also looking for a walk around lens

[ksweets8]

Hi i'm looking for a walk around lens. I don't want to have to keep changing or cropping into zoom pictures. I take a ton of kids and portraits and weddings plus travel!! which would you consider?


24-70 f2.8


or 70-200 f2.8


i have the cannon xsi with no plan for upgrade yet


thanks.

[adam]

What lens are you using now? The kit lens? How much cropping are you doing?

[Daniel Browning]

On your camera the 24-70 is a "normal to telephoto" zoom and the 70-200 is a "telephoto to extreme telephoto" zoom. Personally, I would find both of them to be far too long to use as a walkaround, but it sounds like you prefer to do telephoto rather than wide angle. In that case, I would suggest the 70-200.

[ksweets8]

i use the kit lens. however i do probably 30% cropping of all pics. i also need a lens to blur the background. looking for great beach and zoo pics as well as sports.

[Daniel Browning]

i also need a lens to blur the background. looking for great beach and zoo pics as well as sports.


That makes it even more certain: go for the 70-200. You'll love it.

[jusap]

based from what you've said, i'd suggest the 70-200 as well.


:)

[wolf]

Since you're looking for a walking lens, let me throw the 70-200mm f/4 into the mix. The f/2.8 version is big and much heavier than the kit lens and you'll still be able to get excellent background blur with f/4 at these focal lengths.

[Daniel Browning]

The f/2.8 version is big and much heavier...


Good point, wolf. Renting it for a week from lensrentals.com is a good way to make sure you can put up with the extra weight. (Not to mention the price savings!)



you'll still be able to get excellent background blur with f/4 at these focal lengths.


That is certainly true in many circumstnaces. Personally, I find f/2.8 very necessary for getting background sufficiently blurry for me on an APS-C. I can make do with f/4 on full frame, though. But everyone's taste is different, and many people will shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 anyway.

[blabarspaj]

Since you dont have any plans upgrading your xsi, why not consider the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS? With the 24-70 f2.8 you will lose 7mm on the wide end and thats a lot.

[camrich22]

I, for one. would highly recommend the Canon 24-105mm f4L lens for a walk around. Expensive, but I feel worth every hard earned cent.


I wouldn't go out with out it.....You have wide (24mm), and a decent zoom (105), and it's sharp and fast.


I have the 70-200mm also, and I find in many cases it is limiting, (and heavy)-- & you often have to keep moving back to get your shot. I do love it, but seldom use it for general walk around, where I never know what I want to shoot or what I'll run into. If I'm headed to the beach or the woods, or a sporting event, I mount the 70-200mm.


The 24-105mm is lighter than the 24-70mm, and the IS makes up for alot, I like having the extra reach of 105mm vs. 70mm!

[Backland Photography]

For a walk around combination; on our last shoot in England I used my XTi with a grip/hand strap and the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS USM almost entirely because the lens is made for a crop camera and the weight is very hand holdable for long periods.


2.8 helps when the light is wanting and you don't or can't use a flash. The lens is also very small and the built quality/optics are second to none, dare I say it should be sporting a red ring.


I did use other glass including the 70-200 2.8 IS USM and on that body it is a little front heavy. I much prefer to mount that lens on my 1DMK11, better weight distrubution.


Hope this helps some what.. Be safe and happy shooting Chris...

[Keith B]

I have owned both 24-105 and the 24-70 and I would definitely say the 24-105 is the better walk around lens. The 24-70 is bulky, kind of awkward and definitely needs a bigger body to balance it out. The 24-105's extra 35mm of reach is nice also.


The 24-70 is definitely a great lens, I just don't think walk around when some one mentions it.

[Backland Photography]

Hi Keith,


Thanks so much for your opinion. I have never used the 24-105 lens so I can not comment on it.


Would you tell me what body you used that lens on and what you mostly were shooting with it?


Thanx..


Chris...

[Dumien]

I own both, though I haven't had the 24-70 for long, and I used for more or less 5 months the 70-200 2.8 NON-IS as a walkaround. I, contrarily to what most people think, don't find it heavy: I can carry that lens for a whole day (I did many times during my trips) without stopping (more or less 8 hrs of walking through cities and such). I love the reach and everything. I bought the 24-70 mainly because it's wider and usually 70mm is enough for me (not always though, that's why I bought the 70-200 first).


I,too, own an XSi, and many people told me that 24mm is not that wide on APC-S, but I did some testing with my 18-55 and found out that I rarely went wider than 24, so I was good to go.


Finally, my suggestion is the 70-200, because you also mentioned sports and stuff (which i shoot too). If, walking around, yo find out you need a wider reach, get the 24-70, which is mind-blowingly good :D


hope this kinda helps


Andy

[Keith B]

Hi Chris


I shot everything with my 24-105. It was the most used lens I had. I used it exclusively on a 5D mkII. I shot portraits with it, product shots and landscapes. The landscape were a bit of a let down. At 24mm the lens displayed a considerable amount of CA on the outer 1/4 of the images. I also ran in to issues where I couldn't get as shallow of depth of field I wanted on scenic portraits, like in a smaller rooms.


I switched to the 24-70 mostly just for the 2.8 aperture. For landscape/architectural I use my 16-35 2.8 II so the wide angle CA was almost a non issue. I don't do much walking around photography. If I did I'd probably invest in another 24-105. I totally agree with Bryan that one doesn't replace the other.

[Backland Photography]

Thanx much...

[Jon Ruyle]

Personally, I find the 70-200 too long for travel use (that is if, by travel, you mean vacation travel), and think the 24-70 would be perfect.


On the other hand, for portraits (especially of kids) 70-200 is by far my most used lens.

[ksweets8]

thanks so much. I just rented the 24-105 f4 to test it out. I love that you can do before spending the money. I recently started doing weddings as well and i'm trying to figure out lens for that as well. thanks everyone for there opinons!





amy

[camrich22]

Hi Chris,


I use my 24-105mm on a Canon 40D....I love the combination, and I have taken some wonderful shots with this lens, it's a lot better than I am. Check it out if you would like, here is my flickr page, and I have shots with both the 24-105mm f4L IS, and the 70-200mm f4L IS... :





http://www.flickr.com/photos/newadventurefrombcam/

[lculpin]

I really love my 24-70, but if you're looking for a good travel/walkaround I'd probably also suggest the 24-105 (though I've never actually had the pleasure of using one). The 70-200 is pretty long (especially on a APS-C) for most "walkaround" type photography imho.

[Backland Photography]

Hey camrich22,


Good to hear from you.


I have never used the 24-105 but from what I read it's a GREAT lens. If our kit needed this lens I would really have a good look. It seems a lot of photographers like this lens.


I can relate how you like the 70-200, we use the 2.8 and find it is tack sharp and VERY versitile/robust. A lens we would NEVER give up.


Happy shooting and be safe..


Chris...

[Dallasphotog]

I own and love both. If your going to carry it around alot, you'll be much happier with the EF24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM. The 70-200 draws more attention, weighs more, and is generally not very good for group portraits, landscapes, architecture, etc.... at least not on a crop body.


You know the answer on this forum is always, "get both."

[Colin]

You know the answer on this forum is always, "get both."
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



get a 24-105 too, and a fast primes, and a 100-400....


Unless you've already got them. In that case, get a 400 f/2.8, unless you've already got that, in which case get a 800 f/5.6....


[:P]