quality differences

so I get my tax refund back in about a week and I have around 2500 to 3000 to pick up the equipment that I need. I need some zoom lenses to cover quite a range. I was thinking 24 to 105 canon and 70 to 200 canon. My question is is there a huge difference In IQ among the 70 to 200 s.I wanted to get the 2.8 mark 2 but I feel that is just not an option so I was thinking the mark 1 but I'm not sure if I want IS or not.

also with the 24 to 105 does it look " fishy " at any point even though it is not a fish eye. I know some of the wide angles around 24 have that look. I will be shooting skateboarding with it so I wouldn't mind but I didn't know if I would have to deal with it all shooting other things. I will be buying the lens is used so I'm just trying to figure out before I buy them if there's different qualities in this series that have come out.

Also have to buy a 100mm L and grip for my 6D within the budget
I would like to stick with the L Series glass. So I might wait on the 70 to 200 until I have enough to get the newest one. I was considering getting and F 4 but I figured if I shoot portrait style I will once the 2.8 eventually


thoughts for discussion would be helpful
I just posted a thread about this but this thread is specifically for IQ amongst the 70 to 200

Yes, spend your tax refund on someone else... your signature says so!

Nick Aufiero wrote in post #16670015
so I get my tax refund back in about a week and I have around 2500 to 3000 to pick up the equipment that I need. I need some zoom lenses to cover quite a range. I was thinking 24 to 105 canon and 70 to 200 canon. My question is is there a huge difference In IQ among the 70 to 200 s.I wanted to get the 2.8 mark 2 but I feel that is just not an option so I was thinking the mark 1 but I'm not sure if I want IS or not.

also with the 24 to 105 does it look " fishy " at any point even though it is not a fish eye. I know some of the wide angles around 24 have that look. I will be shooting skateboarding with it so I wouldn't mind but I didn't know if I would have to deal with it all shooting other things. I will be buying the lens is used so I'm just trying to figure out before I buy them if there's different qualities in this series that have come out.

Also have to buy a 100mm L and grip for my 6D within the budget
I would like to stick with the L Series glass. So I might wait on the 70 to 200 until I have enough to get the newest one. I was considering getting and F 4 but I figured if I shoot portrait style I will once the 2.8 eventually


thoughts for discussion would be helpful
I just posted a thread about this but this thread is specifically for IQ amongst the 70 to 200

Make it easy for yourself:

Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC

Done.

Very best,

Avoid Tamron like the plague. Compare the Tammy 70-200 2.8 thread and ANY of the canon versions and you will quickly see the difference......

With your budget, I'd likely go with the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 is coupled with a zeikos grip. You can get both of those lenses used plus the grip for right around 2k or so and put the rest away to save up for a used 135L.

Brules wrote in post #16670034
Avoid Tamron like the plague. Compare the Tammy 70-200 2.8 thread and ANY of the canon versions and you will quickly see the difference......

what a load of crap.

Brules wrote in post #16670034
Avoid Tamron like the plague. Compare the Tammy 70-200 2.8 thread and ANY of the canon versions and you will quickly see the difference......

It's not April 1.

You're drunk.

Very best,

The 24-105 doesnt get "fishy" but there is some distortion at 24mm

MalVeauX wrote in post #16670032
Make it easy for yourself:

Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC

Done.

Very best,

+1. This combo works very well for me.

Brules wrote in post #16670034
Avoid Tamron like the plague. Compare the Tammy 70-200 2.8 thread and ANY of the canon versions and you will quickly see the difference......

Says the one person on the planet with that opinion. Both suggested Tamron lenses are well respected, worthy competitors to the over-priced Canon options.

Brules wrote in post #16670034
Compare the Tammy 70-200 2.8 thread and ANY of the canon versions and you will quickly see the difference......

EOS5DC wrote in post #16670137
Says the one person on the planet with that opinion.

What, only one person believes that people should check out real images for themselves and base their decision on their findings?

I know this is the Interwebs, where reality comes a poor second to baseless opinion, but I'm with Brules.

Why not the 70-200 f/4 IS? One of the sharpest zoom lens wide open Canon makes.

Unless you plan on shooting fairly close to wide open all the time the f/4 version will do everything just as well with the possible exception of Canon's f/2.8 II. I shoot almost exclusively with primes and for portraits I find myself with mostly in the f/4 to f/5.6 to f/8 aperture ranges. Even my 135L I find myself stopping down a bit for more depth of field. If you have the room while shooting, try zooming in to 200 mm and take a look at the dof and quality of bokeh of the f/4 IS lens.

Brules wrote in post #16670034
Avoid Tamron like the plague. Compare the Tammy 70-200 2.8 thread and ANY of the canon versions and you will quickly see the difference......

Really...I bet if 10 shots were posted taken with those lenses, you would not be able to tell which lens took which shots.

If you have $3,000 to spend, I would go with a 24-70 II and 70-200 f/4 IS combo if you can wing it… That is a powerhouse combo IMO, unless you can stretch for the f/2.8L II version, but may not be required in your case. The f/4 IS if a *very* strong optical performer.

Brules wrote in post #16670034
Avoid Tamron like the plague. Compare the Tammy 70-200 2.8 thread and ANY of the canon versions and you will quickly see the difference......

Tamron is the best 3rd party lens maker in my opinion. THis statement is obscene. Post some examples side by side for me.