Looking for my first 'L' series

[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.

[EdN]

If you haven't looked at the 24-105mm F4L, it is almost exactly the same size and weight as the 100 F2.8 macro. The 100 is slightly longer. If you are going to use the 24-105 as your "walkaround" lens, it's a pretty large package to pack around.


When I was shooting with my Digital Rebel (cropped sensor), I used the 17-40 as the walkaround lens. It was excellent covering 27mm to 64mm equivalents in full frame. I prefer having wide focal lengths easily accessible in my style of shooting.

[Groundfault]

now were talking!Continue...

[Max@Home]

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.

...more 'tight headshots' than portraits IMO: 100mm is rather long on a 1.6x cropped body, you will need a large 'studio'...

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.

...how wide is still acceptable for you ? if 28-xxx was generally wide enough, then 24-xxx will certainly feel 'better' (wider), but if you want/need the wider side of the 17-40 often, then 24-xxx will still feel limiting...





...if your future plans do not include going fullframe for the next two/three years, and that 70-200F2.8L is coming 'for sure', then perhaps the EF-S17-55F2.8 IS (L class optics in a decent but not L housing) or the Tamron 17-50F2.8 might be better choices...





...€0.02...





Kindest regards!





Max@Home

[Groundfault]

Yes, I think these two are better choices too. And since the Tamronis half the price of the Canon, I have to consider it seriously. Thanks guys.





Julien

[mark]

on a crop body the EF-S 17-55f2.8 IS is superb ... it is not an L but that is because it is in EF-S mount otherwise it would be and if you want ulta wide then the EF-S 120=22 is the only option





good luck

[mark]

oops typo ...thats 10-22 and yes the canon is a little more but twice the lens of the others un less you consider tokina

[nerdmonkey]

I agree about looking into the 17-55 IS or the Tamron 17-50 if you want something a little wider. I have the 24-105 which is a great walk-around lens with some reach, but lately I'm really enjoying having the extra stop and ability to decrease the depth of field in the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the increased reach.


If you know the 70-200 is coming soon and you're not making the jump to a full frame camera anytime soon, I would take a serious look at these 17-5x lenses first.

[Groundfault]

Dont forget my body uses a 1.6 FOVC. This means it's not really a 17-40, but more extended. For an all-around lense, it could be a good choice, and60% cheaper than a 24-70 f2.8L !

[Benjamin]

Surely I have taken your 1.6x into consideration, just didn't mention since it's obvious. if you know the answer already then why ask??...