decent midrange lens. . .

[photosurfer]

Okay so i finally sold my big lens (tamron 200-500) and i'm considering reinvesting the $ into some glass that will get a bit more use. Right now i have a tamron 17-50 f2.8 that i use a lot and i'm looking at picking up a used canon 28-70 f2.8 L or something similar. . .i like the 17-50 range but i would like a little more reach on the long end, and i would like to take the plunge into L glass. . .the other option would be a 70-200 f4 non IS, as i've heard a lot of good things about it. Any thoughts?

[elmo_2006]

Good choices, however I would recommend the 70-200 f4 IS USM, as there may be times when the IS will come in handy, but this is just my opnion.I was'one click' away from purchasing the 70-200 2.8 non-IS lens, and after comparing the two (and a friend recommending the IS), I was sold on the IS version. It makes a hell of a differenceunless you havesteady hands and plan on carrying a tripod around.


May I suggest the Canon 24-105mmf4L lens, as it hassome good reach and great bokeh as well.


What are you looking at budget/cost wise?

[nemaphotography]

+1 with the 24-105. it is a tack sharp lens and does have great bokeh at f/4 105mm range





-e

[jeremygaston]

depends on what you're shooting.


Since you own a APS-C camera, the 24-105 is a bit $$$ being full frame. Unless you're planning on stepping up soon, skip it and go for the 70-200. Obviously, there's 4 lenses you could get here - the f4, f4 IS, f2.8, and 2.8 IS. I shoot the 2.8 non IS, and it does me fine. I can hold a camera pretty still, and most things I shoot are moving a lot faster than my lens is (sports, concert photography, for instance). I admit the IS would be nice, but the 2.8 is MUCH more important.


Read this sites reviews on each, which, imo, are the best for comparing what you really need to know about a lens as a photographer & shopper (particularly one on a budget.)

[btaylor]

+1 on the 70-200mm f/4L IS. It's a fantastic lens - I love mine.

[photosurfer]

well i'm looking at about 600 from the tamron and i can probably scrape out another 2 or 3 hundred if necessary. I do tend to shoot on a tripod/monopod in low light (although when it comes to steady hands you won't find me in an OR any time ever). I was also considering the 24-105 as well, as the reviews indicate it has excellent IQ, IS, etc.

[Benjamin]

I think the 70-200/4L non-IS is a good choice if you can hold the camera pretty still or the main purpose of the lens is for fast sports (IS is turned off anyway). The 70-200/4L IS, as Bryan also pointed out, is totally worth the extra cost over the non-IS version not because it is sharper in real world but because it is a lot more usable.


Personally though, I won't favour the 28-70L since it's a relatively old design and I really doubt if 70mm makes enough difference comparing to 50mm to justify the cost. I won't say the 24-105 is not a good lens, but from my experience I feel it distorts things pretty heavily at 24mm on both 1.6x and FF cameras and the focus ring is very stiff to turn.


Prime lenses can also be solutions if a zoom is not absolutely necessary. The 85/1.8 is a great lens to compansite your 17-50 for example. I personally use my 85/1.8 more than my 70-200/4L IS since it's worlds faster than the L zoom and much lighter and smaller. The 135/2L, 200/2.8L are also lovely lenses to own at relatively low prices (comparing to other L lenses), they are razor sharp too.

[Daniel Browning]

i would like to take the plunge into L glass

FWIW, Sometimes the non-L glass has higher image quality.

i'm looking at picking up a used canon 28-70 f2.8 L

Your 17-50 f/2.8 is sharper than the 28-70 L (and even the much more expensive 24-70 L). It would be a fine choice if you are willing to live with lower image quality.

i like the 17-50 range but i would like a little more reach on the long end,

The 17-50 is a 3X zoom. The only way to get "more reach on the long end" without giving up wide angle is to go to a superzoom like the 18-135, 18-200, or 15-85. Of those, only the 15-85 provides excellent image quality. If you're willing to sacrifice f-number to get more zoom range, it may be a good choice.


Instead, I suggest you go with a telephoto lens.

and . . .the other option would be a 70-200 f4 non IS, as i've heard a lot of good things about it. Any thoughts?

It's a good choice for the money, if you can't afford the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Another consideration in that price range is the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. There have been some quality control issues (Sigma ships more "bad" lenses than Canon L), but the "Mark II" version of this lens has improved a lot, and when you stop it down to f/4, it's even sharper than the 70-200 f/4 non-IS. It would really help to have the microadjust feature on your camera body.

[photosurfer]

thanks, i'll take a look at the sigma. An f2.8 tele zoom would be a welcome addition to my kit but i had heard mixed reviews about the original 50-150, if the upgrade has helped it's an attractive focal length coverage.

[liquidmachine]

I personally love the 70-200 f4. Not a great wedding lens but for everything else its been wonderful. I have to admit that having the 2.8 IS version would be awesome but it's almost three times as much as the f4. I shoot 99% of my portraits with it and I have yet to bedisappointed.