Another which lens question.

If you can stand another of these questions, please read on!

I'm on the verge of plonking down some major cashola for new glass. But, it's not an easy matter. I shoot mostly portraits for a little home grown business and pics of my family.

Here's what's up for consideration.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

Obviously, money is no object.
(Just kidding I've been saving for this extravigance)

If Canon made a 17-105mm f/2.8 L IS USM I'd pay US$2.5K for it....but they're smarter than that.

I'm leaning towards the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM, but would appreciate any strong feelings you might have!

Those are all nice lenses, of course, but I'll jump in with the standard "24-70 for portraits" answer. Even on a 30D the two wide zooms are probably a little wide unless you like that look. The 24-105 is a great lens, maybe more useful all around, but I like the extra aperture stop for portriature.

Given those choices, I'd get the 24-70. That's the zoom lens a lot of the G&N guys use. If I were to choose a lens myself, it would be either the 35L or the 50mm f/1.4.

I'll agree with the f/2.8 lens for portraiture... gotta love it Of those choices, I'd go 24-70. You already have 17-50mm covered, though... have you looked at a 70-200 2.8?

Jim G...

YEah..i have...I've looked and looked and looked...

It's gonna be a while.

No comments on the 24-105mm f/4 L IS??

It's got IS!!

The 24-70 vs. 24-105 question goes around at least once a week. Look up some old threads

I've owned both and settled on the 24-70 for better portraiture. f/2.8 is worth every cent. The 24-105 excels length-wise tho... I'd miss the 105mm if I didn't have a 70-200.

So with both lenses, you win some and you lose some. Personally I think that for people shots at wide-ish focal lengths, IS is highly overrated, as people move. Faster aperture is far more valuable. And if you're using flash, IS is irrelevant.

The only one of your list I have used is the 24-70 f2.8. I could not be happier with a lens. I really like having the 2.8 rather than IS. I have IS on another lens and have not found it essential. I use a full frame primarily so 24mm is really wide enough for me. If I was using a 30D my second choice on your list would be the 16-35 f2.8.

I should have asked this question of you forum members a long time ago...

Great answers to my questions. Thank you.

I like the 24-70 too. I'll hold my tongue on the IS, last time I spoke agianst it I got lashed at. If I could afford the 24-70L I would sell my sigma version to get it, I heard its worlds apart.

Yup, my suspicions are getting close to being confimred. The 24-70 seems to be the lens choice, even over the 24-205 IS.

I've shot with IS before and loved it. But like Mebailey, I think a faster lens is more important that having IS.

Any contradictorily opinions?

The IS does work, and it works well. It really does deliver 3 stops of hand-holdability. And the 24-105 is very sharp. If you want to be able to shoot around 1/30 (or even slower) at 105mm, it can get you there. So as a one-and-only walkaround lens it's hard to beat.

But for my needs, 24-70 is better. It sounds like your needs are similar, so just get the 24-70

24-205IS now if that comes in a L flavor I might just consider pulling out the Old Credit Card.