Best Lens for the Money in a zoom range

Hey Guys,

Looking to expand my lens selection. I currently own a 17-40L and a 40d. Looking for something to fill the gap up to 100mm. Like a 24-105, or something similar. I had a 28-105, but the quality just wasn't there, it wasn't very sharp and the colors were off. Looking to not break the bank, I prefer buying used. Not looking to buy out of this thread, just recommendations. Looking for great quality, and reasonable price. Brand doesn't matter to me.

Thanks
Jeramy

Get the 24-105. It's a nice lens. I actually have my friend's 24-105 f/4L IS on my 7D in my messenger bag right now because he borrowed my 24-70 f/2.8L and I wanted something just in case I needed to shoot something short while he had my 24-70. Anyway, I think it's a handy zoom with a convenient focal range, and the IS is really good.

ocabj wrote in post #13897327
Get the 24-105. It's a nice lens. I actually have my friend's 24-105 f/4L IS on my 7D in my messenger bag right now because he borrowed my 24-70 f/2.8L and I wanted something just in case I needed to shoot something short while he had my 24-70. Anyway, I think it's a handy zoom with a convenient focal range, and the IS is really good.

I know it's an awesome lens, but I just bought the 17-40 so my funds are a little low. The 17-40 also lives on my camera, so I'm looking for more of an accessory lens more than a full time. Looking for a little less expensive option.

The 24-105 is an impressive lens. I originally didn't think much of it but having bought the 5D2 kit, I'm really impressed with it and will definitely be keeping it.

It's very sharp wide open and is like a scalpel by the time you reach F8 or so. IS works very, very well too. Nothing like having IS at 24mm.

you cant go wrong with 24-105 it's a good all around lens imo.

What about the 28-135 with IS? Those can be had "cheap" (around $250) and are pretty decent lenses...

You probably shouldn't have gotten the 17-40 in the first place if money matters.

With the price of 17-40L, I can get a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 Non-VC + 85mm F1.8. Then spend money on probably a 100mm Macro or something like that if you want a 100mm focal length.
If it's zoom, sell 17-40L and get 24-105. Much versatile and better with IS.

Chris R/T wrote in post #13897363
What about the 28-135 with IS? Those can be had "cheap" (around $250) and are pretty decent lenses...

He already said he tried it and didn't like the quality.

ocabj wrote in post #13897380
He already said he tried it and didn't like the quality.

Incorrect. He said he tried the 28-105.

The 28-135 is a completely different lens.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=188563

28-105

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=248576

MuteGoose wrote in post #13897252
I had a 28-105, but the quality just wasn't there, it wasn't very sharp and the colors were off.

The problem with trying to find a general purpose zoom lens that goes out to ~100mm is that they all pretty much will cannibalize the focal range of your 17-40. The Canon offerings (18-135, 28-135, 24-105, etc) as well as stuff by Sigma/Tokina/Tamron (18-135, 16-135, etc) cover at least the long half of the 17-40 range.

If you don't want overlap, I'd get the 70-200 f/4L and not worry about the 41-69mm focal range. Personally, I'd dump the 17-40 for the 24-105. The 24-105 is a more useful general purpose lens, has the same max aperture as your 17-40, and has IS. You trade off 7mm on the wide end , but gain 65mm on the long end.

On a crop body the Canon 17-55 or Tamron 17-70
On FF the 24-105 or 24-70

Lenses that will cover the gap from 40 - 100mm:

18-135
28-135
24-105L
Sigma 18-125

It's a pretty short list if you want a single lens for that range; with the 24-105 being the best of the bunch.

[Looks like I missed a couple, but the others filled those in]

The 28-135 has been mentioned, as has the 24-105. I have both.

The 28-135 is cheap and cheery. It has a similar trombone zoom as the 24-105, but unlike the quality build and feel of the 24-105 the 28-135 has sideways slop and feels relatively cheaply made. It also suffers zoom creep - big time, where I have yet to notice any creep on the 24-105.

The IQ difference is quite noticeable, but mainly when viewing images at 100%. You look at the 24-105 and think yep, that's not bad, you then do the same with the 28-135 and think yuk, that is soft! Processed and shrunk down for the web though both are pretty good, with the edge going to the 24-105. The 28-135 gives great colour and contrast though, I find it the best for things like flower or vegetation shots. Don't get me wrong, it can deliver great shots, I have taken some beauties with it, but I rarely use it these days though and will get around to actually getting serious about selling it one day.

If your budget is really tight I'd say go the 28-135 and just work slightly harder in your processing, if you have a bit of leeway I'd say go the 24-105. Both will fill the range you are looking for.

Get a refurbed 24-105 from Canon USA.

sell the 17-40 and get the 15-85 and a 100mm macro.