17-55, 24-70L or 24-105L

[Fastfwd13]

All lenses are of similar price. I want to do glamour but not fixate on just this.

17-55
+ Has a wide end that others lack
+ IS
+ f2.8
- EF-S


24-70
+ "L" quality
+ f2.8
- No IS

24-105
+ "L" quality
+ IS
+ Range up to 105
- f4.0

From what I have been able to learn wide aperture are not that important for glamour but they could still be nice for overall use. Also it seems that portraits look better taken from further away so the 24mm+ on a 1.6 crop should be sufficient.

I wish there was a way to rent lenses for just a few months :confused: this way I could see how important will IS, f2.8 and "L" quality be to me.

Maybe I should just forget about the whole thing. Get a single 18-200mm lens and play with it for a while before I get "good glass".

[engsetr1]

wish there was a way to rent lenses for just a few months this way I could see how important will IS, f2.8 and "L" quality be to me.

There is!
Lensrental.com

[DisrupTer911]

don't forget rentglass.com and ziplens.com

altho i find Lensrental.com the better of the 3

[Mark_Cohran]

By wide aperture, I assume you mean large (i.e. f/2.8 and below) apertures? If so, I think there are a number of folks that would say large apertures are desireable, if not essential for glamour. Of the three, for glamour I would probably pick the 24-70 f/2.8L, but that's just me. When I shoot glamour, I usually use primes (135 f/2L and 85 f/1.2L) or my larger zooms. Some prefer longer lenses, others shorter, but I think most would agree they want a large enough aperture for the focal length to be able to isolate the model from the surrondings.

[Kagemaru]

All lenses are of similar price. I want to do glamour but not fixate on just this.

17-55
+ Has a wide end that others lack
+ IS
+ f2.8
- EF-S


24-70
+ "L" quality
+ f2.8
- No IS

24-105
+ "L" quality
+ IS
+ Range up to 105
- f4.0

From what I have been able to learn wide aperture are not that important for glamour but they could still be nice for overall use. Also it seems that portraits look better taken from further away so the 24mm+ on a 1.6 crop should be sufficient.

I wish there was a way to rent lenses for just a few months :confused: this way I could see how important will IS, f2.8 and "L" quality be to me.

Maybe I should just forget about the whole thing. Get a single 18-200mm lens and play with it for a while before I get "good glass".

If your criteria is image quality, you can't compare the above lenses to the 24-70. The IQ, build quality, focus speed can't be matched.

I don't have the 17-55 but I do have the 24-70 and the 24-105. I can honestly say the 24-105 is junk. It's slow, soft and the IQ is terrible. It's best used as a travel lens.

[D Thompson]

Another vote for the 24-70. Also, the 85 f1.8 is very good as well if you don't want to spend the $$ for the f1.2.

[reneethomas]

Other photographers I have met through MM swear by 70-200 f2.8 IS for glamour. Right now I am working with a 28-135 IS which has been a good lens for me. I would like to get an L lens in the future but it is just not in my budget at the moment. I think people have said this many times "it is not the lens or gear but the photographer that makes the photo". I have seen some amazing photos taken with a kit lens and I have seen crappy ones taken with an L. While an L will often produce sharper images but don't expect it to be a magic wand. Gear is nice and it is nice to work with the best gear but it is the photographer that makes the shot, the lens can only do so much. At least that is what I keep telling myself :p.

[Halliday]

What camera will this lens be going on? Those EF-S lenses only fit a few camera bodies. you mentioned a 1.6 crop. I'd get the 24-105 for a "one lens to cover it all" theme.

[Fastfwd13]

I finally made my choice and decided to go with the 17-55. I really wanted f2.8 and I have no experience with IS but think it could be useful too.

A friend of mine told me "fit what you have now". Apparently it's from the what not to weat TV show but I guess it applies to lenses and camera bags too :)

[blackcro55]

I can honestly say the 24-105 is junk. It's slow, soft and the IQ is terrible. It's best used as a travel lens.

Send it to canon. mine is amazingly sharp. Relative speed I do not know about.

Hagen
50D / 50 f1.8 / 24-105 F4 IS L / 70-200 F2.8 IS L / 100mm macro f2.8 / 2 x converter / Raynox 250

[Kagemaru]

Send it to canon. mine is amazingly sharp. Relative speed I do not know about.

Hagen
50D / 50 f1.8 / 24-105 F4 IS L / 70-200 F2.8 IS L / 100mm macro f2.8 / 2 x converter / Raynox 250

No it's the nature of the lens.. sure it's soft but only in comparison to my primes and other L lenses.

[Semmonka]

No it's the nature of the lens.. sure it's soft but only in comparison to my primes and other L lenses.

I have to agree. I own 24-105 and it is soft compared to 70-200 2.8 for example. Its ok for full body shots but for facial close ups I use 70-200 just because its wicked sharp.
Some people say the bokeh it provides is pretty nasty but I cant comment on that

[Kagemaru]

I have to agree. I own 24-105 and it is soft compared to 70-200 2.8 for example. Its ok for full body shots but for facial close ups I use 70-200 just because its wicked sharp.
Some people say the bokeh it provides is pretty nasty but I cant comment on that

Yeah it sucks LOL

[DealsGapCobra]

Send it to canon. mine is amazingly sharp. Relative speed I do not know about.

This is my experience too. My 24-105 is every bit as sharp as my 70-200 2.8

[paul837]

I agree. I use both lenses equally for glamour.