FF walkaround lens recommendations

latchiko

Just shy of 2 years ago I bought a 400D and based on the excellent advice on this forum I bought the 17-85mm lens as my main walkaround lens. Both have served me well and I now feel it's time to upgrade to a full frame camera but I'm stumped as to what lens to get for it.

I found the 17-85mm (cropped) range served me well so I'm looking for something similar. It probably spent more of its time at the wider range (for landscape shots) but there were a number of times when being able to zoom to 85mm was required.

I'm looking for a default lens which will be on the camera most of the time for general photography. Fast glass is a bonus as is a good zoom range. From my research I have found two which may do the trick, the 24-70mm f2.8L and the 24-105mm f4L IS. I like the range of the latter but the speed of the former. Does the IS make up for the loss of a stop of light?

Carrigman

Never having used the 24-70 I can't say, but the 24-105 is almost permanently attached to my 5D. A superb lens.

pippatee

Hiya ,

I use the 24-105mm f4l all of the time, albeit on a 400d and it is a gem of a lens ...

I favoured it over your other option due to the extra reach ... although at 24mm the wide end is sometimes lacking on the cropped sensor of the 400d...

I had the opportunity to use it on a 5d recently and 24mm is more than ample at the wide end on a FF sensor ...

as for the IS ... it will make up the 2 stop difference , but dont forget, that is only providing that the subject you are shooting is stationary ...if it is a moving subject, you would be better off with the 2.8 aperture ...

I'm familiar with your work (which is inspirational BTW!!) and I'd say go with the 24-105mm ...

whatever you choose ... I wish you the best of shooting with it ...

Phil

Tactical

Hi Latchiko, haven't heard you around in a long time.

Can't speak about the 24 - 105 but do own the 24 - 70mm f2.8L.

Superb piece of glass, permanently attached to my camera. Big lens especially with the lens hood attached. Has suited me very well for product shots, action shots (in poor lighting if you discount the actual fires themselves...but that's another story) and general shots too.

Being familiar with your work from a year or so back, I would have thought this focal length would have suited you.

Pippatee is right about the IS and stationary subjects, the wider apeture does offer a greater range of possiblities, but you're not going to go wrong with any L series glass. The f4 is no doubt going to be cheaper too although the IS my offset that?

ThOnda

I am in the same position, having so far only nifty-fifty. but I know that I want 24-70/2.8L as a first lense.

Tactical

The 24-70 f2.8L is worth every cent(well maybe not if bought in Ireland）

Ｌａｔｃｈｉｋｏ，　ｈａｖｅ　ｊｕｓｔ　ｔａｋｅｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｔｉｍｅ　ｔｏ　ｖｉｅｗ　ｙｏｕｒ　ｗｏｒｋ　ｔｈｔ　Ｉ’ｖｅ　ｎｏｔ　ｓｅｅｎ　ｉｎ　ｓｏｍｅ　ｔｉｍｅ．

Ｇｉｖｅｎ　ｔｈｅ　ａｍｏｕｎｔ　ｏｆ　ｌｏｗ　ｌｉｇｈｔ　ｓｈｏｔｓ　ａｎｄ　ｇｉｇ　ｐｈｏｔｏｇｒａｐｈｙ　Ｉ’ｄ　ｂｅ　ｐｕｓｈｉｎｇ　ｔｏｗａｒｄｓ　ｔｈｅ　ｆ２．８　ｓ　ｉｔ’ｌｌ　ｐｒｏｂａｂｌｙ　ｂｅ　ｔｈｅ　ｍｏｓｔ　ｖｅｒｓａｔｉｌｅ　ｆｏｒ　ｙｏｕｒ　ｗｏｒｋ．

（ｅｈ，　ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ　ｓｔｒａｎｇｅ　ｈａｓ　ｈａｐｅｎｅｄ　ｔｈｅ　ｆｏｎｔ　Ｉ’ｍ　ｓｅｅｉｎｇ　ｈｅｒｅ，　ａｐｏｌｏｇｉｅｓ，　Ｉ’ｌｌ　ｔｒｙ　ａｎｄ　ｆｉｘ　ｉｔ　ａｓ　ｉｔｓ　ａｗｆｕｌ）

Borderfox

24-70 f2.8L would be my favourite as it makes a great landscape/portrait/nearly macro/thing for defending yourself lens

Paulw

24-70mm f/2.8 is a brilliant lens. One I use as my walkabout lens on the camera when out. Well worth it's cost (and weight).

mikeanywhere

24-70 lives on my 5D but lately when I have gone out to do some private time stuff I have used the 24-105 as it has that little bit of extra reach.

Good luck in your choice as both bits of glass are worth it

latchiko

Thanks for taking the time to reply guys and for the valuable opinions.

I have a 50mm f1.4 which I will still be using for music photography but I do like the idea of being able to use the 24-70mm in the same situations given the higher ISO possibilities of the 5D MkII. I guess my main worry with it is the lack of reach but then again you can't have everything!

I've been in touch with somebody who has both lenses so I am going to have a play with them over the weekend and see how I get on given the advice here.

Tactical wrote:

Hi Latchiko, haven't heard you around in a long time.

Work got a bit crazy last year so I had to put life on hold for a while! On the bright side it's finished now and it will be financing my full frame purchases!

pippatee wrote:

I'm familiar with your work (which is inspirational BTW!!) and I'd say go with the 24-105mm ...

Thanks very much Phil

bmcgrath

If you're doing concert photog you will prob need a f/2.8 lens of some sort.
Having used the 24-70 on both crop and full frame Canons may I just say it now. I ADORE THIS LENS. Too bad it wasn't mine...

Anyway if you want a walk around lens the 24-70 doesn't give you much range but sure you have feet! Walk around!

Also do you have anything in the 70-200 range?

And also again... to add... The 5D MKII is AMAZING. Had the chance to play with one recently and when I went back to my 30D i was like...ugh...omg this is such a toy
You shoulda heard what I said when I pushed my 30D ISO to 1600 after playing with the 5D high ISO....

AnimalRights

I have the 24-105L and have used it for ages on my crop 40D and when I got my FF I really think it exelled there.
I've toyed so often with the idea of getting the 24-70L but in the end I couldn't justify it for what I would be using it for ie gigs.
The 50mm 1.4 or 24-105L have never let me down and again the 24-70L has no IS and is heavier than the 24-105L.
If someone offered me a copy at rock bottom prices than I def wouldn't say no though.

jackdaw

AnimalRights wrote: »

I have the 24-105L and have used it for ages on my crop 40D and when I got my FF I really think it exelled there.
I've toyed so often with the idea of getting the 24-70L but in the end I couldn't justify it for what I would be using it for ie gigs.
The 50mm 1.4 or 24-105L have never let me down and again the 24-70L has no IS and is heavier than the 24-105L.
If someone offered me a copy at rock bottom prices than I def wouldn't say no though.

you dont need IS on a range like 24-70

AnimalRights

If you want a slower shutter speed you do.

challengemaster

The 24-70L is my 'walkaabout lens'

That said, My 50mm f/1.8 is generally on the camera 95% of the time these days, unless I know I need the zoom. (Damn you Fajitas)

The 24-105L has worse image quality than the 50mm f/1.8

Let's look at that again.

A lens costing a few hundred yoyo's and is labelled as L glass, has worse image quality than a lens you can pick up for 60-100 quid.

If you were getting one, I'd say 24-70L all the way.

challengemaster

AnimalRights wrote: »

If you want a slower shutter speed you do.

Why would you need it?

If you need the light, bump up the iso (5dmkII there's no problem with doing that, eh?)
If you wanted a long exposure, use a tripod.

I can't see any reason for why IS is needed.

AnimalRights

challengemaster wrote: »

Why would you need it?

If you need the light, bump up the iso (5dmkII there's no problem with doing that, eh?)
If you wanted a long exposure, use a tripod.

I can't see any reason for why IS is needed.

Not everyone has the 5D mk II and a tripod is not always convenient.

I just get sharper pics of with IS, maybe it's made me lazy.

AnimalRights

challengemaster wrote: »

The 24-105L has worse image quality than the 50mm f/1.8

Let's look at that again.

A lens costing a few hundred yoyo's and is labelled as L glass, has worse image quality than a lens you can pick up for 60-100 quid.

That may be so....but the 24-105 is far more flexible and far more durable, from all accounts reading user reviews while the 50mm 1.8 is very cheap its also known to fall apart or simply wear out.
So if someone wanted to go on a hiking trip or a trip to some far flung away country and was only bringing 1 lense the 24-105L to a 50mm 1.8 is an easy choice.

Maybe I need a go of the 24-70 sometime.

challengemaster

AnimalRights wrote: »

Not everyone has the 5D mk II and a tripod is not always convenient.

You do though. And you were talking about yourself... Also the OP is talking about Full frame, so that's either 5DmkI, 5DmkII or 1Ds

All of which you can easily bump up the iso and really not run into too many problems with noise. So, I ask again, what're you going on about?

And eh, Long exposures = tripod, or some other way to steady the camera. Thats how that one works. (Unelss you're inhuman like Sasar and can hand hold for upto 1-2 secs:eek:)

With regards to panning, where you may be using a slightly slower shutter speed, you're moving the lens anyway.

I really can't see what you're talking about. So where's your point?

AnimalRights

Mister know it all eh....:rolleyes:
You go to any forum and there are numerous debates of the 24-105L vs 24-70L
They are at best 55-45 in the 24-70s favour.
You like your 24-70 good.
How many people on photography forums have thrown in "wish the 24-70 had IS"

Because you think A is better than B doesn't mean everybody has that view.

challengemaster

Is that your way of saying you don't really have a valid point at all?

Ricky91t

AnimalRights wrote: »

That may be so....but the 24-105 is far more flexible and far more durable, from all accounts reading user reviews while the 50mm 1.8 is very cheap its also known to fall apart or simply wear out.
So if someone wanted to go on a hiking trip or a trip to some far flung away country and was only bringing 1 lense the 24-105L to a 50mm 1.8 is an easy choice.

Maybe I need a go of the 24-70 sometime.

50mm f/1.8 are cheap you'd expect them to be of lesser build quaility
But i'v never heard of one falling apart
Mine did break but that was when it was kicked off a bed by a running dog and then falling about 2 feet to the ground and bouncing off it...

I'd like to see any lense that could get kicked by a dog and bounce off the ground and survive...

You've never owned a 50mm f/1.8 have you?Cause at the price you pay you can't beat it...I could happily leave all my lenses at home and just bring that as a walk about..And never have i used it and thought "This might just fall apart :eek:"

AnimalRights

Thats a laugh....
I seen no replies to my points...

"I just get sharper pics of with IS, maybe it's made me lazy."

"That may be so....but the 24-105 is far more flexible and far more durable, from all accounts reading user reviews while the 50mm 1.8 is very cheap its also known to fall apart or simply wear out.
So if someone wanted to go on a hiking trip or a trip to some far flung away country and was only bringing 1 lense the 24-105L to a 50mm 1.8 is an easy choice."

"You go to any forum and there are numerous debates of the 24-105L vs 24-70L"

You seem to be playing up to an audience here...

AnimalRights

Ricky91t wrote: »

You've never owned a 50mm f/1.8 have you?

I have indeed, my very 1st lens...Your missing my point, I wasn't knocking the lens, everyone to a T knows thats the best value lens, I said iin response to CM that if you had to choose between one of them lenses or the 24-105L to go away you'd pick the 24-105L.

challengemaster

AnimalRights wrote: »

I have indeed, my very 1st lens...Your missing my point, I wasn't knocking the lens, everyone to a T knows thats the best value lens, I said iin response to CM that if you had to choose between one of them lenses or the 24-105L to go away you'd pick the 24-105L.

Eh, no. I wouldn't. Just because you'd be happy to do that doesn't mean everyone else would.

AnimalRights

Did I not say something similar in relation to you saying 24-70 is better than the 24-105? (reply #20)

Creamy Goodness

lads you are both throwing around valid points. neither of your points are wrong, none of them are exactly 100% fact i.e. point x is the only point that matters nothing else works.

lens choice isn't an exact science, but you's seem to make it out like it is. just because one solution works for you, doesn't mean it's the only solution or the optimal solution.

also the 50mm f/1.8 is the best image quality to price lens i have and allbeit may not but up to build standard of my 70-200mm L lens it's still pretty good.

the original poster is looking for ideas on what the best lens for him, now both your opinions are valid and only the OP's choice will be the deciding factor in the end.

ThOnda

challengemaster wrote: »

The 24-105L has worse image quality than the 50mm f/1.8

I don't want to argue, but if you need to take a picture of some size (when you cannot get closer to the subject), you would have to crop and enlarge picture from 50 mm lense to get the same subject size az from the above mentioned zoom lense.
What would be better quality picture?

If you are in close (physical) distance to people/subjects of your photography, the range of the zoom lense would allow you to capture more, maybe even the whole scene.
Would you prefer stitching panoramic picture?

Not to mention smaller deformation of the picture at the longer end of the zoom - nifty could be very unflattering for portraits.

I do know what you mean about the "worse image quality", but it is not overall rating of the lense. I have nifty and I love it. But each lense should be used for it's purpose. I just cannot agree with the global statement you have made.

And as a walkabout lense (not only for FF camera), I think that good quality zoom will provide much better picture quality (of the final printed picture), flexibility and creativity. I would prefer 24-70, but I can more than imagine sqeezing the zoom ring on the lense to get some more focal fength.

Ricky91t

AnimalRights wrote: »

I have indeed, my very 1st lens...Your missing my point, I wasn't knocking the lens, everyone to a T knows thats the best value lens, I said iin response to CM that if you had to choose between one of them lenses or the 24-105L to go away you'd pick the 24-105L.

One question,
Did yours just fall apart??

Cause if it didn't then surely your personal experience of the lens couldn't of been bad?So you're saying things about a lens that never happened to yourself?

AnimalRights

Ricky91t wrote: »

One question,
Did yours just fall apart??

Cause if it didn't then surely your personal experience of the lens couldn't of been bad?So you're saying things about a lens that never happened to yourself?

Er where did I say this happened to mine?
I said this.

"That may be so....but the 24-105 is far more flexible and far more durable, from all accounts reading user reviews while the 50mm 1.8 is very cheap its also known to fall apart or simply wear out."

/edit
Thread going off course.
I'll pm you the stuff I read about it

challengemaster

ThOnda wrote: »

I don't want to argue, but if you need to take a picture of some size (when you cannot get closer to the subject), you would have to crop and enlarge picture from 50 mm lense to get the same subject size az from the above mentioned zoom lense.
What would be better quality picture?

100% or 150% crops using each lens were compared. 50mm was better. Depending on how the picture was taken, It's hard to say really. I'd bank on the 50mm.

If you are in close (physical) distance to people/subjects of your photography, the range of the zoom lense would allow you to capture more, maybe even the whole scene.
Would you prefer stitching panoramic picture?

Classic example of where you probably should have picked a zoom in the first place. That's not really saying anything against the 50mm though, other than you get what's on the tin - a prime lens. Nothing to do with quality. More bad choice on the photographers part.

Not to mention smaller deformation of the picture at the longer end of the zoom - nifty could be very unflattering for portraits.

So that's why the 50mm f/1.8 is the first lens recommended when anyone brings up a 'what lens for portraits' thread?

And as a walkabout lense (not only for FF camera), I think that good quality zoom will provide much better picture quality (of the final printed picture), flexibility and creativity. I would prefer 24-70, but I can more than imagine sqeezing the zoom ring on the lense to get some more focal fength.

I never said it wasn't going to be better as a walkabout, however the 24-70L would be better than the 24-105L because the IQ of the 24-105L is worse than the 50mm f/1.8. Atleast it makes sense in my head

Ricky91t

AnimalRights wrote: »

Er where did I say this happened to mine?
I said this.

"That may be so....but the 24-105 is far more flexible and far more durable, from all accounts reading user reviews while the 50mm 1.8 is very cheap its also known to fall apart or simply wear out."

I WAS ASKING DID IT,i didn't say "Your lens fell apart then?"

If you re-read my post i said
"One question,
Did yours just fall apart??"

People can twist the truth if they've had bad experiences with things so therefore that could be the AF MF button coming loose of the MF ring becoming un steady

I didn't say it happened to you i was asking did it

AnimalRights

Ricky91t wrote: »

So you're saying things about a lens that never happened to yourself?

I pm'd you.

ThOnda

challengemaster wrote: »

100% or 150% crops using each lens were compared. 50mm was better. Depending on how the picture was taken, It's hard to say really. I'd bank on the 50mm.

Situation: A statue behind the fence - you cannot get closer. If you use 105mm, the statue will fill the viewfinder and also the sensor. If you use 50mm it won't.

And compare prints of the full statue of the same size, captured by both above mentioned lenses. What picture would have better quality?

Enough with details.

I would prefer also 24-70/2.8, because Aperture is the main optical tool I can use for creative photography. I had 28-70/4 and there were situations when Apeture 1/4 was too much. It is purely my personal opinion based on 8 years with 28-70/4 and occasional use of 24-70/2.8 in last year. And I am willing to send more money on 24-70/2.8.

AnimalRights

mmm all this talk is making me want to get one.
fs.

Calina

Mod note.

AR, CM, Ricky91T,

Knock off the nitpicking fest. I'd be stunned if the OP is getting anything positive out of it and frankly I can't see how it's really relevant in the grand scheme of things. If I see anything similar again, it will really not be a happy occasion for us all.

I swear to God that reading some of the posts in this thread is like watching a bunch of birds pick at a discarded box of chips on the street.

Tactical

latchiko wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to reply guys and for the valuable opinions.

I have a 50mm f1.4 which I will still be using for music photography but I do like the idea of being able to use the 24-70mm in the same situations given the higher ISO possibilities of the 5D MkII. I guess my main worry with it is the lack of reach but then again you can't have everything!

I've been in touch with somebody who has both lenses so I am going to have a play with them over the weekend and see how I get on given the advice here.


Work got a bit crazy last year so I had to put life on hold for a while! On the bright side it's finished now and it will be financing my full frame purchases!


Thanks very much Phil

I've often heard a phrase used in military circles and it goes along the lines of "don't buy expensive binoculars, simply get closer to the object you are trying to view".

I guess the same theory could sometimes (but not always) be applied to photography.

Given the funds (and I'm saving for this luxury as it doesn't fit the work stuff really at the moment...) my next lens will be the 70-200 f2.8L IS. Think it'd be a nice glass to have in the collection as I've found the "cheap" 70-200 lens I have quite useful out and about.

Tactical

AnimalRights wrote: »

I have the 24-105L and have used it for ages on my crop 40D and when I got my FF I really think it exelled there.
I've toyed so often with the idea of getting the 24-70L but in the end I couldn't justify it for what I would be using it for ie gigs.
The 50mm 1.4 or 24-105L have never let me down and again the 24-70L has no IS and is heavier than the 24-105L.
If someone offered me a copy at rock bottom prices than I def wouldn't say no though.

If you're ever in Jersey give Jessops a look. If they've one in stock you can save yourself about 800 Euro on what you'll pay here and the GST is only small Oh, the zoo is worth a look there too, not too busy and nice to wander around.

AnimalRights

Jessops put their prices back up, Calumet in Belfast appears to be the place to shop!
I need a 100-400L 1st though!!

Tactical

The Jessops prices in Jersey are considerably cheaper than those published on their website. But it'd only be an option if actually there (I'm lucky enough to have friends there and a place to stay)

I'd imagine import duty would apply if importing a lens from the Channel Islands.

I guess what will suit Latchiko will depend on what ever he has in mind. I see a lot of gig and darker images so I'm guessing the wider apeture may be a factor. But who knows what he's planning next.

Be interested to know what you decide to go for and can't wait to see the results

latchiko

Well, the plan is to order on Monday morning so I'll have decided by then. I'll update you on my choice and my reasons why before then. I'm leaning towards the 24-70 at the moment but I'm looking forward to testing both out tomorrow. Thanks again for the advice!

Ricky91t

AnimalRights wrote: »

Jessops put their prices back up, Calumet in Belfast appears to be the place to shop!
I need a 100-400L 1st though!!

70-200 + 2x tc?

@OP
sounds like the 24-70 wile be fine for you,nearly the same focal lenghts as your lens now abd you've got f/2.8

Fajitas!

Rabble rabble rabble.

Anyways, if you're looking for a lens that can handle low light, has fantastic sharpness, good range, and fantastic build quality, go for the 24-70.

A faster lens comes out above IS at any rate, I'd much rather the 3/4's of a stop faster than relying on image stabilisation, and in my (and many others) game, that 2.8 makes the difference - I'd rather be able to shoot at 1/60th of a second at 2.8 than 1/15 at f/4 - Why? Because my subject is going to be still. Bam.

No bride wants to be blurry against a perfectly still background. Point made.

In general, a 2.8 lens will be sharper than a f/4 lens going up through the range, until about f/8ish. In general, this applies to the 24-70 over the 24-105 - More zoom, less light, less sharpness. Point made.

I can handle 35mm's off my 24-70 - If needs be, I'll use a 70-200 2.8 IS to cover the other range, but usually, I'll just shuffle a few feet forward.

Build quality? The 24-70 is built like a tank - Made to last, get it's fair few wallops and close encounters with disaster. The 24-105 is build like... well... a truck. I'd rather the tank. I've horrible visions of the 24-105 snapping in two pieces, followed by tears. Nope, I'll stick to my 24-70.

I've used and tested both.

AnimalRights

So you like the 24-70 then?

Fajitas!

Sure do.

AnimalRights

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Both get a good view to be fair.

"Since many people cannot afford both of these great lenses, a decision needs to be made between them. And requests for help with this decision may perhaps be the greatest single reason for email to be sent to me. I've given my request to Canon (not saying I have any leverage) for a 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens, but until they introduce such a lens, this decision will continue to be made."

Fajitas!

Actually, that link to the 24-105 reminds me of another thing that bugged me about it. Distortion, and lots of it!

And even seeing it stretched out there just reminds me of that vision of it snapping in half... That's not a fear one should ever associate with a lens :-S

Fionn

leaving out all the ramblings from the threads!! :rolleyes::o:mad::eek::cool::P:confused:
i think the suggestion of a lens is a good one the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens
ids the one to go for!!
lads really!!!!!
come onnn!!!:P

RobH

Tossing in my vote with the 24-70 2.8L crowd, It's a fantastic lens. It lives on my 5D, I find the speed more useful than those last few mm of focal length. I use it 99% of the time, just ordered a 70-200 2.8L IS so that may change though

Tactical

The 70-200 f2.8L IS is my next lens too.... As soon as I can get enough work to pay for it that is...:rolleyes:

latchiko

I promised an update so here it is!

Firstly thanks again for all the advice. I had a play with both lenses last weekend. Then I read back over the advice here. A lot of what Al said made sense so in the end I chose the low light performance of the 24-70 f2.8 as being more beneficial (especially for my type of photography) than a little more reach.

All the talk of the 70-200mm f2.8L IS forced me over the edge so I added that to my order too!

The lenses should be arriving next week, which will give me some time to read the big user manual which came with my new 5D MkII yesterday. So that's it, no more money to be spent on photography until 2010.