Possible Lens Combo for now.

[OceanView]

Well, I got to thinking about all the lens options out there that makes sense for me.
I think I really narrowed it down to the following for now:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
and
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
$2,850 approx USD

or

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
and
EF 70-200mm f4L USM
$1,200 approx USD


I believe these two lenses will keep me occupied for awhile.
I know about the EF-S debate, I don't care about that right now as I am not planning to upgrade my 20D for at least 3 years or so.

There is a hugh difference in price.
Is there a hugh difference in the quality of the pics?

[SkipD]

In my opinion, you should take your first option assuming it won't break your bank or marriage.

You would never be sorry that you got those two lenses. The differences are not so much related to the quality of images taken with either choice, but the flexibility in how you can use them. The faster lenses allow you to work in dimmer situations (autofocus advantages as well as faster shutter speeds).

The IS in the 70-200 is something that you won't know how you did without once you start using it.

I don't think I would need IS in a lens shorter than about 100mm, making the IS in the 17-85 a questionable choice for me.

[blue_max]

It would say yes, but that would be relatively speaking.

You have gone for the 20d, where you could have gone for the 350 or a second hand 300 or 10d. You appreciated the difference. In that light, you should be aiming for the best image quality that is attainable.

The 70-200 decision is not about quality, it is just about flexibility (the f stop).
The 24-70 is a very expensive lens and there are alternatives between your two options. These are not by Canon unless you consider primes (nifty fifty) etc.

Knowing why you narrowed your list down to these few lenses might help as would your intended subject matter. The two lists are rather polarised and it may not be as black and white as you think.

Graham

[OceanView]

It would say yes, but that would be relatively speaking.

You have gone for the 20d, where you could have gone for the 350 or a second hand 300 or 10d. You appreciated the difference. In that light, you should be aiming for the best image quality that is attainable.

The 70-200 decision is not about quality, it is just about flexibility (the f stop).
The 24-70 is a very expensive lens and there are alternatives between your two options. These are not by Canon unless you consider primes (nifty fifty) etc.

Knowing why you narrowed your list down to these few lenses might help as would your intended subject matter. The two lists are rather polarised and it may not be as black and white as you think.

Graham

Hi Graham,

My intentions for the lenses are to be used as walk around lenses for the most part.
I shoot as a hobby and I like the flexibility of zoom lenses.
I may shoot some outdoor overcast days and some indoor so I do like lower f rated lenses in general but I am trying to be sensible with my purchases at the same time.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Great set ups. The first one is to die for, and as for quality between the two options, the f/4 version of the 70-200 will have image quality that is just as good as the f/2.8 IS version. Like Blue max said, it's simply about flexability, convenience. I'll tell you right now though, I tried using my 70-200 f/4 as an indoor sports lens, and it was TERRIBLE. If you shoot anything indoors (low light in general) then you'll NEED the f/2.8 IS version to get good pictures.

But for the 24-70L and 17-85 IS.... there will be a difference in image quality there. The 17-85 is said to be soft, where as the 24-70L is razor sharp and has a much faster apeture. So, once again it'd be better in low light.

Considering what I just said, if you shoot all outdoors the 24-70L and 70-200 f/4L might be a good combonation that'll save you a big chunk of change.

There are also alternatives to the 24-70L. For instance, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Same fast apeture, smaller, lighter, very sharp, and around $400.00. A LOT cheaper, but still a fantastic lens. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

There's also a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 once again, same fast apeture and this time also the same focal range. Don't know about it's sharpness, but I've heard good things. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=350973&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Both being 400 bucks, you could add either of those to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS save a lot of money and still have two very sharp awesome lenses.

I think the 70-200mm f/4 and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 would be a great combo and only burn up $1,000.00 of your cash.

If you can afford it though, go for that first two set of lenses man. Those are AMAZING. Doesn't get better than that combo, and I don't think you'll ever feel held back by such a set of fantastic lenses. I wish I could afford em!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Haha, you beat me to it! Well, since you say you want them as walk around lenses, you may want to second guess the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS since it is a very heavy lens compared to the 70-200mm f/4 which is very light. If you can handle carrying around a 3.5 pound lens though, power to ya! A lot of people feel they can't though.

[blue_max]

Hi Graham,

My intentions for the lenses are to be used as walk around lenses for the most part.
I shoot as a hobby and I like the flexibility of zoom lenses.
I may shoot some outdoor overcast days and some indoor so I do like lower f rated lenses in general but I am trying to be sensible with my purchases at the same time.

I think the reputation of the 70-200L f2.8IS is not of a light lens – certainly the f4 is much more manageable as a walkround lens.

For the regular lens, the 24-70 is a fine lens, but there are some up and coming third party lenses that are approaching that quality for a third of the price and a considerable weight saving. They have the same f stop also. The Tamron 27-75 and the Sigma 24-70 are the latest.

If you are aiming for good quality and need to save some money, there are alternatives to buying the most expensive. You could consider second hand also.

Graham

[Rob612]

The 70-200 2.8 IS is not what can be defined a "light" lens. But the flexibility that it gives you is unbeatable. Personally, onece I got used to it, I have no problems in carrying it all day long. Even with a 2x Tcon becomes a 140-400 5.6 IS, that is not bad at all. As far as the 24-70 it was debating between the Canon and the Sigma, I ended up with the sigma honestly just for the price, that is about 1/3 of the Canon.

[willg]

i would want wider...how about 17-40, 50, and the 70-200

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

i would want wider...how about 17-40, 50, and the 70-200

Such a good combo. I would know.:cool:

[OceanView]

i would want wider...how about 17-40, 50, and the 70-200

Yes I will get a wide lens after a few months.

I have a hole burning in my pocket this week and I wanted to get at least 1 lens before the Canon Rebate ends.

[gasrocks]

Tamron 28-75, Canon 70-200/4 L. Then, later, the Efs 10-22.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Good idea gas rocks!

Still think the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS would be sooooo worth it.

[csnudelman]

If you don't want the weight you might wish to consider 24-70L with the 135L and the 1.4X TC.

[darkdrakon]

I personaly use the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 f/4 but as I have a boat load of primes I am not too worried about indoor stuff :-)
my primes: 50mm 1.8 mk1, 85mm 1.8, 90mm macro 2.8 tamron , 200mm 2.8L

[OceanView]

I personaly use the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 f/4 but as I have a boat load of primes I am not too worried about indoor stuff :-)
my primes: 50mm 1.8 mk1, 85mm 1.8, 90mm macro 2.8 tamron , 200mm 2.8L

If you were to break it down into percentages, what percentages are you using the 24-70 and 70-200 f4?

How about the primes?

[Bob_A]

If you were to break it down into percentages, what percentages are you using the 24-70 and 70-200 f4?

How about the primes?

Once I get over playing with my new 70-200 f4L I think the breakdown will be about 70% with the 24-70 2.8L and 30% with the 70-200 f4L. Indoors the 24-70 95% of the time ... outdoors the 70-200 about 70% of the time.