Best walk-around lens for an enthusiast?

[SlasherMcGee]

Hi All,

I recently sold my 7D + EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM. My new 5D Mk III will be here Friday and I need a walk around/vacation lens to complement my 70-200 f2.8. I've been contemplating:

Canon EF 24-70 F2.8 II <--I have this coming from LensRentals Friday as well for a test
Canon EF 24-70 F4 IS
Canon EF 35mm F2 IS

I'd prefer to stay away from 3rd party(Tamron's 24-70).. Mostly because I'm weird like that.... My uses will be:

1. Landscape
2. General walk-around use on vacations
3. Motocross(Although it's possible I won't do this as my 70-200 should cover that situation)
4. Pictures of my family(new baby, Christmas pics, etc..)

Price isn't really a concern as long as the price is just for "1" lens that will cover me. Can I get by with the 24-70 F2.8 II and it's lack of IS? Will the F4 of the 24-70 F4 IS make me wish I had the F2.8? Will the prime leave me wanting more length? Will Canon custom build me a 24-70mm F2.8 IS USM with perfect image quality?

Thanks for any replies!

[PatrickH]

Curious, why isn't the 24-105 on your list? At current prices it's a steal. I have one on a crop body and love it. Given your stated uses I think the IS and added reach make a strong argument. The 24-70 range will actually be wider on your new camera than your 17-55 was on your 7D (27-88mm equivalent). I prefer the added reach for portraits, and the IS is great for landscapes and vacations. You can also share filters with your 70-200.

[HDNitehawk]

I would miss the f/2.8 if I had f/4. I would miss the bokeh and the shallow DOF you can achieve wide open with the 24-70 II. This lens is very sharp wide open.

Sure IS is nice, at F/4 you get a lens that is has a little less creative ability. The only reason the 24-70mm F/4 would appeal to me is its macro ability.

Go with the 24-70 II you will not go wrong with the work you listed.

[Joel Eade]

I bet you will pick the 24-70 version II. On a full frame body this seems to be the perfect focal length range for general use...and the images are amazing. This lens also complements your 70-200 just right.

[Kayaker72]

Definitely consider the 24-105 f/4. It is a great lens. If you want to emphasize out of focus blur and lower light photography, I agree, the 24-70 II probably fits your needs the best. If you would like to emphasize vacation and landscape I'd probably favor the 24-105 f/4 for the extra reach and price.

[peety3]

Six years ago, I started with a 1D Mark III and a 24-105. Fantastic combo. Three months after getting that setup, I added a 70-200/2.8IS, and nine months later I added a 16-35/2.8.

Three years ago I added a 24-70/2.8 and "gave" my wife the 24-105 (which benched her 28-135). I've (almost) never looked back, but I truly believe that's only because I had a 70-200 to complement the 24-70 (and a 7D body so I didn't have to swap lenses all the time).

This summer, I got her a 5D Mark III, and I began to see how versatile the 24-105 is on FF. Two weeks ago, I got a 1Dx, and I now at least think about taking the 24-105 from time to time, especially if I don't want to bother with multiple lenses.

So...long story short, consider the 24-105 seriously.

[SlasherMcGee]

Thank you for the replies! I got the body Friday along with the 24-70 F2.8 II from lensrentals. I didn't get a lot of time to test the lens but the results appear quite good.... I'll take your advice and rent the 24-105 next weekend. I've been reading a lot of reviews and the general vibe I get is that people just aren't that impressed with the 24-70 F4. Brian's Lens sharpness charts also seem to confirm that the 24-70 F4 just isn't that much better than the 24-105, and in some tests, the 24-105 is actually sharper...

So, long story longer, I'll probably be getting either the 24-70 f/2.8 II or the 24-105 f/4....

One follow-up question.. If price was NOT a concern, would you go with the 24-70 f/2.8 II or the 24-105 f/4??

[neuroanatomist]

One follow-up question.. If price was NOT a concern, would you go with the 24-70 f/2.8 II or the 24-105 f/4??

For me, the 24-70/2.8L II, no question. I really liked my 24-105L, but sold it a few weeks after getting the 24-70 II.

Having said that, the 24-105L is a very versatile lens - if you travel and take shots of static scenes without a tripod, the ~3-stops of IS mean you can get good handheld results. For me, most of what I shoot is people and I use a minimum shutter speed of 1/125 s, so IS is of no real benefit in the 24-70mm focal range. If I'm shooting landscapes or architecture with the 24-70, I've got the camera on a tripod so again, no need for IS. The 24-70 II is significantly sharper, has less distortion, and the f/2.8 allows use of the high-precision AF points on the 5DIII.

[HDNitehawk]

Thank you for the replies! I got the body Friday along with the 24-70 F2.8 II from lensrentals. I didn't get a lot of time to test the lens but the results appear quite good.... I'll take your advice and rent the 24-105 next weekend. I've been reading a lot of reviews and the general vibe I get is that people just aren't that impressed with the 24-70 F4. Brian's Lens sharpness charts also seem to confirm that the 24-70 F4 just isn't that much better than the 24-105, and in some tests, the 24-105 is actually sharper...

So, long story longer, I'll probably be getting either the 24-70 f/2.8 II or the 24-105 f/4....

One follow-up question.. If price was NOT a concern, would you go with the 24-70 f/2.8 II or the 24-105 f/4??

One reason people were not impressed with the 24-70mm f/4 is that it is so close in performance to the 24-105. People couldn't see a reason to change and give up a longer lens. The 24-70mm f/4 is the replacement of the 24-105.

Go with the 24-70mm f/2.8 II. That is my suggestion.

[PatrickH]

Probably the 24-70 II if price is no object, but (and this comes with the disclaimer that I am less experienced than many of the very talented folks here) I personally haven't missed f2.8 in the 24-70 range. For portraits or indoor/outdoor sports I nearly always grab my 70-200 2.8 IS II, occasionally my 50 1.4. I would however miss IS. For landscapes at f8 or narrower, with a polarized filter attached, the IS has been a huge benefit. For my most important shots I will use a tripod, but there are times that I just don't want to lug the extra gear or keep family and friends waiting while I set up and compose. All things being equal, this means that my ISO setting would have to be two stops higher with the 24-70. What I would welcome is the improvement in distortion at 24mm. It's easy enough to correct in post, but you lose a bit of image quality. Since you are renting both you will have a nice opportunity to compare the results. Run them through your most common use cases and see which one meets your needs more often.