canon 24-70 f2.8L or EF 300mm f/4L

as my first L lense?

the reason i would purchase the 24-70 is because my current tammy 28-80 f3.5-5.6 is somewhat beastly. It is a bit dirty, and just feels weak. When it gets hot it seems to not work so well, which is quite annoying. What i mean by this is that the image seems to soften up. The AF is slow. I think its clear that i need something else. I would also just like to have a lens that is a straight up improvement; thus, my choice for considering the 24-70/

On the other hand, i would use the 300 for surfing or other sports, maybe some birds or wildlife on my xti...

not sure which one i should save my $ for. I have plenty of time to save for it, and I will eventually drag my sorry self to the OPT (Oceanside Photo and Telescope) to try out both.

Your advice is appreciated,
Scott

Wow. Two very disparate lenses there.

The 24-70 f/2.8L is a great walkaround on a full-frame camera, which your XTi isn't. You'll seldom see it recommended for a 1.6 crop camera, mostly because it's not wide enough on the short end. It's also very heavy because it's an EF lens that has to capture the FF image circle (and its 2.8 aperture). The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is generally considered superior on a crop camera for it's more "normal" zoom range on a crop.

The 300 f/4L is an entirely different animal, one which many people forgo for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 1.4 extender, as a more versatile choice.

If you're going to spend the kind of money these lenses cost, it's best to do a lot of research on them both, and their alternatives.

totally agree on all of that stuff. been researching my but off, and i won't even be able to upgrade until i get a job this summer...

i have heard many negatives regarding the 17-55f2.8 IS regarding build quality... is it poor, or just below that of an L?

what is the autofocus like on the 70-200 w/ 1.4 compared to that of the 300mm?

thanx

I don't have the 17-55 and have never rented it, so I can't speak first-hand on the build. For the price, it's not the build-quality of an L lens, but you're always paying more for IS. Some have complained about dust behind the front element after some use. It's just that it's really the best available optically (in that range) for a crop, it's a constant f/2.8, and it covers the "normal" zoom range on a crop.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a fantastic lens, with or without an extender. You give up one stop aperture using a 1.4x, or two stops with a 2x, as well as some image quality. It's not going to perform on-par with the 300 prime, but it's much more versatile, and has IS.

Can you rent lenses? It's really the best way to see what's good for you, and for what you shoot, what compromises you'd be willing to make or not, etc.

For the price of the 300 F4, you could get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 AND the Canon 70-300 IS USM. Not 'L' lenses, but quality glass.

I think the 300 F4IS works nicely for outdoor sports in general in good lighting. Birding not so much even with a TC.

??

How can you compare between these two glasses?
You have to decide, what are you shooting the most?

If you will ask (assuming I have nothing), the 24-70 would be the first to get into my bag. (Actually, the 24-105 IS, but this is another story.... )

I think you may find your answer in the signature line for Brett Michael. He has some options in his kit to ask about for that camera.

sarel,
i have considered the 24-105 IS actually, but my question about that is, is the f4 IS good enough to keep up with the 24-70 f2.8?

haha, brett's got a lot of sigmas. i will look into sigma glass

the one reason for me choosing these two is also their cost. the 300 is around the same cost as the 24-70, while the 70-200 f2.8 IS is a few hundred more.

Brett Michael wrote in post #7278312
The 24-70 f/2.8L is a great walkaround on a full-frame camera, which your XTi isn't. You'll seldom see it recommended for a 1.6 crop camera, mostly because it's not wide enough on the short end.

I find it odd that a lens starting at 24mm is instantly ruled out as being too short on a crop body. It really depends on what the person using the lens shots and how they like to frame things up. As I do not have any backdrops or strobe lighting, I still take the kids to a portrait studio to get pictures taken several times a year. My favorite studio uses a 30D with the 24-70 (there are more reasons than just the gear that make me like this particular studio more than some of the other local options).

Now for my indoor shooting, I do need wider than 24mm. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't work for someone else.

well, you make a good point. i used the 28-80 and found the 28 plenty wide, and the 24 could only be better. i have also been doing some research on the 17-55 f2.8 is usm, and it seems to me that the build quality is rather good, its just not metal. but, i have plenty of time, keep the advice coming.

socalfreebordin wrote in post #7282379
well, you make a good point. i used the 28-80 and found the 28 plenty wide, and the 24 could only be better. i have also been doing some research on the 17-55 f2.8 is usm, and it seems to me that the build quality is rather good, its just not metal. but, i have plenty of time, keep the advice coming.

The build quality doesn't relate just to the material of the housing. The zoom mechanism is often loose, and the focus ring is not as nice as 'L' lenses. The IS is possibly some cheaper version.

And yes, they are very different lenses - I guess your question is: Should I upgrade my current lens, or get a new one for new images? That's a question only you can answer, but in your situation, I'd probably opt for an upgrade.

My first lens was a tam 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 as well. I despised that thing. I saved myself up some money and replaced it with the 24-70 as soon as I could. While I was waiting for that one to come into stock, I came across a second hand 70-200 f/4L IS, which I also snapped up.

The 24-70 is almost incomparable to the tammy. Its MFD is much closer (0.38m vs ~1m), it's noticeably wider (24 vs 28), its much sharper across the whole range, the 2.8 constant aperture beats the pants off the 3.5-5.6, it doesn't sound like a terminator when focusing, and last, but probably the most significant, it doesn't feel like a cheap, crappy toy from Target.

I reckon, if you want awesome image quality, get the 24-70 f/2.8, a 70-200 IS of either f/2.8 or f/4 (I'd go the f/4), and an ultra wide angle zoom, such as the tokina 12-24 f/4 or the sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. It'll cost you a bit more than a 17-55 + 300, but you'll love using them

yeah low note lee, i totally agree, that tammy is a photog killer. anyways, for now i have decided to upgrade, and that leads to the good ol' 24-105 vs 24-70 debate. i recognize the fact that 24-70 is much faster, however, that extra bit of range on the 24-105 is rather nice. but comparitvely, how much better is the f2.8 vs the f4 IS?

Hi Scott,

What I've learned in the past about the money you spend on quality lenses, is that there isn't a whole lot of money "spent" over time. Since there is very little depreciation on these lenses, instead of "saving money" and missing the shots for years to come, unless you have to go into debt, you should get the lenses you need. In a grand scheme of things, a couple of thousand dollars isn't something you should lose sleep over.