Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Decisions, decisions: 24-70 or 24-105 "L" Lens
- Thread starter Razeus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Canon has an excellent range of primes, and as a prime shooter, I'd give some thought to them.
What is your current lens lineup and what camera are you shooting with?
The 135L is such a tremendous lens that I think just about every serious Canon shooter ought to have one, unless they just wouldn't have any use for it.
What is your current lens lineup and what camera are you shooting with?
The 135L is such a tremendous lens that I think just about every serious Canon shooter ought to have one, unless they just wouldn't have any use for it.
One is faster and sharper; the other is stabilized. A quick glance at your photos suggests that you like to shoot architecture, in which case f/2.8 isn't a necessity, and stabilization will help if you're averse to using a tripod (you don't appear to be shooting in situations where tripods would be forbidden). The extra reach of the 24-105 will also help with architectural details, though I believe that lens is a bit soft on the long end.
I have the 24-105. It's a great walkaround lens. If I need to shoot below f4 or 5.6, I use a prime. The 24-70 is a nice lens, but doesn't seem as versatile to me as I'd need a midrange to be.
why do you want an L lens? are there no other lenses that fit for your desired use? speaking of which, you should be able to tell us the primary use of whatever lens you're looking for, not make us look at your flickr and guess.
if you must have a zoom, I would stick to telephotos on your XSi. there are better options at wide and standard, namely the 10-22 and 17-55.
if you must have a zoom, I would stick to telephotos on your XSi. there are better options at wide and standard, namely the 10-22 and 17-55.
The first step in lens selection is to ask yourself "What do my current lenses not do that I'd like to do, or do poorly that I'd like done better?"
I didn't realize he has an XSi, in which case I second the recommendation for the 17-55. It's super lens and is eminently useful on an APS-C body. But that recommendation comes on the assumption that you're looking for a good walkaround lens. Compuwar's point is important: the best lens for you is the one that best solves whatever problem you currently need to address.
My lenses are the 18-55 kit lens, nifty-fifty, and the 55-250. Basically, I'll be shooting structures, buildings, plants, zoo animals, etc. I'm basically going through my lenses and seeing what's best to upgrade for what I shoot most. I'm leaning to the 24-105 L, but I'm also researching if "L" lenses are even worth it (or is it for bragging rights). They say invest in good glass and they'll last even when I switch out bodies through the years so the "L" makes sense, but then again, a lens for half the cost will last just as long.
You still haven't answered the question. None of your subjects sound challenging under most circumstances- but you're not saying what is and isn't working and why- upgrading for the sake of upgrading isn't as useful as upgrading to gain a capability you don't already have. For instance, if you don't print, higher resolution isn't likely to be useful. If you want to do macro for plants, there are a lot of good options, but none of them are zooms. If you want wide for architecture, then your choice isn't great- if you want perspective control then your choice isn't great- if you can't articulate a problem with your current lenses, then I'd suggest putting the money into renting some options, since you may end up with something that restricts your shooting style in ways you can't yet imagine.
L glass is not for bragging rights. I also wouldn't shoot what you're shooting with L glass either, it would be a waste of glass and your money.
With the 24-105 as well, you won't get that exact focal range with a cropped sensor so you will lose out on the wide angle but gain on the long range. Something which your lenses are already capable of doing, the 24-105 isn't even fast so it isn't like you'll benefit from faster apertures compared to the existing lens you have either.
This also disqualifies the 24-70 L as well. I have this lens and I use it for documentary work, this lens will hold you back on the long end and you'll be wondering what the point is after buying it.
I think you're doing fine with the lens lineup you've got. IF you still insist on a new lens why not go for one of these: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090103canon15mm28mm18mm135mm.asp
I just rented a 24-105 for my XSi and used it for a couple weeks. I'm going to be buying one in the next month or so. What a great lens. f/4 isn't a big deal with the IS. Yeah, you lose a bit on the wide side but in my situations I can just step back a bit. Not a deal breaker. Of course, shooting architecture might hurt a bit if you are going for fancy angles and such.
Yes, "L" lenses are worth it. I wasn't a believer either until I used the 24-105.
Yes, "L" lenses are worth it. I wasn't a believer either until I used the 24-105.
Seeing as how you have a crop body, neither the 24-70 mm nor the 24-105 mm are very good choices in my opinion. You'd be much better off with a 17-50 mm f/2.8 (e. g. the one by Tamron is very good, Canon also makes one which is optically and mechanically on the same level, but costs more than twice as much). Tamron has just released a new version with IS, so you may be interested in that. If you insist on that red L to make you feel better, have a look at Canon's 17-40 mm instead.
Crackedbutter is right: you shouldn't buy an L lens for bragging rights -- especially if it is the focal lengths are made for full frame and not crop sensors (which is true of all Canon L glass).
Crackedbutter is right: you shouldn't buy an L lens for bragging rights -- especially if it is the focal lengths are made for full frame and not crop sensors (which is true of all Canon L glass).
Typical of DPR: the 18mm-135mm has IS but no USM. They do get it right in the link though.DPReview.com said:
Attachments
I used to own the 24-105, and it was a very nice lens.
I swapped it for the 24-70 because I feel that the fast lens just has nicer bokeh and I didn't really need the stabilisation or reach.
Although, saying that, I have the 135L mounted most of the time these days.
I swapped it for the 24-70 because I feel that the fast lens just has nicer bokeh and I didn't really need the stabilisation or reach.
Although, saying that, I have the 135L mounted most of the time these days.
I went with the 24-105mm f/4 IS USM L
It will be my all around, most used lens. It will save me from having to switch between the 18-55 and 55-250 all the damn time when I'm out and about. Plus the IQ and build quality is superior. I'll keep the 55-250 just for my son's baseball games and band stuff. Nothing can beat the 50mm f/1.8 II so I'll keep that. After I play with the lens, I may consider the 17-40mm f/4 USM L as well.
It will be my all around, most used lens. It will save me from having to switch between the 18-55 and 55-250 all the damn time when I'm out and about. Plus the IQ and build quality is superior. I'll keep the 55-250 just for my son's baseball games and band stuff. Nothing can beat the 50mm f/1.8 II so I'll keep that. After I play with the lens, I may consider the 17-40mm f/4 USM L as well.
For the $800 they are trying to charge for it, I would say so.
I wasn't. But he already made is point and I'm not that much of a noob to not know that factor.
yes, I'm fully aware.
You know, I actually took the time to re-read this thread incase your camera was mentioned, it wasn't btw. Then I went to your flickr profile to find out, then did the math after I researched the crop factor on your camera. (x1.6 incase anybody is interested and a Canon Digital Rebel XSi).
So ignoring your reply. I still think you should get one of the newer EF-S lenses from that link. Cheaper and more flexible. L series be damned.
LOL. What you say about L series may be true. My signature has always had my camera model. I think I got a good deal on it for $900 and I can always sell it if I find it's not working for me. But I've done enough research to say it will.
For the $800 they are trying to charge for it, I would say so.
I also checked the thread incase you commented on the fact that you wanted USM or not, you didn't, the discussion has mainly been about focal lengths.
Nobody suggested otherwise, not everybody knows about crop factors and I didn't even know the crop factor and while I am not trying to make a living with that particular camera, I am trying to make a living with photography, so I'm not a noob either but I didn't know as I do know Canon varies it from body to body. The only crop factor I know off the top of my head in Canon's lineup is the 1Ds range.
So you made that interpretation or came to that conclusion by yourself from my comment, so lets nip this in the bud shall we and move on?