If you were me, which lens would you buy? (24-105 vs. 70-200 f/4 IS)

[mattyg1027]

Let me just start my first post here by saying that I absolutely love this website and all the reviews/information contained within it. I can't say enough about how valuable it has been in helping me with the purchases I've made thus far, as well as learning about Photography in general. I have not read much of the forums yet, but I have a lot of questions I've come up with as I've been shooting with my new gear over the last year +, so I hope to get involved in some good discussion.


That said, I am having trouble deciding which lens I should go with next: the 24-105 f/4 L IS or the 70 - 200 f/4 L IS. Here is the gear that I have so far:


Canon XSi w/ kit lens (18-55 IS)


Canon 50 mm f/1.4


Canon 100 mm f/2.8 Macro


Now I know that to answer this question you need to know what uses I have in mind, but to be honest, I just want to be best equipped to handle a variety of situations should they come up. I can say that indoor sports photography is NOT a likely scenario (thus I'm okay with the f/4 of both lenses). I like taking portraits of family/friends (when they let me), and pets, but I think I have two very good lenses for that already, though you may disagree.


Maybe I can phrase it this way... Let's say you were traveling to a new country and wanted to be ready to capture all the sights, which lens would you rather add to my existing bag? It's just so hard to decide because with the crop body and 50mm being my lowest *quality* focal length, I could miss out on a lot of building/landscape shots, but I do have that kit lens in a pinch. If I go with the 24-105 that adds 26 mm of flexibility on the wide end, but my kit is still maxed out at ~100mm, and will that 26 extra mm buy me that much?


Also, I do plan on upgrading to FF at *some* point in the future, but probably not until a camera like the 5d mkII would cost me ~1500 bucks (hey, it's possible!). I'm just so happy with the XSi so far, especially since I put some quality glass in front of it.


At this point I'm leaning towards the 70-200. And then hopefully they make the 17-40 in a IS variety by the time I'm ready to purchase my next lens :).


Thanks in advance for any advice!


-Matt

[barba]

Both are great. I would probably take the 24-105.


Get 70-200 next (the non-IS is cheap and very sharp)- there is always a next. I find the 70-200 to be a little long on a crop camera for general use.

[Rodger]

Matt, welcome to the forums!


Your dilemma is a tough one for sure! I'll give you my opinion though.


I have a 20D (so we're dealing with the same crop factor), aTamron 17-50 f/2.8, a 50 f/1.8, and a 70-200 f/4L non IS.


In my experiences, the perfect walk around lens for me would be a mix between the Tamron and the 70-200, possibly ohhh, a 24-105.


But it really depends on if changing lenses is a problem for you. In my opinion, you'd certainly benefit more from the 70-200, however, you'd have to change between lenses and you would lack anything wider than 50mm (or around 85mm with the 1.6 crop). That's not very wide at all. I find that I use my Tamron's range quite a bit.


So I guess to me, it looks like it's either semi-wide and convenience in the 24-105, or more focal length and a great telephoto zoom in the 70-200.


Hope I helped a little bit!


Rodger

[Jon Ruyle]

You asked "what would you get", and I would get the 70-200 because I love that focal length range. Great for portraits and a nice compliment to the 100mm macro for closeup nature photography. The great IQ of the 70-200 is a bonus.


Of course, what matters is what *you* should get. If you had nothing, I would say the 24-105 is more important. But you have the 18-55 already, and you have no long lenses. The 70-200 gives you something different from what you already have, while the 24-105 is just an upgrade.


If I were you, I'd get the one I was more excited about, and not worry about being sensible. Either choice is sensible.

[clemmb]

At this point I'm leaning towards the 70-200. And then hopefully they make the 17-40 in a IS variety by the time I'm ready to purchase my next lens :).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





This is a tough decision but I think I would agree with the 70-200 IS. Then the 17-40. I do not see the need for ID on a 17-40. I have a 24-105 on a 5D and XTi. It is not wide enough on the XTi but love it on my 5D.


Mark

[Keith B]

24-105.


I liked this lens when I owned it. It was very versatile. I've never used it on a crop but I imagine it will actually perform better on one. The only concern I would have is that on a crop it isn't very wide which maybe an issue trying to get those travel scenic shots all in the frame.

[Jon Ruyle]

I've never used it on a crop but I imagine it will actually perform better on one.


Why? In what way would it be better?

[clemmb]

I've never used it on a crop but I imagine it will actually perform better on one.


Why? In what way would it be better?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Edge sharpness and distortion.


Mark

[Keith B]

I've never used it on a crop but I imagine it will actually perform better on one.


Why? In what way would it be better?






Edge sharpness and distortion.


Mark






Yes.


My only real gripe with it was outer portions of the frame. Mostly on the wide end. It was almost as if the lens was designed for a crop. It was just about where a 1.6 would stop that the image really falls off. CA, sharpness and distortion. 40-ish through 105, the images are quite nice though.

[Jon Ruyle]

Fair enough.


But of course, the equivalent of 40-ish is as wide as you get on a crop anyway.

[neuroanatomist]

Welcome, Matt!



And then hopefully they make the 17-40 in a IS variety by the time I'm ready to purchase my next lens


Well, if you're looking for quality glass with IS in that range, consider theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx), or if you want a true 'walkaround' lens and really don't mind a slow aperture, then theEF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx). Both have similar, very high IQ - the 17-55mm in particular is 'L-quality' (and L-priced, but without the robust build and weather sealing). The main downside to those is that they won't work on a FF body, so depending on how soon you plan to upgrade, that may be a show-stopper.


Personally, the EF-S 17-55mm is my most-used lens on my 7D.



At this point I'm leaning towards the 70-200.


I'd agree, in your case. I'd assume you're basing this on your current shooting patterns. I would caution you that while I think the 24-105mm is stellar on FF, the difference between 24mm and 17/18mm on the wide end is very significant on a crop body (24mm on a 1.6x body is pretty close to a 'normal' focal length. If you enjoy wide angles and sweeping vistas, you'll likely find yourself wanting wider than that (for me, even the 17mm end wasn't quite wide enough, so I also have the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM).

[mattyg1027]

At one time, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM was in this race, but I think I was scared off by the price vs. build quality (constantly read about dust issues), the (perhaps overly hopeful) thought that I will be upgrading to ff in the not to distant future, and the focal length range being slightly wide for most of my use. It would be great for indoor group pictures though, you should have seen me trying to take a picture of my family at the dinner table on thanksgiving with the 50/1.4. The tripod was in the other room, lol.


I really never gave that 15-85 much of a look, probably because of the slow aperture and ef-s mount. When I finally made the jump from the kit lens to the 100/2.8, I realized how nice it is to have that extra stop or two. I was actually wondering if the max of f/4 on the two lenses that I'm still considering would bother me, but I have decided that I have to make a sacrifice for the flexibility of a zoom in the price/size/weight that I find acceptable. One of the major reasons I like the fast aperture is the subject/background separation (because most of my shots have been outdoors with plenty of light anyway), and from what I've seen in the sample pics of the 24-105 and 70-200 even more so, it seems like you can still achieve that with f/4 on a longer lens. I'll give that one some thought though, thanks for the recommendation.


Still processing everyone's input, but will respond when I have a bit more time. It's kind of funny how my choice on this lens effects what I get for my next lens too. So many possible permutations!

[neuroanatomist]

At one time, the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM was in this race, but I think I was scared off by the price vs. build quality (constantly read about dust issues), the (perhaps overly hopeful) thought that I will be upgrading to ff in the not to distant future, and the focal length range being slightly wide for most of my use.






The build quality is very good - it's a very sturdy lens (quality seems similar to my EF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L Macro IS USM lens, which though an L lens also has a plastic barrel). I think the dust issue is overblown - I haven't seen any problem, personally, and I think the relatively small number of people who do are very vocal about it. But as you say, any EF-S lens useless if all you have is a FF body. It certainly needs to be 'paired' with a longer lens, like a 70-200mm, 100-400mm, etc. I should note that while it's the lens that's on my camera most of the time, most of my shooting is of my family - around the house, etc., and the zoom range does very well there (I have an EF 85mm f/1.8 for indoor close-ups). I think what you're really paying for with the 17-55mm is the optical quality, which is excellent.



One of the major reasons I like the fast aperture is the subject/background separation (because most of my shots have been outdoors with plenty of light anyway), and from what I've seen in the sample pics of the 24-105 and 70-200 even more so, it seems like you can still achieve that with f/4 on a longer lens.


When you look at sample pics, be sure to pay attention to the camera used - the 1.6x FOVCF ("http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx) applies not only to angle of view, but also to depth of field. So if you really like the OOF blur in a sample pic at f/4 on a FF body (all of Bryan's sample pics with the 24-105mm are on FF cameras), keep in mind that will be like f/6.4 on your XSi in terms of depth of field.



It's kind of funny how my choice on this lens effects what I get for my next lens too.


So very true!

[Aaron K]

For me, this is an easy one, given your question: "Let's say you were traveling to a new country and wanted to be ready to
capture all the sights, which lens would you rather add to my existing
bag?" A few weeks before heading to England a while back, I made the 'mistake' of renting a 70-200 f/2.8L IS to use with my Rebel XT. It provided such a huge image quality bump over my 28-135 that I pored over Bryan's reviews for a solid week and then bought a 24-105 f/4L IS for my trip. It was a great decision, and I have loved that lens ever since. I knew that I wanted to head to full frame some day, and after a stint with a 40D, my lens is now on a 5DII. You can always sell gear (ie get a 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S for now and sell it when moving to FF), but I wanted to avoid that hassle. The IS and smaller size/lighter weight of the 24-105 did it for me over the 24-70 f/2.8L. To each his/her own, of course, but those were the deciding factors for me. All of that said, I should add that the 70-200 f/4L IS is a spectacular lens, and I have a newfound appreciation for it as a landscape lens. But given all that you've said, I say go for the 24-105.



PS -- Even on a 1.6x body, the 24-105 f/4 can still provide a nicely blurred background, given the right conditions, of course:



http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1230/1388617862_1db18d1b3d.jpg

[Jarhead5811]

I just got a 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]<span style="color: #003399;)and love it but,in your situation, Ibeleive I'd rather have the 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM ("http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx).

[Colin]

well, if you keep the zoom you've already got, I'd get a 70-200mm first, in which case you've got a greater range with which to play with. On a 1.6 crop, 200mm is a decent amount of reach. a 24-105, while excellent, won't really give you much more than you've already got, from a shooting flexibility standpoint. The quality might be better than your current zoom, but I'd prefer to have more options first...

[Mr.Le]

You have 2 good primes there! add another! haha. 24L, 35L, &amp; 135L for you to pick. Just thought it would toss in one from the left field.

[scalesusa]

Since you have the 18-55MM IS, get the 70-200mm f/4 IS. Then when you are ready, replace the 18-55 with a 17-55mm IS. The tiny gap in coverage will not be missed, but you could upgrade the 18-55mm IS with the sigma 17-70 OS and have complete coverage.


I have had all these lenses on my 40d, and the 24-105mm is wonderful on a crop, but you are missing more by not having the 70-200. Than you would by adding a 24-105 which duplicates or even triplicates the ranges you already have.


In any event, you will certainly love either lens.

[edfrometown]

Hi Matt,


I have both lenses that you're looking at (24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS) and as everyone has said, both are just great lenses. However, I got the 24-105 first because of Bryan's recommendation of a great walk around lens. When I have to travel light, I always take the 24-105 because of it's versatility. Sure I miss some shots that I could have had with the 70-200, but that's when you have to get creative ;) For portraits and family gatherings, the 24-105 on a crop might be a tad too long on the short end i.e. getting group photos in a tight area is challenging, but then getting the candid shot from across the room is a lot easier.


I just posted a pic of the Sydney opera house that I took with the 24-105 under the "Assignment: Leading Lines" discussion. I have to say that, although I had my 70-200 with me on that trip, the 24-105 shot the majority of the "memories" like city scapes, portrait, food etc. The only time I used the 70-200 was when I had to shoot wildlife.


Hope this helps.

[mattyg1027]

I think the general consensus is that the 24-105 would have more applications than the 70-200 f/4, but that it doesn't add a whole lot of options to my existing kit, which is what I was originally thinking too. So I think this reinforced my decision to go with the 70-200.


I am kind of surprised more people didn't discount the 18-55 as even effectively "covering" me on the wide end. I guess I don't give the lens enough credit. Maybe I shouldn't have stuffed it away for good after buying my primes :). I guess the fact that it's slow isn't that important if I'm mostly using it for landscapes.


Perhaps my next purchase after the 70-200 will be a 5dmkII with a 24-105 kit... then I'll have two great f/4 IS zooms, a nice fast 50 mm prime, and a macro lens.


Man, why did I have to choose a new hobby that is both addicting and expensive... couldn't it have just been one or the other?! Which brings me to my next question... how often does Adorama replenish their refurb supply? I bought my 100mm refurbished and I see no reason to not do that every time, except in the case of the 24-105 where it's only saving $60 on $1060. I saw a refurbished 70-200 f/4L IS on there a couple months back for $999 (reg. $1135), but it's no longer on there. Would kind of like to hold out for that deal if it wouldn't cause me to miss shooting all the sights this summer!


p.s. I'm not sure if I'm replying the correct way. I just want to add a post to the thread, not reply to a particular post... do I hit quick reply for that?

[mattyg1027]

Oh wait, the 70-200 f/4L IS is regularly $1210 not $1135! I had written down $1135 a little while back because that was the price with the current rebate. I guess that makes a refurb for $999 an even better deal.

[neuroanatomist]

Which brings me to my next question... how often does Adorama replenish their refurb supply?


No idea, but Bryan usually posts a News item when they do.



I saw a refurbished 70-200 f/4L IS on there a couple months back for $999 (reg. $1135), but it's no longer on there


I think the rebate prices change in tandem with the new lens prices. If there's a rebate, refurb and used lens prices go down to maintain the incentive. I would guess (but I'm not certain) that prices on the refurb, when available, will also rise now that the new lens has gone back up. That price must have been from a while back - the Oct 2009-Jan 2010 rebates. The more recent 7D and 5D+lens rebates were presumably in response to a Nikon rebate program, and the current 50D rebates aren't really that extensive. Historically, Canon's major lens rebates come twice per year - May-July and Oct-Jan. So, if you hold out for a month or month and a half, you may see prices drop again!



I am kind of surprised more people didn't discount the 18-55 as even effectively "covering" me on the wide end. I guess I don't give the lens enough credit. Maybe I shouldn't have stuffed it away for good after buying my primes :). I guess the fact that it's slow isn't that important if I'm mostly using it for landscapes.


The 18-55mm IS kit lens isn't a bad lens, it's just not a good lens. It's optically decent if you use it stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, but that's a narrow sweet spot. It will do fine for snapshots (indoors, you'll need a flash, preferably an external Speedlite).


For landscapes, I'd say it's tolerable. The kit lens gets optically softer beyond f/8, and that's also where diffraction begins to have an effect on your XSi's sensor. So, when you use narrow apertures for deep DoF in landscapes you're adding optical softness to diffraction. But, at the wide end you don't need as narrow an aperture for deep DoF, so you'd be ok, I think. The other notable hassle with the kit lens is that the front element rotates, making it a challenge to use a circular polarizing filter (which are nice for landscapes), but I hope you'd be using a tripod, in which case you'd have both hands free to hold the front element while rotating the CPL.

[mattyg1027]

Man... I'm so disappointed. I've been checking this site religiously since making this post and finally saw the news bulletin yesterday about Adorama refreshing their refurbished supply, went online to find the 70-200 f/4 IS WAS included this time, placed my order... and then a day later get an email saying that it is back ordered and they do not know when they are getting more stock. What the heck? Why have a refurb available on the site if you don't have it in stock!? I assume it could be months before they get more in stock, if ever.


Huge let down...

[neuroanatomist]

Why have a refurb available on the site if you don't have it in stock!?


They did have a refurb copy, or maybe two. But people 'troll' their site for discounts like that, and if you placed your order just after someone else who ordered the same lens, they got first dibs. I'm pretty sure the available stock level does not update in real time.

[Superman]

I just got back from a 2 week vacation in California. I started in San Diego and worked my way up to San Francisco. I brought with me my T1i and three lenses - 50mm 1.4, 17-40 f4 and 70-200 f4 non IS. I barely used the 50mm (just a few portrait shots at my friend's home in San Fran). Since I wasn't shooting any subjects that were moving fast in a low light situation (you mentioned you likely won't be doing any indoor sports), f4 and not having the IS was not an issue. I had a tripod for situations where a slow shutter speed was required to solve camera shake or in a pinch, I just leaned against a tree or a post or something. I took close to 1400 shots and found in all but a hand full cases, a couple of steps forward or backwards was sufficient to cover the 30mm gap between my two zooms. The combined cost of lenses was just $200 or so, more than the 24-105mm.


I think the 70-200 f4 is absolutely fantastic when it comes to sharpness and IQ and the 17-40 is almost as good. Dropping the IS feature should make room in the budget for the 17-40mm. Although not super wide on a APS-C, I felt it was wide enough and you did mention you felt the 24mm was wide enough for your uses. Both these lenses are also a perfect fit on a FF should you go down that route at some point. The only drawback I see here is that it might render the kit lens totally obsolete. I don't even know where my kit lens is right now.


Clark

[mattyg1027]

Yea, I figured that was the case... but I thought I was quick enough this time. Oh well... are we expecting Canon to announce more lens rebates for spring or are they just doing the Rebel and 7D rebates this time? I don't know how much longer I can wait before I bite the bullet and pay full retail!

[neuroanatomist]

...are we expecting Canon to announce more lens rebates for spring or are they just doing the Rebel and 7D rebates this time?


An upcoming Canon USA rebate has been 'leaked ("http://www.canonpricewatch.com/)' - the 70-200mm f/4L IS is on the list for a rebate, amount TBD (but probably $75, like 4 of the last 5 rebates on that lens). Not sure on the accuracy of the source, though.


Not sure on the timing - historically, the spring/summer lens rebates have started in April or early- to mid-May. Since it's already early May, I'd say they will start soon, or not at all...

[mattyg1027]

Nice... I just found a refurb on B&amp;H for $1050!! Looks like they only give a 90 day warranty as opposed to Adorama's 1 year, but it's still Canon refurbished. I'll get over the $50 difference in price too. Got tired of waiting for the rebates, because I'm going on vacation in a couple weeks and would need the lens to arrive by the 15th to be able to bring it with me.


Very excited... lets hope I don't run into the same problem this time around!

[neuroanatomist]

Great - enjoy your new lens, once it's in your hands! [:D]


(Personally, I just picked up anEF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM yesterday, to use primarily as an outdoor walkaround lens - it's weather-sealed and has a good range for that. It will supplement theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM which I prefer indoors for the wider end and faster aperture).

[ddt0725]

Great - enjoy your new lens, once it's in your hands! /emoticons/emotion-2.gif


(Personally, I just picked up anEF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LIS USM yesterday, to use primarily as an outdoor walkaround lens - it's weather-sealed and has a good range for that. It will supplement theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM which I prefer indoors for the wider end and faster aperture).
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>






I second all of that!! [Y] [:D]

For the few test shots that Iwas able to takeover my lunch hourwith my new EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM that just came today, it looks like it is going to serve my needs very well for an outdoor walkaround lens!

Denise

[erno james]

As they say in Football, GO LONG! I love the 70-200mm f/4 but I have the one with IS. As stated, great all purpose lens and allows for candid portraiture shots. I use it on a 7D and it therefore reaches out quit a bit. No regrets on plunking down the dough for an L lens like this one.