Looking for a generalist short to mid-range zoom lens

[Overread]

So like the title says I'm planning (loooong term plan) on getting myself something in the general use ranges for focal lengths. This basically amounts to getting a lens that can fit below my 70-200mm and above an 8-16mm - because at present I've only got a 35mm in that slot.


Originally I was thinking a 24-105mm f4 IS L. Giving me a fairly wide 24mm coupled with a nice, decently long reach at 105mm; meaning I didn't have to jump onto the 70-200mm to get a little more reach.

However as of late I've been thinking that whilst camera ISOs are getting better, I still only have a 7D and chances are a 7DMII is a long way off (and isn't going to be a night and day ISO difference at the higher end). So sometimes if I'm shooting indoors or in lower light being able to open up to f2.8 might be more important; one stop difference only, but that can be all the difference. In addition there are creative options that open up with the extra stop of light.

I'm also not planning on getting a series of prime lenses within this range so its not like I'll expect to have a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm of apertures smaller than f2.8 for those low light conditions (I'm not saying they are bad lenses, but just that my focus isn't geared toward really establishing a solid selection of primes in the shorter focal lengths).


So then comes the option of a 24-70mm f2.8 lens. However hte market there has changed a fair bit.

First up Canon has a new version that retailing at a very high price. After that there is the original version second hand (still very good, not as good in the corners, but still a very solid performer). Sigma and Tamron also have their own versions on the market, although I think I'm right in that they are the same generation as the original Canon version (ergo putting the Canon MII at the top of the game in this focal range at present).



So those are my current thoughts on the market options; are there any others that might be worth considering; or are some of the 3rd party superior to how I've listed them above.




For some context my primary interests are wildlife and macro (ergo why I've really not got much in this focal length range thus far). Some landscapes, general family shots (where this lens likely would see much of its use) and also more recently some equine event shooting (where the lens would likely see its second greatest amount of use - maybe more if I get more into that side of things).

At the moment I'm warming to the Canon MII option - however it has a very high price tag attached to it; so at a practical level it might not be viable - hence my deliberations as to other choices that might be suitable. Heck I could even be persuaded back to my original choice of the 24-105mm f4 IS L (half as much as the other Canon option I've listed).

 

[Derrel]

I think it might be wise to look into the new Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS. It would NOT be that difficult to build a better lens in that category. Either way, there are a TON of used 24-105-L lenses on the used market. 24-70mm is mostly a close-range lens, good indoors and good inside of 20 feet.

 

[runnah]

I rented the 24-105 for a shoot and I love it! Great build quality and optics. I've used it almost the entire time as the IS makes it an all around great video lens.

I have seen them on eBay for around $600.

 

[Overread]

Derrel you sure you mean "difficult " and not "easy" in your second sentence?

The IS on the 24-105mm is tempting, though I don't do much video it would be a fantastic boon to have in there (still don't get why Canon - after pushing video lots - then made a new 24-70mm and didn't put IS in it). I guess one option is to consider 24-105mm and then a single prime in the 50mm or so range with a wide max aperture; but I'm concerned that's somewhat bloating my setup beyond what I really need it to be for what I do and enjoy.

 

[runnah]

Yeah it boggles my mind that they left off IS on the 24-70 and still charge 2,500 for it!

The 24-105 is a great all day type of lens. Covers all the big focal lengths. The f/4 is kind of a bummer and it is big and heavy but that's about it.

I do have primes that I use most of the time but this particular shoot was in extremely cramped quarters with no way to use any sort of off camera stabilization.

Lol I was literally belly crawling through pipes for a good part of the day.

 

[Rick50]

The Tamron 24-70, F/2.8 has IS.

 

[lambertpix]

The Tamron 24-70, F/2.8 has IS.

I rented that lens a while back, and I liked it a lot.

 

[Rick50]

I like it too. The one on the left.

 

[Mr.Photo]

While I've never used the Tamron 24-70 VC. I have seen several reviews on another forum I frequent comparing in to the Nikon 24-70 2.8, and it is easily just as good.

 

[jaomul]

Does it have to be one lens?
I have a tamron 17-50 and a 35prime. I am considering selling for the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and a tamron 28-75 f2.8 to pair or triplet with a sigma 70-200

 

[Solarflare]

Does it have to be one lens?
I have a tamron 17-50 and a 35prime. I am considering selling for the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and a tamron 28-75 f2.8 to pair or triplet with a sigma 70-200

Err ... I'd just go with 18-35mm f1.8 plus 70-200mm f2.8 ?

That gap between 35mm and 70mm is not that important that you have to close it. I'm running around with 16-35mm f4 and 70-200mm f4 a lot and the only reason I have a 50mm f1.8 as well is really just for low light situations, not for the focal length.

 

[jaomul]

The gap between 35-70 is not important to you, but I'd say 75% of my portraits are in there

 

[Ido]

How about an APS-C fast standard zoom? There are many options:

• Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
• Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS
• Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (either with or without VC)

I wouldn't consider the two Tamrons. The VC version isn't as good as the Sigma, and the one without VC isn't cheap enough to make it a real bargain.

Between the Canon and the Sigma, I think it basically comes down to how comfortable you are buying third-party lenses. The Sigma is practically as sharp as the Canon, they both have optical image stabilization and fast autofocus.

 

[Mr.Photo]

The gap between 35-70 is not important to you, but I'd say 75% of my portraits are in there

My sentiments exactly. Even though I'm using a cropped sensor body I shoot 99% of my stuff between 35mm on up to 300mm (depending on what I'm shooting). Seldom do I go anything wider than 35mm and if I do I simply use my lowly little 18-55mm VR kit lens. I actually purchased a cheap Promaster (aka: Tamron) 11-18mm lens to give ultra wide angle photography a try, and I doubt that lens has been on my camera twice just to play around with it in the past year and a half since I got it.

 

[runnah]

The gap between 35-70 is not important to you, but I'd say 75% of my portraits are in there

Thats cause you are on a crop. 99% of mine are in the 85-135 range. On a FF that range is kinda "meh". That was my feeling with the 24-70 2.8 I rented. I loved that sharpness and quality but the range was kinda blah. The lack of IS really hurts too as it would be a great video lens.