24-105mm Or Better?

[uneek78]

Okay, I did a photo shoot recently that went from street to sidewalk to alley to barn. I used my wretched 18-55mm kit lens when in the alley, but most of the time my 50mm 1.8. After this photo shoot I realized I needed better quality, something that could be used in confined spaces, but also with longer distances (I'm thinking 10-30ft). After much research it sounded like the 24-105 was the best option. Even though the WHOLE world was saying the next best thing to get for a Canon is the 70-200mm. I trust the whole world, but I know I'm going to need that wide angle at times. I want to have an all around lens which is probably a joke, but I feel I can get close. I don't mind not having a little zoom, but I want quality, a little zoom, and wide angle all in one. I realized that on this photo shoot that I love my 50mm but all that feet zooming wastes a little time and gets old quick for what i was doing.

So with all that I'm trying to leave out the 70-200mm and thinking:
1. 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (this appears to be a kit lens on a "5 Hour Energy Pill")
2. 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (a little to short, but love the aperture)
3. 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (okay)
4. 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (appears to be the most logical option)
5. 70-200mm f/4L IS USM (couldn't help myself, want to see if everyone pics this---it would still be worthless in an alley or confined spaces, but I'm curious because I heard the image quality is AMAZING)

 

[penfolderoldo]

Also worth a look is the Sigma 24-70 2.8, or a used Canon 24-70 2.8L (there are even some used Canon 28-70 2.8L's that pop up from time to time)

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I must say, if your a portrait photographer? Do you really want lenses with an F4 aperture? I do quite a bit of portrait work and I wouldn't even consider an F4 for this task unless it was the 70-200 F4. Most F4 lenses on a crop body will give little to no real subject isolation.

 

[Overread19 7]

Have you considered the 24-70mm f2.8 L ? That would give you a shorter working range, but also gives you a wider maximum aperture to work with, very important for helping with that closer work for subject isolation. You could also consider 50mm f1.4 and 85mm prime lens options, which whilst forcing you to changing lenses and using your feet also affords you higher quality and more subject isolation with the wider apertures.

 

[KenC]

Sounds like you need two bodies with different lenses.

 

[uneek78]

Have you considered the 24-70mm f2.8 L ? That would give you a shorter working range, but also gives you a wider maximum aperture to work with, very important for helping with that closer work for subject isolation. You could also consider 50mm f1.4 and 85mm prime lens options, which whilst forcing you to changing lenses and using your feet also affords you higher quality and more subject isolation with the wider apertures.

The 24-70mm sounds good, but I don't use a tripod a lot. I believe it doesn't have IS. I have a 50m 1.8, but it did me no good in the alley way. I couldn't back up far enough. I believe the 17-55mm may be the best option.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Have you considered the 24-70mm f2.8 L ? That would give you a shorter working range, but also gives you a wider maximum aperture to work with, very important for helping with that closer work for subject isolation. You could also consider 50mm f1.4 and 85mm prime lens options, which whilst forcing you to changing lenses and using your feet also affords you higher quality and more subject isolation with the wider apertures.

The 24-70mm sounds good, but I don't use a tripod a lot. I believe it doesn't have IS. I have a 50m 1.8, but it did me no good in the alley way. I couldn't back up far enough. I believe the 17-55mm may be the best option.

Jack the ISO up a couple of stops.

 

[o hey tyler]

Have you considered the 24-70mm f2.8 L ? That would give you a shorter working range, but also gives you a wider maximum aperture to work with, very important for helping with that closer work for subject isolation. You could also consider 50mm f1.4 and 85mm prime lens options, which whilst forcing you to changing lenses and using your feet also affords you higher quality and more subject isolation with the wider apertures.

The 24-70mm sounds good, but I don't use a tripod a lot. I believe it doesn't have IS. I have a 50m 1.8, but it did me no good in the alley way. I couldn't back up far enough. I believe the 17-55mm may be the best option.

You don't need IS on a lens as short as the 24-70 if you are doing portrait work. Especially with a max aperture of f/2.8. If you're going under 1/50th of a second with your 50mm f/1.8 on a crop frame body, you're not going to have very sharp photos. You may want to consider lighting equipment if that is the case.

 

[uneek78]

Have you considered the 24-70mm f2.8 L ? That would give you a shorter working range, but also gives you a wider maximum aperture to work with, very important for helping with that closer work for subject isolation. You could also consider 50mm f1.4 and 85mm prime lens options, which whilst forcing you to changing lenses and using your feet also affords you higher quality and more subject isolation with the wider apertures.

The 24-70mm sounds good, but I don't use a tripod a lot. I believe it doesn't have IS. I have a 50m 1.8, but it did me no good in the alley way. I couldn't back up far enough. I believe the 17-55mm may be the best option.

You don't need IS on a lens as short as the 24-70 if you are doing portrait work. Especially with a max aperture of f/2.8. If you're going under 1/50th of a second with your 50mm f/1.8 on a crop frame body, you're not going to have very sharp photos. You may want to consider lighting equipment if that is the case.

Thx Tyler!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol!!!!!!!!!!!! You just made my decision harder. Lol!!!!!!!!!! Now that sounds like a good idea also. A slight bit more expensive idea. But a good darn idea.

 

[JClishe]

The 24-70 vs 24-105 debate pops up from time to time, and someone here (I forget who) said that the 24-70 wasn't sharp at f/2.8 and you'd be shooting it at f/4 or smaller most of the time anyway, which really changes the debate between these lenses.

I have no personal experience with that, just relaying what I heard...

 

[MTVision]

The 24-70 vs 24-105 debate pops up from time to time, and someone here (I forget who) said that the 24-70 wasn't sharp at f/2.8 and you'd be shooting it at f/4 or smaller most of the time anyway, which really changes the debate between these lenses.

I have no personal experience with that, just relaying what I heard...

But then the 24-105 probably isn't that sharp at its widest aperture (f/4?) either. Most lenses don't perform their best wide open.

 

[o hey tyler]

The 24-70 vs 24-105 debate pops up from time to time, and someone here (I forget who) said that the 24-70 wasn't sharp at f/2.8 and you'd be shooting it at f/4 or smaller most of the time anyway, which really changes the debate between these lenses.

I have no personal experience with that, just relaying what I heard...

But then the 24-105 probably isn't that sharp at its widest aperture (f/4?) either. Most lenses don't perform their best wide open.

But you wouldn't know that, because you shoot Nikon, no? The 24-105L is outstandingly sharp and delivers great image quality even at f/4.

 

[MTVision]

No - I don't know - that would be why I said "probably". Most lenses don't perform their best wide open - that lens may be sharp at f/4 but it's still probably sharper if you stop down

 

[Pejman]

I remember a review on you tube that mentioned 24-70 has good and bad copies and you should be lucky to get a good one.