Lens dilemma

[aam1234]

Have the 70-200 (f4) and 100-400, and two kit lenses 18-55 (long story) but often times I need the 24-70. However, I have the ancient 35-70 from the first EOS time (c. 1987). Should I buy the 24-70 L, which costs around $1,200. What would you do in that situation.

Appreciate any advice, thanks.

[Jon]

What is it about the 24-70 that you need? The 56-70 mm? The speed? General dissatisfaction with the kit lens? If the 35-70 will fill the bill, why not stay with it until you don't feel that you need to ask whether to get the 24-70 or not? If it's the kit lens, then either the 24-70 or the Tamron 28-75 would take some pressure off.

[ejwebb]

If you only need a little more zoom and a better all-around image quality why not consider the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM for $229 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=206434&is=USA. You can sell one of the 18-55's and the 35-70 to help pay for it and keep the other 18-55 for when you need the wider angle. Check out the reviews on this lens - it fits the bill nicely for an all-purpose lens and has nice quality - not an "L", of course but the price is right! Be careful not to choose the cheaper/slower $149 version.

That is unless your need for the 24-70 is worth the extra $1,000.

[aam1234]

Thank you guys, appreciate the advice.

I don't want to sound stupid or such, but money isn't the issue. It's more about the value (in terms of quality) of the old 35-70 vs. the new 24-70 L.

Thanks again.

[ejwebb]

Sorry - thought you were asking what I would do!! If money were no object I would have that lens, along with several other L's.

In terms of quality I am sure there is not much of a comparison between the two. Depends on what your needs are as to whether the quality is necessary at that cost.

[aam1234]

Depends on what your needs are as to whether the quality is necessary at that cost.

Thanks ejwebb, this is insightful. My photos are nothing special. I guess one should know if he should get it or not (me say, go get it).

[aam1234]

One last comment, I promise.

Price and value are totally different things.

[ejwebb]

I understand - and think the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is a good value - which is quite different than just a cheap lens like the $149 version.

Can't really speak to the 24-70 from a value perspective since I have never used it - but there are many who have and swear by it. Although, I think there is a non-Canon (can't remember the brand) lens with similar spec's and quality that many believe is a better value - may be worth a search.

[aam1234]

Thanks ejwebb,

I don't know, once you try an L lens, it's hard to consider something else. Silly, sure, but it's true.

To be honest, the main reason of the original Q was..I went to buy the 20D and while there I held the 24-70...waw. Talk about a lens build quality. Personally I've never felt that much quality in a lens before.

[ejwebb]

I know what you mean. I can't afford to pick up an L - don't need that "addiction" right now!!

Knowing how you feel about it I'll just tell you to go ahead and get it - you know you won't let it rest until you do - and you'll end up with it in the end anyway. I know - I've been there - it's a sickness I'm telling you. Get your fix!!

[aam1234]

Ha ha, you are so right ejwebb. I can picture myself hitting the "enter" key (to order it) with one eye closed like when you are taking a flu shot or something like that.

[Canuck]

pm sent.