Wish to buy a Canon 2.8L: 24-70 or 16-35 mk II ?? We have the 24-105, 70-200 4IS and the 17-40 are very happy. We are now considering the 24-70 or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens to have a 2.8 lens. If we purchased the 16-35, we would sell our 17-40, but hold onto our 24-105. We would use the 2.8 lens for low light and indoor. We do a lot of landscape work. Any ideas which lens we would get the most out of - we have a 50D . Appreciated, John M. Wish to buy a Canon 2.8L: 24-70 or 16-35 mk II ?? We have the 24-105, 70-200 4IS and the 17-40 are very happy. We are now considering the 24-70 or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens to have a 2.8... » Read More Wish to buy a Canon 2.8L: 24-70 or 16-35 mk II ?? We have the 24-105, 70-200 4IS and the 17-40 are very happy. We are now considering the 24-70 or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens to have a 2.8 lens. If we purchased the 16-35, we would sell our 17-40, but hold onto our 24-105. We would use the 2.8 lens for low light and indoor. We do a lot of landscape work. Any ideas which lens we would get the most out of - we have a 50D . Appreciated, John M. « Show Less
759242
If anyone is interested I have a 24-70L 2.8 Canon Lens. I only use it about 5 times total. 6 weeks after I bought it I purchase the 24-105 IS Canon Lens because I shoot mostly Wedding & Party's. The 24-105 IS works much better for the type of photography I do. I would sell it for $900.00 and include the B&W; UV Filter which is the top of the line brand filter which is made in Germany. Plus $25.00 for shipping. You can email me at rjgphoto@sbcglobal.net if anyone is interested.
759243
Get the 24-70 for indoor/low light use over the 24-105. IS ONLY helps with camera shake NOT moving subjects. For moving subjects, the extra stop from the 2.8 trumps 4.0 + IS every time, all the time. So with reference to what DavInAZ wrote above, the IS does not make the 24-105 better in low light than the faster 2.8. An extra stop will always be an extra stop. An easy way to think about it is, if you are moving go with the IS, if the subject is moving go with the faster lens. Obviously, if you can have both (as with the 70-200 f2.8L IS), then you are golden.
759244
I have the 24-105 and it is on my 50D most of the time, but many are suggesting the 24-70 to use in low light and sports applications???
759245
Hi John!If you are doing landscape photography, you don't really need a F2.8 lens. In my opinion, you would want to be between f11-f16 & even f22 for landscape. You will have to use a tripod at night regardless at such small apertures. Having a f2.8 lens won't help you take a sharp picture at night. What you need a good tripod for night photography because of the long exposure :)
759246
Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier... » Read More Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. « Show Less
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
759248
We thank everyone for there suggestions. We went to the 50 1.4 for a fast lens. Having not used our 17-40 that often, no need to spend mucho money on the 16-35.
759249
My brother has loan his 50 1.4 to me. I like. I may get the 24-70 2.8 - we get so many positives about it. Use the 24-70 indoors and the 4f lens where there is good light??Thanks for your suggestions.
759250
Thank you, we can get caught up in the hardware before learning what the hardware can do.
1922082
As Matt said there is no "right" lens. If this is in addition to the kit lens I would get the F 2.8 70/200 just because the kit lens gives a wide range close in. If you are getting a body only and purchasing two lenses, I would get the 24/70 followed with something tailored to your primary subject matter.
552637
I have the canon 17-85mm lens and it works great. You could also get the 40mm pancake or if you have a bit more of a buget, get the 24-105 mm canon lens, it is a sweet lens with a sharp image.
501124
I'm in the same boat. I have a 40d as well and I just bought the Canon 50mm 1.8 but found that I was always "stepping back" to take a lot of indoor shots. I am leaning towards either the Sigma 30 1.4 or Canon 24 f2.8. The 24 got a good review at the photozone.de site. Here's a direct link if Amazon will let it through: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/153-canon-ef-24mm-f28-test-report--review?start=2.They review just about every lens. Check it out. Again, it's photozone (dot) de
1630105
So, I'm looking to upgrade from the Canon EF-S 55-250 ISII lens that I currently shoot my daughter's soccer and outdoor nature scenes. I know this is an entry level L, still the price is hard to complain about. How much of a difference from my current lens (on a 70D) will this make, and will I still be able to shoot fairly clean/crisp images @ 200mm without IS? I can use a monopod, so I'm sure that would help. Thoughts?
2177098
For what it's worth: I called Canon with a question about my 30D camera. I asked the employee which camera I should look at if I were to upgrade, and would my current lenses be compatible. He suggested the 70D, and said that my current two lenses will work with the 70D. He also mentioned that I could consider buying the 70D in a "kit" with the 18-135 STM lens, which he said is a good general-purpose lens that has some beneficial technology that takes more full advantage of the 70D than my two current lenses would.
382298
The 2.8 gives you slightly better VR and one more stop over the f4. You could always take advantage of Amazon's 30 day return policy and try the f4. If it works well for you, keep it. If not, return it for the f2.8 model. Your current lens has NO VR, so either lens would be a big improvement.
642997
Id say pick the 17-35 if you intend to stay on DX size for another 5yrs... the 50mm covers the middle of the 24-70 so moving your feet will cover that distance, but the 17-35 will allow for group shots and landscapes/buildings... the 24 will limit that somewhat.... my2cents!
2014123
If you can afford it I'd recommend the 17-55mm IS 2.8. This a basically an L quality lens but doesn't carry the L in it's name because it is a EF-S series lens. It is very fast and the sharpness and overall IQ are comparable to the 24-105L IS. The range on the 17-85mm IS is really great and it is about $400 less but the images are softer and the varible aperature starting at 4 will not be nearly as fast. the 17-55mm IS 2.8 is a GREAT walkaround lens and will rarely leave your camera.
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
358177
completely different lenses, especially for full frame. Why do you have a 50 f/1.8 on a 6D? that's almost a toy lens on a near professional camera. Although I don't have a full frame camera, if I did, I'd get the 24-70 L Zoom. If price is the issue, get the 24 2.8 IS for outdoor, landscape work and a 50 mm 1.4 for indoors, portraits, everyday use. Another nice lens is the 35 mm f/2 IS. bit wider, very sharp, with IS.
2177809
I have several bodies including the 5D mk1 and mk2. I also have both lenses you mentioned. Without a doubt the 24 - 70 is a more useful lens. The 24 - 105 is soft at f4. I find it only to be super sharp from F5.6. The 24 - 70 is fairly sharp when wide open at 2.8. It creates a shallow depth of field where you can blur out your background and focus only on the couple. Remember for a wedding you often dont get to choose your backgrounds during the ceremony. For me I much more prefer to use the 24 - 70. Yes the 24 - 105 is a great lens, so much so that i have 2 of them. But since buying the 24 - 70 I think its better. See images made with it here www.visionphotographyinc.com most were made with the 24 - 105 but the last three I think at the bottom were the 24 - 70.
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
597333
Agreed with Tech Guy. 24mm on a crop (effectively 40mm) is just not wide enough for a general walk-around lens.That said, I do wish that Canon would have made the 15-85 a constant aperture lens like the 24-105 f/4L.
910057
Go for it. This is an awesome lens. I use this lens along with my EF 70-200 L Series f/2.8 for all my wedding and other event shoots (including portraits, sports etc). But if money is not an object why not get the 50MM lens (along with this) as others have suggested. I am happy with the two lenses (ie EF 24-70 mm and EF 70-200 mm). I've taken thousands of pictures with these two lenses (almost 80% with the 24-70 Lens). Hope this helps.
464455
The 18-55 is a great lens, but the 23mm prime is a magic lens. Since I've acquired the 23mm I hardly use my 18-55. Maybe it's still the honeymoon phase, but I just love the 23. It renders images in a different way than the 18-55, and the speed/DOF of 1.4 really does make a difference.
137017
Honestly, there are some available on ebay with buyer protection (but I understand why you would want to get it from the above places instead). The 70-200mm is a great lens, but if you have your heart set on this particular lens you should wait to get this one :)I just ordered one from ebay but I did my research on the seller first.