Looking for my first 'L' series

[Groundfault]

Here's the gear I have right now:





Canon XTI with battery grip


Canon 28-135mm IS f3.5-5.6


Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro





I am looking for a 17-40 f4or a 24-105 f4 ISL to replace my 28-135. What do ou think guys ? Keep in mind that a 70-200 f2.8 L is coming soon too !

[mark]

depends what you want it for...any L i better then no L

[Groundfault]

I'm looking for a good all-around performer. I've tried a L serie lense and that's it, I'm done ! I ned one...

[GSPhoto]

Well, like everyone says you need to decide what you shoot the most. I have a 24-105L and I love it as my all around lens. I would suggest that for starters. It is not as wide as I would like though, and I do a lot of landscape photography so I also have the 16-35L. I have a 50D so the crop makes my 16 a little wider than the 24 and it really comes in handy sometimes. I would say stick with the 24-105 and it will compliment a wide angle one day when you can get another.

[EdN]

If you like to do outdoor stuff and take wide landscapes the 17-40mm F4L would give you high quality and a nice wide viewpoint. If you are more into portraits, the 24-105mm F4L gives you the better high end range.


Question to ask back to you is how do you like your 28-135mm at the short end? If for your style it's okay go for the 24-105 because everything is very similar. If it's not wide enough at 28mm, you may want to lean toward the 17-40mm.

[Groundfault]

This is where it's very difficult for me to take a decision. I have a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro, so I'm equipped to do portraits. I prefer the wider side of the 17-40 but Ithink it will be more restrictive for an all-around carrying lense. That's why I'm thinking about the 24-105.


The 28-135 was a good lense, but too much reach for what I do. the perfect lense would be a 24-70 f2.8, or even a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Anyways...I love then all, like you guys.

[Fabricio]

You left the 24-70 out. I personally think is the best way to go or the first I would get among the ones you listed.

[Stefan Stuart Fletcher]

I've owned the 24-105 and traded it in for the 24-70 because IQ was better (less flare and better CA, although barrel distortion is noticeable wide open), plus the faster lens. I would strongly recommend the 24-70 as an excellent all-round lens. For UWA, I'd go for the EFS 10-22 (if you're not planning on upgrading to a FF in the near future), which out-performs my copy of the 17-40 on my FF. If in doubt, don't spend money you'll miss later. Save up for the best and then upgrade your body as your photography improves. A good 50 mm lens (Bryan seems to have been unlucky with his copies of the Sigma 50 1.4) will serve you faithfully and well. The Sigma 30 needs to be tested extensively before buying.


I caught lens lust early and it nearly killed my enjoyment of what we do. Remember: even kits out-perform the equipment used to shoot some of the most iconographic images of the 20th century. What matters is skill - and a lot of luck.

[Benjamin]

Personally I think the 24-105/4L IS is more usable as a general purpose / walking around lens. However, in this case you may also consider the 24-70/2.8L since that you mentioned the upcoming 70-200/2.8. As far as I can see the 24-70/2.8 is an overall betterperformer than the 24-105/4L IS but lack of IS.


I think if you get the 17-40/4L youmayhave some hard time to fill the gap between 40mm - 70mm. That's an extremely valuable range in my mind.