Best walk-around lens (for me...)

I shoot a 50D, and do 75% sports and 25% other, such as casual family stuff. My budget is in the $900 range, and I am down to 2 lenses: 24-105 f/4L or the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, unless there is another recommendation.

I am thinking that someday, but probably not in the too-near future, that I might switch to full-frame, which would rule out the 17-55, but it's a long enough time-frame that it wouldn't matter.

What I am looking for is a lens I can keep on all the time, and use it probably mostly for the casual stuff, and using my 70-200 f/2.8 IS for the sports stuff. For example: I am taking a few trips this summer with the family, one to Sesame Place in a few weeks, and then Philadelphia in August. I am going to take the 70-200, but don't really want it on the camera all the time, so I want something decent to keep on for that kind of thing..

I do have a 28-135, but would like to sell it to further fund this purchase.

So, if you can understand my jibberish, all advice will be taken well with me, that's why I post here, you guys ROCK!!

Thanks in advance,


Ken

What % of the sports you shoot are indoors vs outdoors?

I got the 24-105 and it's great. Stays on my camera about 75% of the time. It's a good walk around and I like having the IS when taking pictures of my kids.

rick_reno wrote in post #12542079
What % of the sports you shoot are indoors vs outdoors?

50-50 actually... I just got a small job shooting running races this summer, and I also do some high school stuff at my wife's school, and I do winter stuff for them too, so that is indoors. That's why I sprung for the 70-200 f/2.8 instead of the f/4.

And while some think having an "L" is "cool", it doesn't matter to me. I would just like something to handle the sports end as well as the family end, if that is possible.

Many have both of the lense's you are considering.

Only you know what will be more desirable, the short end of the 17, the 2.8 for low light
and IS

or

the 105 at the long end and f4 .

Trade off's , compromises......Alway​s

Bianchi wrote in post #12542150
Only you know what will be more desirable, the short end of the 17, the 2.8 for low light
and IS

or

the 105 at the long end and f4 .

Funny... I don't really mind if the low end is 17 or 24, and 2.8 or 4 doesn't matter either. I guess it just comes down to image quality. I have been reading a lot about both, and a lot of people love both. I like the range of the 24-105, but I like the f/.28 of the 17-55. Should I be worried about the gap between the 55 and the 70 of my 70-200?

kenjancef wrote in post #12542192
Funny... I don't really mind if the low end is 17 or 24, and 2.8 or 4 doesn't matter either. I guess it just comes down to image quality. I have been reading a lot about both, and a lot of people love both. I like the range of the 24-105, but I like the f/.28 of the 17-55. Should I be worried about the gap between the 55 and the 70 of my 70-200?

There is a bigger difference between 17mm and 24mm at the wide end than the 56mm to 69mm gap at the longer end.

So I assume you don't shoot low light very much such that you don't have any preference toward f2.8 vs f4, not to mention the better DOF control you get with an f2.8 over an f4 lens?

If you don't care about f2.8, the 15-85mm is a pretty handy lens.

Although when you say "a lens I can leave on most of the time" that usually points to an f2.8. "All the time" includes indoors and fading light outdoors, so I would probably go with an f2.8.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12542217
There is a bigger difference between 17mm and 24mm at the wide end than the 56mm to 69mm gap at the longer end.

So I assume you don't shoot low light very much such that you don't have any preference toward f2.8 vs f4, not to mention the better DOF control you get with an f2.8 over an f4 lens?

The low light I do for indoor sports would be handled by the 70-200, but in thinking about it, if I wanted to go lighter, the 17-55 would be better to take than the 70-200. Doing family stuff might be in low light, especially at night. So I think I might be leaning towards the 17-55.

And see, that's why I love this forum... I never knew that there was a bigger difference at the low end.

One other question then: What makes the 17-55 just as expensive as the 24-105? Is it because it's f/2.8 and has IS? Another forum member recommended the 17-55, and after seeing the cost, I almost flipped...

tkbslc wrote in post #12542237
Although when you say "a lens I can leave on most of the time" that usually points to an f2.8. "All the time" includes indoors and fading light outdoors, so I would probably go with an f2.8.

Yea, you explained it much better... lol... Like if I am out with friends/family and I take my bag, and I want to just whip out my camera to take shots, or if I'm out with my 3 year old son, I'd like to have a quality lens that I can keep on there.

I'm kind of in a simular situation. I own both Formats, so do I buy the 17 55 2.8 is or the 17 40 4L

In your case, if your worried about the gap, then its the 24 105

In my case I know the 17 40 is the universal for both formats, but I also like what the 17 55 has to offer

Oncw again trade off's, compromises...!!!

Yeah, it's the f2.8 vs 4 thing on pricing. Check out the prices for the new 70-200 f2.8 vs the F4 models.

if you have never had a lens wider than your 28-135, you will be shocked at how wide 17mm is. I find it essential to have a lens at least 18mm wide in my kit because it opens so many possibilities.

P.S. if you are concerned about pricing, Sigma and Tamron make great 17-50 f2.8 lenses from $400-700.

Bianchi wrote in post #12542260
I'm kind of in a simular situation. I own both Formats, so do I buy the 17 55 2.8 is or the 17 40 4L

In your case, if your worried about the gap, then its the 24 105

In my case I know the 17 40 is the universal for both formats, but I also like what the 17 55 has to offer

Oncw again trade off's, compromises...!!!

If I did own both formats, I'd really be screwed!!! lol.. I was actually thinking of getting a used 5D to get into full-frame, but the consensus is that the 50D would be better for sports, so I will stick with it for a while. And besides, I have a T1i as a backup that I let my wife use when I got my 50D. So either lens will work for me...

tkbslc wrote in post #12542268
Yeah, it's the f2.8 vs 4 thing on pricing. Check out the prices for the new 70-200 f2.8 vs the F4 models.

if you have never had a lens wider than your 28-135, you will be shocked at how wide 17mm is. I find it essential to have a lens at least 18mm wide in my kit because it opens so many possibilities.

P.S. if you are concerned about pricing, Sigma and Tamron make great 17-50 f2.8 lenses from $400-700.

Pricing isn't a concern since both are pretty much the same when buying from here. And I do have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and see the price difference, didn't know it would be the same at the low end.

I was in your situation before getting my 24-105mm lens. Use your 70-200 at f/4.0 and f/2.8 to determine if having a lens faster than f/4.0 would be more important than having a focal length that zoomed to 105mm.

The 24-105mm lens with a flash works for my needs when inside. There is not enough light in my house to use f/2.8 without a flash. Actually whenever f/4.0 won't work f/2.8 hasn't been fast enough either. I have never needed anything wider than 24mm but often use the long end.

The overlap in focal length of the 24-105mm lens and the 70-200mm lens is really nice. The 24mm end on my 24-105mm lens is the shortest focal length I have ever used in nearly 40 years of SLR photography, maybe I don't know what I am missing. I do love telephoto lenses.

I don't know about your family but there is a 3 year old and an 11 month old in mine. Getting back and zooming in on the children allows space for them to "do their thing" without paying attention to me.

In case you haven't guess, I love my 24-105mm and 70-200mm lenses for family and general purpose photography.