Need help considering first "L" lens (24-105 & 70-200)

I got rid of a few lenses in order to get me the first "L" lenses.
So I am looking to buy two "L" lenses, 24-105mm f4L & 70-200mm f4L non-is.
And these purchases will replace my current lenses, 28-135mm IS & 70-300mm, possibly 20-35mm as well. So am I making a huge leap from my current setup?
Will these "L" lenses produce much much better pictures? I had seen numerous pictures taken with "L" lenses but not having handled any "L" lenses personally, I was hoping someone can shine some light about what I am getting into.

I have the 24-105 f/4 as my walkabout lens on my 5D2 and I love it. Not so much on a crop camera tho.
As for the 70-200 f/4 non IS, you'd be better saving a bit more and getting the IS version. I've had them both (still have the IS version) and I feel it's sharper and better in low light.

Rent an L lens for a week. Then you will know first hand perhaps if they guarantee better results.

I recently picked up a 24-105 and am very happy with this lens. It focuses very fast and seems very sharp even wide open. Maybe I do to much reading but it even seems sharper at f5.6. It is also very well built. It is my first and only "L" lens so I cant compare to others. Obviously it is not as fast as some but then you will pay more for an f2.8 and likely not have the reach.

I had the 28-135 but on a 50d and was never over;y impressed with this lens (but this was when I first bought a dslr so it very well could have been user error). One thing about the 24-105 is that it has a bit of vignetting and distortion that may not be to noticeable, but with the lens correction tool in lightroom there is a definite improvement, so it may be better if you have some type lens correction software. DPP has this but I am not sure how it works. Overall it is a good lens (im my opinion)

I replaced my 70-300mm IS (non-L) with the 70-200 f/4 IS several years ago, soon after the lens was introduced. It was a significant improvement over the 70-300 in image quality and AF performance. The L is sharp wide open at f/4, and was still sharper with better AF performance than the 70-300 when I attached a 1.4x TC to the 70-200. The 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS) is not supposed to be as sharp, though I have never personally owned one.

I cannot compare the 24-105L to the 28-135, as I have never owned the latter of those. I do really like the 24-105L on my 5D3, though.

How do you intend to use the 70-200? If you are going to be shooting lots of fast-moving sports, the IS may not be needed (because you'll have shutter speeds well above 1/400 sec I expect), but if you will be doing non-moving target shooting with shutter speeds slower than 1/200 sec (especially low light situations) then the IS will help tremendously, IMHO. Unless you are always going to use a tripod, I suppose.

I know adding IS to the 70-200 adds a fair amount of cost, but it will probably be well worth it.

IMHO, YMMV,

shinksma

I own the EF 70-200mm f4L USM lens. I found it to be very good at IQ. I shoot it many times at high ISO, and shutter speeds over 1/200 sec. It is much lighter than both the 2.8 with IS, and f4 with IS, so shooting birds on a perch is easy. I've even had good luck shooting BIF, but at almost max IOS, and max shutter speeds. You do have to be more aware of the light when using it. I think if I had to do it again, I'd get a copy of the 2.8 with IS. I shoot a good bit in the evening hours, and sometimes the herons are just to dark for the f4. So, I'll be looking for a good used 70-200 f2.8L USM sometime soon, and will sell the f4 non-IS.

In any event you will see a greatly improved IQ from any "L" lens you may purchase. The EF-S high performer is the EF-S 10-22mm USM is as good as any "L" lens could be on a cropped sensor body. My EF-S 28-135mm IS STM lens is also pretty sharp, but I use mainly for street photography. The 100mm 2.8L IS USM is tack sharp, but I hear the non "L" version is just the same. Both with or without IS, both lenses make good portrait lenses. The 40mm STM is also a great prime lens for simi-wide angle shots, and portraits. You cannot go wrong by adding "L" glass, beware it is expensive, but there are some very good EF lenses that are just as good as "L" glass. The secret is the word "glass". Those really good EF lenses just don't have the same water seals, and dust seals as the "L" quality lenses, but have the same optics.

Impossible to say whether it will give you better photos or not. It would really depend on how you currently shoot. If you are shooting at 300mm and f8 alot, then you might end up with photos not as nice with the 70-200 as you have lost 33% of your focal length and the benefit of f4 isn't there. The 24-105 should be a nice replacement either way. Both lenses will certainly give you, the photographer, a great opportunity to take fantastic photos in various settings.

I started digital with a 1st gen Rebel & now use a 50D ... eventually I intend to go full frame as well. My first standard zoom lens was the 28-135 and I later obtained a 24-85 ... both lenses have been enjoyable and I'm glad that I've owned/used both.

My first L was the 70-200 IS and the all around improvement of images was dramatic compared to an older push-pull 70-200 that I had been using. Likewise, when I got the 24-105 I was pleased with the improvement (perhaps not as dramatic) but I think that my time spent "learning" on the other lenses served me well when I finally got a couple of L lenses.

A few observations:

• An L lens doesn't automatically create better images but it does make it possible for you to get better images, especially in situations where a less capable lens might not get the job done.
  
• Having IS is a huge plus, especially on the 70-200 ... my keeper rate is a lot higher because of this and I'm glad I spent the extra for the IS version.
  
• As much as I like & use my L lenses I still have several non-L's that I use frequently, especially primes and since they are meeting my needs it may be awhile before I go L shopping again.

Thanks for posting this thread. I am looking at a very similar set of purchases. I am looking at the 24-105 to replace my 18-135 and from there (depending from what I learn about f/4 with IS) I will decide whether I will purchase the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (version I). The 70-200 will replace my OLD tamron 75-300. If I miss the reach (which I doubt), I will get a tc to add to the lot. When/if I move to FF I intend to carry those lenses over.

I always focus on my standard walk around zoom.

If you are unhappy with the 28-135, I'd go for the 24-105 first.

It's the lens that will be on my camera as a default and when I only want to walk around with a single lens. The 24-105 focal length and IS makes the 24-105 a very good choice.

marcosv wrote in post #16005555
.. The 24-105 focal length and IS makes the 24-105 a very good choice.

And it's the walkabout lens of choice for me on a FF.
On my SL1 I'm sticking with the 18-55 STM as my walkabout lens.

NewCreation wrote in post #16002823
Thanks for posting this thread. I am looking at a very similar set of purchases. I am looking at the 24-105 to replace my 18-135 and from there (depending from what I learn about f/4 with IS) I will decide whether I will purchase the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (version I). The 70-200 will replace my OLD tamron 75-300. If I miss the reach (which I doubt), I will get a tc to add to the lot. When/if I move to FF I intend to carry those lenses over.

Brenda,
I don't know your reasons for considering the 70-200 v1. If it is financial, please consider two things before making your decision. The non-IS Canon and v2 are better optically. And, You can get f/2.8 and IS (OS, VC) in the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM or the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. Both are well respected lenses that go for about 1/2 of price of the Canon v2. I have the Sigma and am happy with it.

Best wishes on your shopping trip.

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16005828
Brenda,
I don't know your reasons for considering the 70-200 v1. If it is financial, please consider two things before making your decision. The non-IS Canon and v2 are better optically. And, You can get f/2.8 and IS (OS, VC) in the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM or the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. Both are well respected lenses that go for about 1/2 of price of the Canon v2. I have the Sigma and am happy with it.

Best wishes on your shopping trip.

Thanks for the input. It is a matter of money. It's about how much I can justify spending on a hobby and if I want other toys, too. DH will buy me anything but, sheesh, 2G on a lens when I spent $650 on my body/lens combo in January? I have been buying "toys" like no body's business. Since Jan I have purchased the 60d/18-135 combo, PSE, triggers, 2 flashes, stands, umbrellas, grip, filters, a nifty fifty with useless attachments. Gah...kinda embarrassing when I list it out. The point is I want to choose wisely and keep it in perspective.

NewCreation wrote in post #16005885
Thanks for the input. It is a matter of money. It's about how much I can justify spending on a hobby and if I want other toys, too. DH will buy me anything but, sheesh, 2G on a lens when I spent $650 on my body/lens combo in January? I have been buying "toys" like no body's business. Since Jan I have purchased the 60d/18-135 combo, PSE, triggers, 2 flashes, stands, umbrellas, grip, filters, a nifty fifty with useless attachments. Gah...kinda embarrassing when I list it out. The point is I want to choose wisely and keep it in perspective.

The 70-200 f4 IS is an outstanding lens in every respect. I used to own a f2.8 version (non-IS) and sold it mainly because of the size and weight - it's a very large beast indeed, and I found I was leaving it at home more often than not, just because I didn't want to carry it around with me. I replaced it with the f4 IS and couldn't be happier. The f4 IS is small enough and light enough to carry around pretty much anywhere. I get wonderful results with it. If you don't need the f2.8 (I haven't missed it), then it's a perfect choice.