Lens decision, looking for input

[rufus5150]

I have the opportunity to purchase exactly one of the following lenses (Canon):

24-105mm f/4 L IS
24-70mm f/2.8 L
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS

I've ready any number of threads comparing the 24-105mm and the 24-70 and I still can't make up my mind. I throw the 70-200mm in there because this might be my last chance for a while and hey, who doesn't want one?

I only have a 50mm f/1.4 in my bag at the moment which is great for general every day stuff and whatever semblance of portraits I do.

Lately I've gotten into more event shooting such as company events, parties, etc. I frequently shoot moving subjects in questionable and sometimes low light. So that plus moving into more formal portraiture are my two main areas along with still life.

With the 50mm, I'm finding myself either cropping images heavily or unable to get the shot because I can't back up far enough due to close quarters, etc.

Obviously a 70-200mm isn't going to help at all with the latter problem, but I'm going to keep it under consideration.

So I guess I'm soliciting opinions on what lens might be the best for me and why.

Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Overread]

Sounds to me like the 24-70mm f2.8 will be your best bet - faster aperture for the lower light conditions and wider angle for when those situations get too close.

I have tried having the 70-200mm as my only lens for a week when on holiday with family and so many times 70mm was just too long for such occasions with people in closer quarters. Its a fantstic lens for other things - just not hte best for that.

It also sounds like your not pushed for more focal length - so the extra 35mm of the 24-105mm might not do you any real good.

So in your position I would go for the 24-70mm for what you have described

 

[rufus5150]

Thanks, Overread.

The 24-70 is really the way I am leaning but I'm still wondering if the extra 35mm might suit me more. I've contemplated renting each for a weekend but that gets expensive quickly. The f/2.8 of the 24-70 pretty much seals the deal, but in the last few weeks since acquiring a flash and off-shoe stuff, I've been shooting at higher apertures lately (I rarely used to take the 50mm out of f/2.8 but lately I've been trying compositions at f/4 whilst using the flash).

What I really want is a 24-105 f/2.8 IS! (I'm assuming it would probably way 13 pounds or so...)

 

[Overread]

yah now that would be a great lens
I think you also have to consider focusing - if you are using auto focus in dim conditions then definatly go for the f2.8.

 

[Sim]

I keep seeing rumours about a 24-70 f/2.8 IS... Of course rumours aren't exactly reliable, but that'd be very cool.

 

[rufus5150]

Waiting beyond a few days isn't an option, otherwise the lens boat's going to sail away.

But otherwise... DROOL!

 

[Sim]

Understandable... The current 24-70 looks like a great lens.

 

[Ls3D]

Funny because I returned the 24-70 2.8 this morning. I love the lens on a tripod and for fast/bright exposures hand-held or with a monopod. The warmth of colors and smoothness in the highlight transitions is excellent. But..

I quickly discovered I like to monopod shoot in low or 'available' light, and without the IS, well my hit ratio is not very good for those subjects.

I considered the 24-105 IS f/4 L as an immediate replacement, but IF I get one with a 5D MII, I can 'save' $200 (US)... while dropping $2,700 on the body.

BTW - There was a local ad this morning were a guy was pre-selling ($950) his 24-105 that will come with his new camera.

I can hardly say enough about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, though I'm just warming up to her - I LOVE this lens.

Regarding your decision, the most expensive lens is the one you will definitely want... not just because of cost, but for the shots you will collect.

I'd love to see an 24-70 2.8 IS get released, and would definitely prefer a theoretical new IS 2.8 over the F/4 of the 24-105.

I carry the 70-200 & a nifty fifty these days.

-Shea

 

[Sim]

I'd love to see an 24-70 2.8 IS get released, and would definitely prefer a theoretical new IS 2.8 over the F/4 of the 24-105.

I carry the 70-200 & a nifty fifty these days.

-Shea

I think that's an excellent solution if you're not in the market for a new lens right away. I suspect you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn't like IS on the 24-70 (assuming that the cost was the same, which of course, it wouldn't be).

 

[Ls3D]

Yeah I thought who wouldn't as I proofread my post,..

I would expect IS to add 4 or 5 hundred to the cost putting in the same class as the 'fully loaded' 70 - 200, $1,600 or $1,700 for example.

With the reverse extending nature of the 24-70, I could be wrong.

-S

 

[rufus5150]

Turns out I have to wait. From the 'murphy's law' camp... I was prepared to order it this morning after I got to work, but my truck broke down. Repairs would have been costly, so I got it fixed enough to trade it in and bought a new truck.

Needless to say, the wife shall not approve both a brand new vehicle and a new lens.

ARGH!

Thanks all for the input. I really think that when the money's saved, I'm going to go with the 24-70mm.

 

[Sim]

Maybe this way you'll end up with a 24-70 II? Fingers crossed...