Buying new lenses this week, want some expert opinions

[inTempus]

Ok, I have my new 50D (LOVE IT!) and I'm ready to get the glass that's going to carry me through the next year... that's what I keep telling myself anyway.

Here's the plan so far, let me know if I'm missing something.

- main walk around lens: EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
- reach out and touch them lens: EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM (need some advice here)
- up close and personal lens: EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle

Now, I considered but decided against the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens because of necessary overlap in focal lenth with the 70-200mm lens and because the 24-70mm will be my fast lens at f/2.8. Is this a wise decision do you think? I'm giving up IS but I'm not sure if that's that big of a deal... but it may be in low light where I would be using the 2.8 apature... it would be so much easier if they made that lens with IS.

Next up is the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM lense. Do you think it's worth the extra $500 to get the IS on this lens vs the $600 non-IS version? I'm assuming the IS at the 200mm setting will be handy.

I'll be right at $3k for these lenses and I really want to them be just about everything I may need (that's my budget I've given myself). I like shooting everything from portraits, to landscapes, to product-whitebox shots. I also want to shoot some friends bands and I will be able to be fairly close, but lighthing will be low (hence the desire for the f/2.8 lens).

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[tirediron]

I'm a Nikon shooter, so I can speak to the specific lenses, but I think your choices are good ones. That seems like just about the perfect all-round set-up. As far as your question on the value of IS goes, I think it really depends on how you intend to use the lens. That is, if you intend to hand-hold it some or a lot of the time, then I'd say go for it. If you see it being tripod-mounted most of the time, maybe not so much.

 

[aadhils]

Don't keep your research stuck on L series lenses. In doing so you basically over look many great lenses out there that would be useful for a very long time.

I'd suggest looking into the Sigma 10-20mm lens. Also prime lenses can be sharper and are lighter than zoom lenses.

 

[linpelk]

Hi, I'm quite the nooby, but here is my experience. I personally have the 24-105 f/4L IS lens and realized later that I really needed the larger aperture. Kicking myself that I didn't buy the 24-70 f/2.8L, I went ahead and ordered it a couple of months ago. I tried it out and I didn't think it was all that great. I missed the IS since I tend to have a shaky hand and I didn't think the f/2.8 was as significant of an increase to loose the IS. I returned the lens and bought a cheapo 50mm f/1.8 and LOVE it. Of course it's not L-series (nor IS), but for $85 it's great. Eventually I'll invest the $1500+ for the perfect lens for indoor/lowlight photos (I AM a nooby after all and can't seem to justify the expense to the husband). I shoot mostly (ok, only) kids and using a tripod is useless so I need the IS. If you don't need the IS, the 24-70mm is great.

 

[TheOtherBob]

I have the first two lenses you mention, and like them a lot. I like the 4.0 version of the 70-200, because it's a little more portable (and most everything I shoot with it is outside in daylight). The 24-70 is a BRICK -- but I really love the picture quality, and it works like a Swiss watch. I rarely take it off my camera.

But regarding the 17-40 -- the difference between 17mm and 24mm really isn't that great on a crop camera. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's not nothing -- but it's not huge; 17mm isn't really "ultra-wide" on a crop.

Have you considered the 10-22mm instead? It's a great compliment to the 24-70, and gives you a bit more range. It's EF-S, which is a problem if you're ever thinking of going full-frame, but its image quality (to my eye at least) rivals the two L lenses. And the ultra-wide angle gives some great creative possibilities.

 

[Mgw189]

I agree with what everyone else has recommended. Pick up the sigma 10-22 if you want wide angle shots. Its a great lens. I know a lot of people that have it and they love it. No its not a Canon lens but they are great quality. I also agree that your not going to noitce much with the 17mm to 24mm. The 24-70 will be more than ample for your upclose and personal shots.

 

[inTempus]

Thanks a bunch, I will leave the 17mm lens off the list for now and just see how the 24mm works out for me. If I want a wide angle still, I'll give the Sigma a shot.

I do want to avoid the EF-S lenses because I will probably go full frame on my next camera and I don't want to be invested in lenses that aren't portable between platforms if I can avoid it.

Regarding the 24-105mm vs. the 24-70mm, what are your thoughts on clarity/sharpness/etc.? From what I've read the 24-70mm seems to produce better/sharper images. I guess this is my hardest decision... giving up the IS in exchange for a slightly faster lens.

 

[gsgary]

For bands F2.8 is not usually fast enough unless you are at big a venue and then they stop you from taking SLR's in, i use the Canon 50mmF1.4 and looking at getting the 85mmF1.8

 

[RyanLilly]

For bands and the like I find 2.8 to be sufficient, but I'm usually in large professional venues. For music in the bar scene I use a 30mm and 50m 1.4, 85mm is a good portrait length, but I find too long for most crowded bars.

As for a walkaround zoom, 24-70 will probably be fine, as long as you have something wider to compliment it, My main lens is a tamron 17-50 2.8, and I also use my tokina 11-16 2.8 quite a bit as well.

I have the 70-200 non-IS, and its a great lens, good for portrait and outdoor shooting, and would probably be fine for some concert stuff because I often stop down quite a bit from 2.8, but I still find myself Spoiled by my 2.8 zooms, and even faster primes, but more than that, with the bigger heavier lenses I do wish for IS.

So If you want to stay away from EF-S lenses, then I think you are headed down the right path.