Lenses question

[Sam]

Yes another which lens should I buy, but don't click off yet, I really would like to hear your opinions.

Here are my thoughts. I am thinking of selling my 24-1054.0L, 28-135 3.5/5.6, and 17-40 4.0L. Also have a 100-300 Tamron Macro I don’t use.

I am thinking of getting a 24-70 2.8L to basically replace the 24-105 4.0L. Should be a little sharper, and faster, hopefully a good choice for small product photography. Yes with a loss of distance. :cry

All I ever use the 17-40 4.0 L for is the 17 to maybe 21mm. So I was thinking I might be able to replace it with a 20 mm prime, non L, or and I am leaning this way, pick up a 24 3.5L TS-E for use in architecture as well as landscape. I think this lens could give me many additional options. Or get both?

At some point my wish list includes the 35 1.4L, and the 135 2.0L, but they don’t seem to fit in right now. Unless of course I hit the lottery.

So all you people who have had, used, sold, re bought, every lens known to man. (I say this with complete and open envy :clap ) what are your thoughts on this?

I will spend more on a really sharp lens rather than save on a lens almost as good, so if there is non Canon glass as good or better then I am interested. Please don’t bring up Zeiss, Leica, etc, my mind and wallet aren’t ready to wrap around that subject. :D

Thanks,

Sam

[pathfinder]

Sam,

As I am sure you know, I own both the 24-70f2.8 L and the 24-105f4 IS L. There is a significant difference in size and weight, that leads me to carry the 24-105 unless I am shooting indoors in lower light and really need the f2.8. Both are sharp, and work nicely on a full frame camera. I shoot 3 -4 times more with the 24-105 than the 24-70. The 24-70 is a great lens in a studio or at a wedding, but lousy to carry on your shoulder all day long - maybe I just need to spend more time in the gymn.:D

I would not sell the 17-40 - it is a great pice of glass if you shoot wide at all.

What size products are you needing to shoot? Do you have nice macro lens like the 60 mm EFS or the Tamron 90mm??

The 24 TSE is a highly dedicated lens - you may use it frequently or hardly at all, depending on the type of subjects you shoot.

[jdryan3]

Vicious cycle, huh? Buy/sell/buy/trade/wonder/sell/buy..regret...rebuy :rofl

I can simply confirm that, while heavier than most lenses in that range, the 24-70 is not unbearable. And it is very fast and very sharp. I have to leave it to Pathfinder and others who have both to say which is better. I upgraded from the 28-135, which isn't really in the same class. But I am extremely happy about buying the 24-70.

BTW - how much for the 17-40? :D :D

[ziggy53]

Vicious cycle, huh? Buy/sell/buy/trade/wonder/sell/buy..regret...rebuy :rofl

...

I tend to just hold onto everything I "ever" bought. It saves a lot of effert re-buying later. :wink

[gus]

I tend to just hold onto everything I "ever" bought. It saves a lot of effert re-buying later. :wink
I am starting to learn this....i hated my 10-22 & have longed for it from the first week i sold it. I loved that lens.

[wxwax]

I tend to just hold onto everything I "ever" bought. It saves a lot of effert re-buying later. :wink
:nod I have, ahem, quite a bit of stuff.

[claudermilk]

Vicious cycle, huh? Buy/sell/buy/trade/wonder/sell/buy..regret...rebuy :rofl

I can simply confirm that, while heavier than most lenses in that range, the 24-70 is not unbearable. And it is very fast and very sharp. I have to leave it to Pathfinder and others who have both to say which is better. I upgraded from the 28-135, which isn't really in the same class. But I am extremely happy about buying the 24-70.

BTW - how much for the 17-40? :D :D

I concur with the 24-70 assessment. I don't find it all that bad at all. I do carry it around all day (I use the Op/Tech Pro Loop strap--helps a LOT). I don't have any experience with the 24-105, though--my needs are definitely with the 24-70 and it's speed, it's use as a walkaround is incidental.

Of course I'm also silly enough to think a 20D/grip/70-200 2.8IS combo isn't all that bad to drag around all day either. :dunno

[LiquidAir]

Another lens to look at is the Tamron 28-75/2.8. It is both less expensive and lighter weight than the Canon 24-70/2.8L and its image quality is very well regarded. I have and like the 24-105/4L. Normally when I need faster than f/4 I go to primes but I am seriously considering supplimenting (rather than replacing) my 24-105 with the Tammy.

[Glenn NK]

Just for fun, take a peek at Canon's 17/55 f/2.8 EFS IS USM.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27&page=2&sort=7&perpage=15&stype=

1. Fast,

2. Very sharp

3. Expensive.

Fast becoming my favourite over the 24-105L.

[Sam]

I am really liking the idea of the 24-70 2.8L, so I will rent one as well as the 24 T-SE for a weekend, and see how they feel.

New concept, make an informed decission. :D

Sam

[claudermilk]

I am really liking the idea of the 24-70 2.8L, so I will rent one as well as the 24 T-SE for a weekend, and see how they feel.

New concept, make an informed decission. :D

Sam

LOL But why change now? :D

Careful with that 24-70 rental, you will likely fall in love. I like mine enough that the size & weight just don't matter. :thumb

[seawolf66]

Sam you need to do more home work every lens you list are considered by others as good lens BUT to make a good choice, I suggest you start looking at the MTF charts and good reference for them would be luminios web site: Good luck:thumb


I am really liking the idea of the 24-70 2.8L, so I will rent one as well as the 24 T-SE for a weekend, and see how they feel.

New concept, make an informed decission. :D

Sam