Bit of a lens conundrum

I've an oncoming trip to Europe and am in need of a zoom lens that will cover the 24-70 mm range. The ideal purchase is of course the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM—and then I wouldn't have to start this thread—but that might not be doable, and thus I'm forced to look at two alternatives: the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM or the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM.

Anyone knows if Canon got around to fix that focus shift/RSA problem on newer copies of the EF 24-70mm f/4L? Apparently, barring that issue, the lens in question has better quality than the EF 24-105mm f/4L II.

Those of you who own these last two lenses, I'd appreciate your input.

Of course, whilst the trip is the main pressing reason for the purchase, I do want the new lens to join my professional toolbox: for now I've covered said focal length range with primes, but a zoom is long overdue—changing lenses isn't always ideal.

Thanks in advance.

Why not the 24-70 mkI? It's a tremendous value now.

gonzogolf wrote in post #18552110
Why not the 24-70 mkI? It's a tremendous value now.

Yes, of course!

I am very surprised that the OP did not even mention this in his post. . He didn't list it as one of the alternatives he is considering, nor did he dismiss it. . Just no mention of it at all ....... which is quite strange indeed.


.

I can't find version I of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L new anymore, hence I didn't consider it.

What about the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (Gen2) or Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Art?

Alveric wrote in post #18552126
I can't find version I of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L new anymore, hence I didn't consider it.

Oh, no need to go buying new. . There is usually pretty poor value in new lens purchases. . Buying used ensures that you get the best value for your dollar.

In fact, I've bought a good deal of lenses, and the only lens I regret buying is the one lens that I bought new. . Never again.


.

24-70L II > 24-70L f4 > 24-105L II.

24-105 STM? Optically superior to the 24-105 original. Inexpensive, but a tad slow to focus. Fine for travel, but I wouldn't shoot action with it.

Edit:
Better IS, too.

If it's of any help at all, I've been to Europe five times. I found that 24mm on a full frame camera wasn't wide or tall enough. My last two trips I used a 16-35 and was much happier with the results.

James P, what were you shooting mostly? I plan on taking my 24mm TS-E for architecture, but for everyday stuff, I plan to have on me the 24-70mm and the 70-200 mm at all times. This is a field trip to Berlin, by the way. It encompasses two classes for my Geography major, and we're staying away from the tourist places.

Yes, something wider than 24mm would be nice to have, my only worry is that then I won't have anything to cover the range from 35mm to 70mm, and I'd have to be swapping to my nifty-fifty all the time.

I'll take a look at the 16-35mm nevertheless, as it appears that the EF 17-40mm f/4L (which I once owned and liked) isn't getting good reviews.

James P wrote in post #18552279
If it's of any help at all, I've been to Europe five times. I found that 24mm on a full frame camera wasn't wide or tall enough. My last two trips I used a 16-35 and was much happier with the results.

I agree ... if you want to capture the ancient churches and cathedrals and colleges and castles that account for a lot of the architectural differences between Europe and America, you really need a UWA. A lot of older buildings in historic locations, especially in urban settings, are in cramped locations where you have to be able to shoot very wide to capture all (or even a sufficiently representative 'some') of them. Shooting interiors is another reason why a UWA lens would be a great choice.

I rely on the 17-40L ... but that's partly just down to what I feel I can afford. It has served me well. But one of the 16-35Ls (probably the f/4) would be better.

Alveric wrote in post #18552489
I plan on taking my 24mm TS-E for architecture, but for everyday stuff, I plan to have on me the 24-70mm and the 70-200 mm at all times.

The tilt-shift lens would be another way of dealing with cramped locations because you have the option of blending images quite precisely to greatly broaden your angle of view. It's also VERY sharp.

I wouldn't discount the 17-40mm. Yes, it's a bit old and it's out of fashion. It's one of those lenses that attracts a lot of cheap internet hits from people who have only heard about it from other people who, themselves, have never used it. But it's very light, relatively cheap, and will still deliver excellent images. Other options would be 'better' but they would also be heavier and more expensive.

DaviSto wrote in post #18552696
I agree ... if you want to capture the ancient churches and cathedrals and colleges and castles that account for a lot of the architectural differences between Europe and America, you really need a UWA. A lot of older buildings in historic locations, especially in urban settings, are in cramped locations where you have to be able to shoot very wide to capture all (or even a sufficiently representative 'some') of them. Shooting interiors is another reason why a UWA lens would be a great choice.

I rely on the 17-40L ... but that's partly just down to what I feel I can afford. It has served me well. But one of the 16-35Ls (probably the f/4) would be better.

I second it, all of that. I always take my 24-105 plus the 17-40. Big buildings, and no room to back out, so an UWA is something very useful. I found that 70 mm at the long end is too restrictive, while taking a long telephoto, even a light one like 70-200 f/4, is something that I can easily live without when there.

I have been to Europe many many times (family visits and tourism), and in fact going there again in a couple of weeks. It will again be 5D4, 24-105, and 17-40.

Hmm, okay, looks like the ultrawide route is the one to take. I was thinking of the 24-70mm as that covers even the portrait range, meaning little to no lens changes, but I've never been there. Guess I can always have the nifty-fifty in my pocket: one advantage of such a 'toy-like' lens.

Thanks for the input, mates. I'll decide 'twixt the 17-40mm and the 16-35mm as the trip gets near. My current funds now are for the flights.

Alveric wrote in post #18552932
Hmm, okay, looks like the ultrawide route is the one to take. I was thinking of the 24-70mm as that covers even the portrait range, meaning little to no lens changes, but I've never been there. Guess I can always have the nifty-fifty in my pocket: one advantage of such a 'toy-like' lens.

Thanks for the input, mates. I'll decide 'twixt the 17-40mm and the 16-35mm as the trip gets near. My current funds now are for the flights.

If you are tight on funds (who isn't), the 17-40 may fit the bill, as it runs at around $400 to $500, vs. much more expensive 16-35.

But I would not go to Europe with this lens as the only lens in the bag. You will definitely need a normal zoom, like 24-105 or 24-70, and I as wrote earlier, my preference is 24-105.