Help me choose my next lens(es)....

[MegaTron]

Got in the Canon 70-200mm f/4L only 2 days ago. That lens popped my L cherry and I already want more.

I need some help finding something to cover 17-70mm. I have the kit lens, but I want something that is sharper. The 50mm 1.8II is awesome, but since it is a prime, it limits my range.

I like shooting people, I plan on doing some outdoor photoshoots with models, studio photography, and eventually do weddings in the near future. Keep in mind that my account here is about as old as my Rebel XT is, so I am a complete gnub. Also, note that I am a very lazy photographer, I dont enjoy swapping lenses at all.

Here is my dilemma:
Ive been reading up on the 17-40L and the 24-70L. Both seem like very good lenses. Both serve different purposes, both have their pros, and cons. One is nearly twice the price as the other.

Right now, I can afford one of these lenses, or the other, not both. So my budget is about $1200-$1300, but having money left over after this whole dilemma would be awesome too. While reading up on the board the last 2 days, another lense came into play, and now I feel like a child at Toys R Us, who cant decide on what he wants. Ive read wonderful things about the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX DG Macro. This lens is only about a 3rd of the price of the Canon 24-70L.


Soooo, what do you guys think:

1: Duh, Just buy the Sigma lens, spend only around $400 have an excellent lens that covers 24-70 and have a fat wad of cash left in your pocket gnub!

2: Just buy the 17-40L because its an L lens! Save the rest of the cash and buy the 24-70L the Sigma Lens wont match with the rest of your lenses, the rest of your lenses are Canon lenses, gnub!

3: Pssst, over here. Just blow all of your money on the Canon 24-70L. All of your money will be gone, but who cares, its an L lens, the coolest of the cool.

4: Easy choice, why dont you just get the Canon 17-40L AND Sigma lens, since it suits your budget, and you can get both of these lenses for about the same price as the 24-70L. 2 is better than 1.

5: Damn you for having such dilemmas.

Your thoughts are appreciated

[ssim]

I love my 24-70. It is a sturdy build to almost a tad too heavy but it can take a few bumps (or drops in my case) and never miss a beat. Given what you say you want to shoot you will probably undoubetly end up with the 17-40 as well.

One lens that has been getting alot of good reviews is the Tamron 28-75. The images that I have seen have been very good. This could be an option for you.

I have never regretted the 24-70. It has worked flawlessly for me. The one thing that does take a bit of getting used to is that when you shoot at 24mm the lens is fully extended and at 70mm the lens is retracted all the way back. Kind of threw me for a loop when I first got it. They really could have designed a better hood for the thing though.

I'm not a Sigma fan. I would get the Canon 24-70 and then save up for the 17-40. The 14-70 is very versatile and will serve you very well in most of the situations that you described. I've shot a couple of weddings and I used the 24-70 pretty much through the whole thing. If you have a larger group the 17-40 would then come in handy.

[MegaTron]

Tamron 28-75...............Ahhhhhhhhh, now I have to do research another lens!

[grego]

Besides the 17-40, you can also look into the 16-35 L if you want a faster wide angle.

But for a walk around one, I think 24-70 would do fine. You can't go wrong with Sigma, either or the Tamron. It's really up to you. I'd suggest trying them out if you have the chance to. That's the best way to get an idea on what you'd prefer. The Sigma will be lighter of course.

[MegaTron]

Weight is not really a factor for me. I work out everyday, so the extra half pound or pound is not a factor.

I know I shouldnt be in any sort of a hurry, but im trying to get as much bang for my buck as I can out of $1300.


Im pretty sure that if I get the Canon 24-70L, I wont regret it, but then I prob wont be able to afford another lens for some time. Some people say that since I am new, I should just get 1 good lens, and try to master it. I think completely opposite though. Id rather have a bunch of lenses to try out, even though I am lazy, I get bored rather easily.

[grego]

Originally Posted by MegaTron

Im pretty sure that if I get the Canon 24-70L, I wont regret it, but then I prob wont be able to afford another lens for some time. Some people say that since I am new, I should just get 1 good lens, and try to master it. I think completely opposite though. Id rather have a bunch of lenses to try out, even though I am lazy, I get bored rather easily.

Well you really won't, it's just could you use more versatility with 2 lens(wide angle and normal zoom) more than 1? If there's no rush for both, I think the 24-70 would be solid.

For me, in my case, I'm kinda waiting for the 16-35. Can't beat that, atleast for what I need it for.

[MegaTron]

Man, now, since the Canon 28-135IS is a player since its around the same price as the Tamron and the Sigma of about the same range.

Damn it.

[grego]

Originally Posted by MegaTron

Man, now, since the Canon 28-135IS is a player since its around the same price as the Tamron and the Sigma of about the same range.

Damn it.

But that Tamron and Sigma are both f/2.8. I always like fast lens. I need them for what I do generally.

[Mohawk]

I have tried the Tamrons and Sigmas with no luck. Not to say they are not good lenses, or produce great images. I personally have never had good expieriences with 3rd party lenses.

As far as my Canon 24-70 2.8L. It does the job as it should, it replaced a Tamron of equivalant focal range, I have been very happy with the results. Just don't try 100 or 200% crops on every image, this is not a prime and results will vary.

Also, I'll tell you my most used lens is my 70-200mm 2.8L IS. I have the f4 version still for some reason, but it is not fast enough. I find this focal range most usable for most everything other then landscapes. And the IS just makes it that more usable in low light situations while hand holding. Maybe consider selling your f4 and doing a little upgrading. Just a thought, as this lens is used much more then I ever thought possible, and makes for a great portrait lens.

Mike

[CorruptedPhotographer]

4 and 5...

Why I say get the 17-40 L and Sigma 24-70? Because I think the Sigma 24-70 is better than the Canon 24-70 L

Why I think that?

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/2470shootout

this will tell you why I think that.

[condyk]

Listening to and sifting advice is difficult isn't it? But at least you seem to have an open mind and eye for your max. budget ... great start!

Some quite varied information above and all worth considering according to your own priorities.

Personally, I always ignore any advice where people say they never consider third party lenses. If that's the case they have no current basis of comparison and it also shows a lack of open mindedness that is hardly likely to encourage my trust.

I ignore people who post 'me too' ie I have a XYZ and I love it, with no further details of why they chose it. Again, no evidence of having considered anything else but what they bought so why would I listen.

I ignore anyone who say 'hey, you know you'll buy XYZ eventually so blow you budget now and join our club'. It doesn't account for financial circumstances of the buyer and assumes we all have the same needs or expectations as them.

So, what are you left with? Not much a lot of the time and so you really need to do your own research at places like here, pbase, fredmiranda, photographyreview, photozone.de ... focus first on views of people who have owned a lens ... it makes a difference ... and try and get a sense of trends, i.e. some lenses seem to attract lots of complaint type posts, and I would avoid these myself. Others just don't have the quality or the build, and handling is very important I think.

Personally, I have had the Tamron 28-75 and it's a fine buy with some great samples posted here. Very light walkaround and a safe buy. The 28-135 IS did nothing for me when I had one (another lens I bought on 'advice' here).

I now have the Sigma 24-70 which I consider a step up in build and handling. Images I feel are very close between the two tho' my initial view is the Sigma is more 3D in image quality with greater saturation than the Tamron I had, but that doesn't make it better than any Tamron. I do want to try it more tho' before I draw a final conclusion. However, I would not part with the Sigma now as it's shown me enough to know it can really do the business at a great price. Nice weight and balance. A lens I know I can trust, which means a lot to me, and which can produce great images with minimal post processing.

The Canon 24-70 has yet to convince me overall at the price, tho' I have seen a few fine shots. It would be competitive image wise at around £300-400. The lens costs around £900 in the Uk V's the Sigma at £280 and the Tamron at £260. Personally, after looking at it, I dismissed it as overpriced. The decision for me would be how much value do I add for the Canon USM motor ... the answer in this case is zero. You may think different depending on what you want it for. For a general walkaround the USM is nice but hardly essential at all in my view.

My next buy will be a second hand 100-400mm IS L Canon and then the Tokina 12-24 wide, both based on lots of research and an open mind. I would advise you to get the Sigma 24-70 and the Tokina 12-24 too for your hard earned cash. I think you'll be delighted ... and well in budget The 17-40 L is a superb option too, but lacks a bit for me at the longer end. The 18-50mm 2.8 is an option with fine reviews and perhaps more flexible.

Of course, finally, buying anything just because it's cool is deeply uncool Hopefully, you can do the research and arrive at a conclusion that meets your own needs, whether that be a 24-70L or anything else.

Take care ...

[xuxu1]

You have the money...?
You want a HQ Lens for a life time...?
You want a HQ Lens that works reliable on your future canon bodys...?
You want to .... (and so on)

If you answer all of the first three questions with "YES" then it´s a nobrainer. Go for the 24-70L

I´m not saying that 3rd party lenses are no good!

ED

[Michaelmjc]

I say number 5.. haha.

I would say get the 17-40L. It's a great lens, super sharp and it's a L. I don't think you will be dissapointed although macro lenses are great for blurry backgrounds. If that is something you want then you might want to get the sigma.

P.S. Corruptedphotographer the link you posted doesn't work.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

Michaelmjc, works fine man
What do you mean by doesnt work? Does it seem that pbase.com is unavailable? Possibly fstopjojo has deleted the gallery? I dont know what you meanI, I just clicked on it and works fine. Also, next time, it would help to grab my or others attention by adding [b ] text [/b ] (without spaces). - I posted directions incase others dont know no offense

[condyk]

Link worked for me ... I thought I'd have a look again at the tests to check I wasn't dreaming Fstop also has another set of tests of the 24-70 Sigma there, besides the one V's the L version.