OK, 24-70L and 28-75 XrDi users, I need some help, Please

[who me?]

I am looking to fill the void in my lens set with one of these two lenses. I want the versatility of the constant f2.8, I know both are optically great, I know that users of each love their lenses so I don't want to start a C vs T debate as that has been done enough. If some manufacturer made a 28-105 in a constant F2.8 and it was as good at these two are, I would be getting that in a heartbeat. BUT, since no one does, these are my choices.

SO, owners of these lenses, for this focal length range, what subjects are you mostly shooting? I am going to a RV rally in a couple of weeks and plan on shooting a bunch of people shots. Like individuals, groups and all the activities that go on over the weekend in a totally relaxed and fun atmosphere. I love my 17-40 and normally use this as a walk around lens but I am starting to think that it might be too short this kind of dynamic shooting and that the choices above will give me a better working distance so I won't have to be in peoples faces all the time. I also think that it may allow me to get some more natural shots. I have done almost no people shooting in the past so this will be a great learning experience too. Of course, if the other half says no to the new lens :cry: , I will have to make do with the 17-40. Also, while shooting, lens hood, yes or no...
I would appreciate any advice/insight you all could send my way.

Thanks a bunch.

[Jon]

Mostly dogs. I don't do much people shooting. The occasional wildlife (sometimes they're just too damned laid-back).

[KurtKuhn]

I use the 24-70L on my DrebelXT as "the lens that never comes off the camera" lens. This is an easy since this is my only lens. :D My reason for choosing this focal length was to duplicate the multipurpose range I was used to with my S45. I was always on the wide end of the S45 to gain the most aperture, so the constant f2.8 throughout is really nice.

Since the 24-70L starts out at 70mm focal length at its most compact form, I found that I'm using the "long end" of the lens way more than I thought I ever would. I doubt your 20D's on board flash will be able to "see around" the wide end of the lends. I get a small, semi-circular shadow at 24mm with the XT's on-board flash. This shadow goes away at 28mm.

Hope you get the necessary kitchen pass for your purchase. ;)

-KK

[Headcase650]

I may be wrong but I think tamron makes a 28-105 2.8
'LD" lens.

I have the 28-75 and it's a great lens, no where near an L in build and speed of auto focus but well worth the money, you cant go wrong with either.

[DocFrankenstein]

24-70 is weather sealed, faster AF, better build and has a higher resale value.

I'd be the lens to get for me.

[who me?]

Headcase650, Doc, user comments help, and I appreciate them too but, what subjects do you normally shoot with these lenses? AM I in the right ballpark with my thinking and my possible shooting subjects?
Thanks guys for the comments.

[cactusclay]

People, portraits, landscapes, close ups.

[Tom W]

24-70 is my most used lens. I shoot people, portraits, landscapes, TRAINS (for Belmondo), and structures. I'm more in tune with structures and mechanical stuff, and the lens performs very well in that atmosphere.

24 mm is a great plus. On the 1D II, I rarely want anything wider.

[eosster]

24-70 is weather sealed, faster AF, better build and has a higher resale value.

I'd be the lens to get for me.

and it's heavy....LOL.

[DocFrankenstein]

I shoot people and portraits mostly

[markubig]

i got the tamron and shoot mostly people at parties/gatherings/functions. tamron is sharp and gives vibrant colors. This past weekend, I did a party which gave me my first experience with photo opportunities in VERY dim lighting. I found the AF searching quite a bit. don't have experience with the 24-70, so i can't comment how it would have performed in the same situation, but from what I read here, i would think it would be better.

So other than the AF, I have no other complaints about the Tamron. I just don't do enough photography to warrant the extra $700 on essentially the same focal range.

[Andy_T]

Mostly people and portraits with the occasional landscape.

The Tamron 28-105 that was mentioned is reputed to be nowhere as good as the 28-75.

I'd say it will make a great addition to your 17-40 and 100-400.

Best regards,
Andy

[ohenry]

I have the 17-40L and the 24-70L and find that the 24-70 stays on my camera more than my 17-40. It's a bit heavier, but more versitile unless I'm doing landscape work. I also previously owned the 28-75 Di and would recommend the Canon over the Tamron, if the budget allows it. The Tamron is lighter and less expensive and is a fine lens, but the Canon outshines it througout the focal lengths and aperture range.

[who me?]

Thanks all for the very helpful comments and insight. That is why this is such a COOL forum. I can ask for help and you wonderful people come through.
I gave my best pitch to the wife and she OK'd the 24-70L. SO, I will probably be picking up my new lens tomorrow. That will give me about a week to play with it before I really give it a workout at the RV rally I will be at.
Thanks again,
Mike

[crgibson]

I need to get a copy of that pitch. My best pitch to the wife yielded me the Tamron. Of course there was a moment of 'what is wrong with the kit lens' from her, so I am more than pleased getting the Tamron and I am not on the couch.

[Maureen Souza]

I do people mostly, weddings, reunions, childbirth, my grandson..... I have the 28-75XRDi and it does a lovely job.

[tim]

I use the 28-75 for everything except macro - people, parades, theatre, i've used it at horse racing from right by the track - just about anything really. I'm quite happy with this lens, no complaints at all :)

[Canuck]

Well, I have the 24-70mm F2.8L and is the most used lens as it is great for landscape shots. It along w/ the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX +1.4x tc make a great combo for either wildlife shooting or landscape shooting! I have a lot of pics w/ both lenses. Please PM me if you are interested. In the mean time here are a few pics...
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=12904492
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=12904494
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=12904495

[cjtinkle]

We're off to an RV ralley in a couple weeks as well, and I was thinking our 16-35mm would be my lens of choice to keep on. I have the 28-135mm as well (haven't convinced hubby on the 24-70mm yet hehe). But I personally think the wider angle will be my choice at the rally.

[mr.photoguy]

We're off to an RV ralley in a couple weeks as well, and I was thinking our 16-35mm would be my lens of choice to keep on. I have the 28-135mm as well (haven't convinced hubby on the 24-70mm yet hehe). But I personally think the wider angle will be my choice at the rally.
Well that's a first.

[mr.photoguy]

my Tamron 28-75 is supposed to come in the mail today. I will hopefully get to test it out on someone to see how I like it.

[cjtinkle]

Well that's a first.

What's a first?

[mr.photoguy]

What's a first?
look at the quote again, it's in bold.

[AcuraFan]

24-70 is weather sealed, faster AF, better build and has a higher resale value.

I'd be the lens to get for me.

my friend loaned me his 28-75, and i can't stand the noise on that motor. i just got stares from people while focusing. :D

and it's not THAT much lighter then the 24-70L. tamron optics was impressive. :)

[cjtinkle]

look at the quote again, it's in bold.

Ah well... ;) i have to choose between the 24-70 and the 70-200, and I can't decide which I might use more. But not to hijack the thread...

[Canuck]

We're off to an RV ralley in a couple weeks as well, and I was thinking our 16-35mm would be my lens of choice to keep on. I have the 28-135mm as well (haven't convinced hubby on the 24-70mm yet hehe). But I personally think the wider angle will be my choice at the rally.

You might try the 1/2 priced 17-40mm F4L compared to the 16-35mm F2.8L! Just a suggestion. The 1 mm isn't gonna break the bank, and one f-stop probably wont make a difference, lest you need it for low light shots/like the bokeh (read: need the extra f-stop) or want to blow the wad o'cash. :)

[cjtinkle]

You might try the 1/2 priced 17-40mm F4L compared to the 16-35mm F2.8L! Just a suggestion. The 1 mm isn't gonna break the bank, and one f-stop probably wont make a difference, lest you need it for low light shots/like the bokeh (read: need the extra f-stop) or want to blow the wad o'cash. :)

LOL I already have the 16-35mm :)

Don't ask me how this got started, but for some reason, wherever we go, a contractor at the nuke plants is always buying a house and hubby ALWAYS volunteers me to go take interior shots and set up a web tour for the absent wife :rolleyes:

[mr.photoguy]

Ah well... ;) i have to choose between the 24-70 and the 70-200, and I can't decide which I might use more. But not to hijack the thread...
uhh lol... ummm... hard to say..
I have the 70-200... and getting the 28-75.. The 28-75 will serve me good for getting those people images. especially when they are not far away. The 70-200 will server me good for the same, but when they are far away.. plus other things...


sorry to thread jack.

[cc10d]

LOL I already have the 16-35mm :)

Don't ask me how this got started, but for some reason, wherever we go, a contractor at the nuke plants is always buying a house and hubby ALWAYS volunteers me to go take interior shots and set up a web tour for the absent wife :rolleyes:

I prefer the 16-35 also. For me it is worth the difference. The 2.8 is very useful and the bokeh is great. PS the lens is always sharp!

[mr.photoguy]

Man, I just looked up some sample images for the 16-35L ... woowee.. is all I have to say. (but1200 bucks) damn

[malum]

To throw another option in..
I shoot mostly people shots and if you want candid then the 70-200L (I have the F4) is great. If you are outside then F4 is fine (in fact I use it inside as well and it's still fine)