70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 24-105 f4-5.6 or 135 f2 which L to buy?

[Hossam]

Hi,
im planning to purchase a prime in a couple of days, knowing that im a newbie , i shall use it as an every purpse lens for the next couple of years (portait,walk around,landscape,my kids...) im getting nuts cause i love all of them, i can buy only one ..please pull me out of my misery and pick one for me..
Thanx in advance

[jestergx4]

those are all good lenses. hmmm, if it was up to me, I'd go with the 70-200 f2.8. I have the Non-IS version it produces absolutely gorgeous images! My 2nd choice is probably the 24-70 f/2.8L. Those two lenses should provide you a very broad focal length. Good luck!

[ed rader]

Hi,
im planning to purchase a prime in a couple of days, knowing that im a newbie , i shall use it as an every purpse lens for the next couple of years (portait,walk around,landscape,my kids...) im getting nuts cause i love all of them, i can buy only one ..please pull me out of my misery and pick one for me..
Thanx in advance

sounds like you want either the 24-70L or the 24-105L. i've owned both. i'd recommend the latter for your purposes.

good luck!

ed rader

[SYS]

Of all the lenses I own, my favorite is 70-200. BUT my 24-70 is on the body about 90% of the time.

[Hossam]

those are all good lenses. hmmm, if it was up to me, I'd go with the 70-200 f2.8. I have the Non-IS version it produces absolutely gorgeous images! My 2nd choice is probably the 24-70 f/2.8L. Those two lenses should provide you a very broad focal length. Good luck!
this one is my main direction , but i can't get the others out of my mind..

[Hossam]

sounds like you want either the 24-70L or the 24-105L. i've owned both. i'd recommend the latter for your purposes.

good luck!

ed rader
you read my mind Ed.

[crn3371]

Of the 4 lenses you mentioned only one is a prime, the 135 f2, so I'm assuming you're talking about a walkabout lens. Of those, only the 24-70, or the 24-105 would really fit the bill. Personally, I'd rather have the extra reach of the 24-105, plus the IS, as opposed to the extra stop of the 24-70.

[Hossam]

Of all the lenses I own, my favorite is 70-200. BUT my 24-70 is on the body about 90% of the time.
Now im still at the starting point :rolleyes:

[Hossam]

Of the 4 lenses you mentioned only one is a prime, the 135 f2, so I'm assuming you're talking about a walkabout lens. Of those, only the 24-70, or the 24-105 would really fit the bill. Personally, I'd rather have the extra reach of the 24-105, plus the IS, as opposed to the extra stop of the 24-70.
you 'd pick it over the 70-200 f 2.8 ?

[SYS]

Now im still at the starting point :rolleyes:

When you're selecting a lens out of difficult lineup, it sometimes helps to think strategically, i.e., planning for your second and third lens, and so on. For example, if you go with 24-70 as your first, the next logical one is 70-200, or vice-versa. Or if you go with 24-105 as your first, then 100-400, etc.

With any of these you can't go wrong, so what you might want to base your decision is not what you'd love the most but what you'd USE the most for you and your family.

[ed rader]

you 'd pick it over the 70-200 f 2.8 ?

unless you use 70-200L as a walkaround you'll be using the kit lens alot if you don't start with a more useful length first.

i think most people would find the 24-70L or 24-105L a more useful lens.

ed rader

[yoyoboy]

24-105+nifty fifty for low light.

[Hossam]

When you're selecting a lens out of difficult lineup, it sometimes helps to think strategically, i.e., planning for your second and third lens, and so on. For example, if you go with 24-70 as your first, the next logical one is 70-200, or vice-versa. Or if you go with 24-105 as your first, then 100-400, etc.

With any of these you can't go wrong, so what you might want to base your decision is not what you'd love the most but what you'd USE the most for you and your family.
Thanks SYS that's a major rule i forgot, and since i have the oldy 100-300L (works fine) so i think i should go for the 24-105 L to cover the missing FL , and maybe i can delay my hope-to-have 70-200 f2.8 for my next purchase..
SO im finally relaxed it's the 24-105 at last.
thanks alot you've been very helpful, SYS
and thanks for you all guys..(i really love this forum).
Best rgards,

[crn3371]

You're covered from 100-300 with your L. While the 70-200 is an excellant lens, I'd consider it more as a replacement for your 100-300 as opposed to a suplement. The criteria you mention - portrait, kids, landscape - generally lends itself to something wider than 70mm. I feel that the 24-105 would complement your 100-300 the most.

[SYS]

Thanks SYS that's a major rule i forgot, and since i have the oldy 100-300L (works fine) so i think i should go for the 24-105 L to cover the missing FL , and maybe i can delay my hope-to-have 70-200 f2.8 for my next purchase..
SO im finally relaxed it's the 24-105 at last.
thanks alot you've been very helpful, SYS
and thanks for you all guys..(i really love this forum).
Best rgards,

Oh, another thing.....

You'll undoubtedly be an "L"-coholic like the rest of us, so you'll be craving for your next lens soon enough. ;)

[Hossam]

unless you use 70-200L as a walkaround you'll be using the kit lens alot if you don't start with a more useful length first.

i think most people would find the 24-70L or 24-105L a more useful lens.

ed rader
that's right ed, i do have the 100-300L but i use the kit lens most of the time.
yes ,im going for the 24-105 to replace the kit lens..
Thanx a lot..

[Hossam]

Oh, another thing.....

You'll undoubtedly be an "L"-coholic like the rest of us, so you'll be craving for your next lens soon enough. ;)
you know what! im starting from know figuring how to budget both lenses,but im calculating the consequences for such a hit.

[cjm]

Get the 24-70 f2.8 L, you will absolutely love it.