EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM vs 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

[suede1976]

Hi all, I'm considering between the 2. Any pointers as to which would be more suitable for me?

I'm currently using a Canon 40D with the EF-S 17-85mm and 50mm/1.8. I'm an occasional freelance writer and I do my own photos for my travel and food-related stories for magazines - 4 stories so far and looking to do more this year. Looking to upgrade as I'm not very happy with the photos from by the 17-85mm. I don't think there's sufficient detail and clarity.

I find my 50mm too long for indoor food shots while seated at a table (I don't use flash so a wide aperture is needed sometimes). I'm inclined towards the 24-70mm due to the 2.8 aperture but the 24-105 is cheaper and has IS function.

What should my other considerations be?

 

[iMac08]

efs 1755 f2.8 IS. There are many discussion btw this 2 lens.you can do a search.

 

[grantyale]

efs 1755 f2.8 IS. There are many discussion btw this 2 lens.you can do a search.

Second that. Unless moving to 5D/5D2, on which 24-105/4 is pretty similar to 17-55IS on 40D

 

[suede1976]

Yes, planning to move to a FF in 2 years or so if my freelance writing is sustainable cos if not being published, my current setup suits my needs as fine...

 

[TYM76]

yes get the 17-55IS. You can get the 24-70/24-105 in two years time when you GOT your FF.

 

[ManWearPants]

I don't think there's sufficient detail and clarity.

if it is detail and clarity, you may want to move to FF earlier. Though the 17-55f2.8 is fast and sharp, it is still used on a APS-C body. If you want to scrutinize, the details may still not be there. But yes, the 17-55 is sharper than 17-85. I made the same upgrade path.

I find my 50mm too long for indoor food shots while seated at a table (I don't use flash so a wide aperture is needed sometimes). I'm inclined towards the 24-70mm due to the 2.8 aperture but the 24-105 is cheaper and has IS function.

What should my other considerations be?

You may want to consider one of the 24, 28, 35mm prime lens for your food critics, depending on the range you work with. Alternatively, you can try with closed up filters.

If you are staying with 40D, 17-55f2.8 is probably yoour best versatile fast lens. It is also light enough for travel.

I don't reckon you want to get the 24-xx(x) if it is going to be your only lens. It is not wide enough for APS-C and you will miss a great deal of scenic shots for your travels. Unless you want to pair it with EF-S 10-22 or one of the 3rd party UWA.

 

[Pinoy]

It's often said that buying lenses is an investment. If you look at it this way and want to be future proof, stick with EF lenses.

:Later,

 

[calebk]

It's often said that buying lenses is an investment. If you look at it this way and want to be future proof, stick with EF lenses.

:Later,

On the flipside, you'd restrict yourself with both focal lengths that aren't very wide on a APS-C format. EF-S lenses are not entirely bad choices as the better ones (like the 17-55) hold their value very well.

 

[engrmariano]

http://tinyurl.com/antboj

 

[rainwhisper]

Considering you are taking pictures indoor with no flash. Sigma 30mm F1.4 is a good and fast lens. You can use it to take portriats.

 

[suede1976]

Thanks everyone.

Should I also consider the 17-40mm although I'm hoping for the new purchase to replace the 17-85 (which I imagine I would leave at home as I like to travel light) so I wonder if there's enough zoom power. Aside from the fact that the 17-40 opens only to F4, which lens has better optical quality? I had tested out a friend's 17-40 for a few days but I failed to see a big improvement on my screen. That said, I don't know if it would be more obvious if it's in print.

Or do I really need to get a FF for the clarity and detail as someone had earlier suggested? I don't make much $ from my stories at all and I'm not a gadget fanatic; so with say a S$2000 budget, what would be the best bang for my $?

 

[iMac08]

Thanks everyone.

Should I also consider the 17-40mm although I'm hoping for the new purchase to replace the 17-85 (which I imagine I would leave at home as I like to travel light) so I wonder if there's enough zoom power. Aside from the fact that the 17-40 opens only to F4, which lens has better optical quality? I had tested out a friend's 17-40 for a few days but I failed to see a big improvement on my screen. That said, I don't know if it would be more obvious if it's in print.

Or do I really need to get a FF for the clarity and detail as someone had earlier suggested? I don't make much $ from my stories at all and I'm not a gadget fanatic; so with say a S$2000 budget, what would be the best bang for my $?

the lcd on 40d is not as gd as a 5d2 and 50d.iwill suggest u shoot and view on e pc/laptop.my friend used my L to shoot on his 40d.he din like it v much.but when view on pc is bettet.but since then he change to a 5d2 because he got poison by it since that day.when his hand and eye got infected by the touch and sight of 5d2.

 

[calebk]

Thanks everyone.

Should I also consider the 17-40mm although I'm hoping for the new purchase to replace the 17-85 (which I imagine I would leave at home as I like to travel light) so I wonder if there's enough zoom power. Aside from the fact that the 17-40 opens only to F4, which lens has better optical quality? I had tested out a friend's 17-40 for a few days but I failed to see a big improvement on my screen. That said, I don't know if it would be more obvious if it's in print.

Or do I really need to get a FF for the clarity and detail as someone had earlier suggested? I don't make much $ from my stories at all and I'm not a gadget fanatic; so with say a S$2000 budget, what would be the best bang for my $?

No, you do not need to go to FF. As has been said before, the EF-S 17-55 is the best bang for buck lens you can get, with f/2.8 and IS in a single package. Look no further.

 

[vii_haven]

I'd say to go for the 17-55 2.8 IS as many have recommended here. The image quality is top notch and better than the 17-40 IMO. The big aperture and the IS would be of great use to you, and the optics are L quality. Technicals aside, many reviews/comparisons have also found the 17-55 to be sharper than the 17-40.

Personally i own the 17-40 and the 24-70 and when i used to use both on the 350D, the 24-70, though my favorite lens, just was not wide enough for a multipurpose lens. I had to always move backwards/bend backwards to take group shots, especially if the group is huge. But now that i'm on the 5DmkII, the 24-70 has become the multipurpose lens for me as the focal length is just right now. If i were to have bought the 50D, i'd have instantly bought the 17-55. I changed my camera only after 3 years as i'm beginning to take on more jobs. The 350D did jobs to pay for itself, the 17-40 and the 24-70 and so its partially about the equipment, but its more of the hands behind the equipment. You might have a digital Hasselblad but if your skills are mediocre, it doesn't make your photos any better. The 40D is a good camera i'd say. A good, multipurpose lens which can do both normal and low light shoots would be what you'd need to stretch your dollar and to give your years of good photos as well.

Don't go for a L lens just because its an L lens. There are some that outperform the Ls (rare but existant) and one of it is the 17-55. Unless you decide to spend more than double the amount for the 16-35 2.8L (with no IS), i think the EFS 17-55 is perfect.

Just my two cents worth!

 

[iMac08]

already u mention 50mm not wide for your purpose.and u want a f2.8 and IS.if u pick ef lens u will lose your wide end.even w a 1740.take e 1755.your best bet for now.u r not hobbist and trying to make living fr it.u shld have a decent kit w1755 and earn your way up to a FF.hobbist,in my opinion and myself includ,have spare cash to chase e gadget or upgrade they wanted knowing it will yield them nothing except some gd comments abt their photos and harsh ones when shots are bad.if i had kept my 450d,1755 is e only thing i need or want.

 

[suede1976]

Thanks y'all for your comments! I guess the choice is clear!

 

[iMac08]

Thanks y'all for your comments! I guess the choice is clear!

Go get it. At least you can make a living from shooting....BTW,what are the articles that you have printed on magazine so far? got URL to see?

 

[suede1976]

Can I gather your comments about the necessity of switching to a FF if I'm looking to achieve a clear image (at least to a discerning reader) on a 2-page spread ie. close to A3 size. Is it achievable using a 40D if shot in raw or highest JPG and with decent natural light?

At what point would one know if the limitation is not with the lens but with the body?

 

[StrifeYun]

get a 24-105 for street, unless ya want UWA. and keep the 50f1.8 for indoor low light.
my 2cents

 

[Pinoy]

get a 24-105 for street, unless ya want UWA. and keep the 50f1.8 for indoor low light.
my 2cents

My current setup. :sweatsm:

The 10-22 will probably be my last EF-S purchase. Future purchase -- if any -- will be EF lenses. Why? Coz I expect that FF bodies will become cheaper, more affordable, in the future.

:Later,