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.

[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