L series vs rest of canon lenses

Hey, first post, seems like a great resource.
Anyway, convinced the wife to spring for a 5D, originally was going the 20D route, but hey, miracles happen. With this cost, the lense expense is now an issue. If I am going to try to convince her that the 24-105L is my best choice for a walkaround lense I need some ammo. One burning question....Are the images I see three times the quality of what I will get with the 28-135 IS USM. because this lense is three times the cost (or2.315xs the cost)? A majority of my usage is going to be My kids events, (lots of kid pics, Disneyland, xmas etc)holidays, an occaisional sporting event, School events. maybe later I will try to put this camera to work.
All thoughts welcome
Thanks
Shakeyhand

Tell her that the 28-135 won't cut it in low light and wouldn't be good to photograph the kids at school events. Not sure what the aperture on the 24-105L is, but if the number is greater than 2.8, it won't either. Get a lens with a fixed aperture of 2.8 for lower light shots, like the 24-70L.

The cost of the lens isn't just the quality, so no it's not 3 times better.

However, with that particular L lens, you get the weather proofing(although the body needs to be also to complete it), fast AF, newest generation IS, great build quality. Then when you are talking about these two lens, do you need the extra 4 mm wide or do you need the longer reach?

If you are going to put this lens to use the majority of the time, then the cost starts making up for its use. If its used only a little bit of time, then the cost is not worth it.

We have no idea how good a photographer you are. If the lens is letting you down, you need the better lens. If you are the weakest link, the lens won't really help you.

You are spending an awful lot on a body, so I assume you are a professional or money is no object. Go for the L glass.

Graham

I dont think I would like to use a 28-135 on a full frame camera.

malla1962 wrote:
I dont think I would like to use a 28-135 on a full frame camera.

Having owned one I wouldn't use it full stop unless I had to, but it's probably better suited overall on a FF than a crop body unless one also ownes a wider lens. Personally, I would have chosen a 20D and spent more money on lenses: crap in/crap out. Simple as that. On a FF camera the 24-105 IS L should be outstanding. There may be times you need a faster aperture for capturing lower light situations tho'. You could use the 50mm 1.8/1.4 or 85mm 1.8 for that. I personally wouldn''t buy a 24-70 L but many here like it. It's big and heavy and, for me at least, doesn't convince often enough when it comes to IQ. But there was a thread a while back with at least some excellent shots so worth considering.

liza, 24-70 will be a problem... look at this nick (hint: no IS)

Uhmmmm I opted for a 20D and all the L lenses I could afford....

IMO the bodies are disposable and will ultimately be replaced....

ONe of the best points being made.........What is the weakest link? If you are going to splurge on such an expensive body you may as well go L lenses. You will end up wanting them anyways.

The 28-135IS is a good walkabout lens for a full frame. It was, after all, designed for 35mm, before digital SLR's were in common useage. For the uses you state, i can't see how it could be considered inadequate, except for a pixel peeping perfectionist on planet zanussi, not the real world. This forum is full of those by the way; its called reality loss and I've nearly been there myself a few times. The 5D sounds OTT for your useage too. It's your photographic skill that counts with the average dslr and lens, not a bagful of L class glass, that just helps you achieve perfection when you are 95% there already.

For an all around lens the 24-105 should work great. Is it worth three times the price, that's up to you. Depending on your skill you'll get many more keepers based on sharpness, color and contrast. If you have the money and use it a lot, I would say it is definitely worth it. If it's a casual hobby it isn't, but then neither is a 5D worth 6 times a good point and shoot.

If it were me, I would buy the 24-70 f/2.8 L and an 85 f/1.8. You'll have two excellent fast lens that you can use in more situations than the 24-105.

I love the 24-70L on my 20D, but I have seen much better results on a full frame (1DS, or 5D) from this lens.

Enjoy.

I would think the focal range of the 24-105L would be a good choice considering what you mention your use will be. I'm not sure about the f/4 maxium aperture. I just feel somewhat ill at ease with a lens slower than f/2.8. My choice would be (this is for a FF and your uses) the 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and the 200mm f/2.8. I think that comes to about what a 24-105L costs, maybe a bit more.

What are you currently using for a camera?
Neither the 24-105 nor the 28-135 will be fast enough for school events/holidays/Christ​mas activities inside without a good flash, so don't forget to budget for that. And you probably won't be allowed to use the flash for a lot of the school events (especially athletic competitions). So you'll need at least one fast lens you can count on getting you in range. You might be better off rolling back to a 20D and getting a couple of lenses (one fast, either prime or limited range zoom, one slower with more reach) and a flash. I'd incline to the most punch you can get in an E-TTL flash, which is the 580EX.

For about the price of the 24-105 you might be able to get the 70-200 f/4 L (for school outdoor athletic events, say), an f/2ish prime (maybe the 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8) for indoors, and have enough left for the Sigma DG 500 Super flash, not as powerful as the 580EX, but not too shabby to augment it when possible. Or, by going with the "nifty fifty (50 f/1.8) rather than the other prime you could manage the 580EX instead of the Sigma. Roll back to the 20D, and you could substitute one of the f/2.8 24/28-70/75 zooms for the prime at the cost of a litttle speed and the gain of a lot of flexibility.

Welcome to the forum.
I've had the 28-135 IS a few years. I recently bought the Canon 24-70L, and the major difference to me is richer more saturated colour, and better sharpness, and faster autofocus. So much so that I don't use the 28-135 at all now.
So if you're looking at the 24-105L, it reportedly has sharpness equal or better to the 24-70L and excellent colour and AF. The f4 vs f2.8 is the issue that made me choose the 24-70L. In low light, I was finding I could not stop subject motion with slower shutter speeds even with IS.
With the 28-135IS vs 24-105L IS ,if you shoot a lot at the long end of these lenses, the 24-105 will give you a stop better shutter speed due to the constant f4 max aperture. IMO, no comparison. The 28-135IS is a good consumer zoom, but the 24-105IS (and 24-70L) take performance to the next level.
The advice given in this thread to invest in glass moreso than the body is wise. You asked if the 2.3x cost is worth the benefit, you should ask the same thing about the 5D vs 20D issue too. For the investment, I think you'll be better served with a 20D body and better glass rather than a 5D and cheaper glass. Remember camera bodies depreciate relatively quickly compared to good quality lenses.

Regards,

Eugene

I second or third or whatevere it is the idea that the 20D will do everything you are talking about for a lot less, allowing you to get some good lenses.

Welcome to the forums,

Have to agree with everyone here, need to think of glass more than the body, it's like putting the cart before the horse. But if the FF camera is the must have maybe save a little longer for the lenses already listed. I prefer the 1.3/1.6 FOV crop bodies to the idea of FF to be honest as for most shooting (except really wide) it's a boon.