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

[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, 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. 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 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:

[Jarhead5811]

I just got a 70-200mm f/2.8 L USMand love it but,in your situation, Ibeleive I'd rather have the 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM.

[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?