enough for my liking, and f4 is definately not fast enough, i like the f2.8 speed of my tamron, and i've gotten used to it, and i would not want anything else but f2.8 and faster.

And if you really want the 24-70L, have a serious look into the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 (A LOT of people have rated that lens optically very close to the L in terms of sharpness and colour, its just not anywhere near the expense).

Hope it helps (others will probably disagree, cos its an ef-s lens and it won't be usuable on full frame when you upgrade, etc, but as i said, i would rather buy an ef-s lens now, get the most out of it, take the photos' in that range, and then if i ever upgrade, i'll sell my body, lens and just add the difference - which is the nature of upgrading)

mR_CaESaR wrote:And if you really want the 24-70L, have a serious look into the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 (A LOT of people have rated that lens optically very close to the L in terms of sharpness and colour, its just not anywhere near the expense).

I had totally forgotten about that lens. You are right; the Tamron by reports is a seriously good piece of kit for not much $$$.

We will agree to disagree about EF-S lenses

As a convert to the 24-105 f/4L IS, I would thoroughly recommend this lens. Its a superb walkabout lens, not too heavy and very sharp. I would avoid EF-s lenses because one day, undoubtedly you will want to go FF (I know I did!)

Cheers
Sheila

Hey Mitchell,
either lens would be a good choice.
On the 24-70, the f2.8 will really help in lower light situations.
But as listed, 24-105 has more reach.
I have used both and am happy with either.
Try this site for independent reviews
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews
Just a quick warning, when you start using L series lenses, you will become addicted to their image quality.
Marty

Mitchell wrote:Up to this stage I have been using the EOS350D with the 18-55 kit lens, and am planning on upgrading.

What do you shoot? Without knowing that we're just blowing smoke.

The basic choices are the 17-55, 24-70 and the 24-105. Obviously the two 24mm lenses will cripple your wide angle ability, but the 55mm long end is not very good for anything with animals in it unless they're trapped or tamed. the 24-105 is hampered by the f/4, which limits it in low light and you lose control over depth of field to some extent. I shoot at f/2.8 or faster quite a lot to reduce DoF. YMMV.

There's also the Sigma lenses - they have a 24-70 too, and the 18-50/2.8 is a lot cheaper than the Canon 17-55 will be. I have that, and the Sigma 12-24 to get a decent wide angle, but the 18-50 needs to be rechipped to work properly with the 30D.

Awesome post, I also have a 350D but running with a Tamron 18-200mm lens and wanted to ask the exact same question....

L Glass must me pretty amazing

17-40 f/4L is my walk around lens. I don't think I could manage with any of the other lenses people have suggested. I prefer something wider...

Depends on your style of shooting though.

oli wrote:17-40 f/4L is my walk around lens. I don't think I could manage with any of the other lenses people have suggested. I prefer something wider...

You really think the extra mm makes that much difference?

I've been playing with a friend's 17-40 recently, and decided that the DoF would kill me. On a FF the 17-40 would probably make me very happy indeed, but for now that's not an option. I'd rather have f/2.8 than 17mm, and the 50mm long end doesn't hurt.

Admittedly I cheat by having a true UWA in the 12-24, so I can afford to have a slightly cavalier attitude to a mm here or there around the 17mm mark.

moz wrote:You really think the extra mm makes that much difference?

I was responding to the recommendations of a 24-70mm lens in particular.

Like I said, it depends on your style of shooting. What's good for one person isn't good for another. Usually I don't bother with threads like this because everybody suggests something different (obviously). I just decided to post because nobody had suggested something wide (and I'm disregarding the EF-S lens because I personally don't think they're a good long term purchase).

The only way the original poster is going to be able to find something is by working out what end of their current lens they use most, how much they want to spend, etc...

The 17-40 is relatively inexpensive, much lighter than other lenses that have been recommended, and is generally regarded very highly in terms of image quality.

I have the 17-40 on my 1DmKIIn all the time, I only swap the lens when I know I need extra reach.
The 17-40 is probably my favourite lens on a Canon, the image quality is stunning.
Loz, not sure what you mean when you say 'the DoF would kill me', can you explain.?
And regarding the wide end of the lens, yes every mm counts and obviously makes a bigger difference depending on the sensor you are using, 1.6x, 1.3x or FF.
I know many people who own this lens and they all love it.
Marty

Marty wrote:I have the 17-40 on my 1DmKIIn all the time

If I had a FF camera I suspect I'd feel similarly (I use my 12-24 quite a lot). But the question was about a 350D so suggesting a 10-22 or 12-24 might be more comparable to your usage.

Loz, not sure what you mean when you say 'the DoF would kill me'

You're quoting me (Moz) not Loz there.

Having played with the 17-40 on a crop camera, I felt that the difference in DoF beween f/4 and f/2.8 would annoy me more than the loss of the extra mm between 17mm and 18mm. I tend to shoot a lot of portrait-style shots, and even at 18mm it's nice to be able to soften backgrounds a little more than f/4 allows.

If someone was to offer me a full frame camera my lens choices would definitely change I'd love a wide angle on a FF plus keeping my crop camera with a long lens on it - 5D/17-40 + 30D/70-200IS strikes me as a great street combo.

For now though, I don't see the point in buying lenses for a camera that I'm not likely to own in the next couple of years instead of buying for what I have now. It's easy enough to sell lenses, and while they don't change as fast as digital bodies do, lens tech does change and right now there's a huge effort going into UWA lenses. I wouldn't be surprised to see a full frame lens wider than 17mm come out, or a replacement for the 16-35/2.8.[/quote]

Apologies Moz, sorry I called you Loz.....
I understand where you are coming from with a dslr and 1.6x crop.
I previously used a 20D with the 17-40 and still loved the results, before moving to a mkII (which still has a 1.3x crop factor).
I have used the 16-35 but the results were not as sharp as the 17-40.
Like you say, understanding your needs now and future plans should determine your choice of lens.
90% of my work is outdoors in bright light, so the difference between 2.8 and 4 is not an issue to me.
But back to the original question, hope all the members advice has helped in your decision Mitchell.
The very best way to decide is to use the lenses, either borrow/try friends or try at stores, take shots on your camera and look at the results when you get home on your computer.
Then when you have made your choice, buy on-line

Marty

moz wrote:I tend to shoot a lot of portrait-style shots, and even at 18mm it's nice to be able to soften backgrounds a little more than f/4 allows.

You shoot portraits with a wide angle lens? How flattering

If I want to shoot portraits I use my 50mm f/1.8, or the 40mm end of the 17-40 where in my opinion f/4 still gives a pleasing DOF for portrait photos. I certainly don't shoot portraits at 17mm.

oli wrote:You shoot portraits with a wide angle lens? How flattering

Remember that your 17mm is my 27mm. Poor light, but here's one at 18mm equiv and f/9, showing just how badly wrong it can all go:

and one at an actual 21mm/2.8 (FF equiv is ~35mm)

If I want to shoot portraits I use my 50mm f/1.8, or the 40mm end of the 17-40

Given the power to freeze action and shuffle obstacles out of the way I'd do the same. I do when I can, and I have the 50/1.4 as well as the 70-200/2.8 for that sort of shot. But when I'm grabbing people out of the crowd it can be very hard to get good line of sight from "portrait distance". The 70-200 with a 1.4TC is quite a nice lens for taking portraits without being too obtrusive, but it does require tacit permission from everyone within about 20m (100mm/160mm equiv, f/4):

I shoot with a 350D too...

oli wrote:I shoot with a 350D too...

Then why so surprised that I'd use a UWA to get 35mm-equiv wide angle for portraits? 35mm is not unusual for candids/street portraits, it's only below ~24mm that I'd expect surprise. It's IMO quite hard to get a good portrait with a UWA, but a standard wide is no big deal.

Like Marty, I hope this is going some way to helping the original questioner... it's not helping me resist thinking about new lenses, that's for sure

Thanks all for you comments - definitely helpful in identifying some questions I have to answer for myself. I have also narrowed down the options - not an easy task.

For example - it has encouraged me to review the EXIF on some of my existing shots - I tend to twist the zoom control without thinking what the actual focal length I most often use is.

Unfortunately I won't be going full frame any time soon...

I would also be interested in your comments I posted in a related link that didn't generate much discussion:
http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=16256