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.