Fill the Gear Gap:

Ok, here is my gear being re-tooled, please help me by choosing a lens to fill the gap. (If two apply, please post your comments and why).

Background info: I do a lot of press photography, so I need a nice walkaround lens for hauling at all times outside, for any and all assignments, and yet I do a fair amount of indoor/lower light photography (City Halls, News Conferences, hallways, dusk - Comparable to Wedding photography conditions, but I do not do Weddings). So use this info, to decide -if this were you- whether you would go with IS or a wider aperture value.

So Here we go:

Canon MkIIN
Canon 30D

Sigma 10-20
[Choose Lens/lenses Here]
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L IS
Canon 100-400 4L IS

Canon 430EX
Canon 580EX

That's the thing though. It ISNT us, its YOU. We can't just go filling your gear list for you. If I had to fill it though, I'd stick a 24-70L or a 17-55 IS if you can't bear the weight of the 24-70. And actually, if you can spring for it, the 35L or the sigma 30mm. These are rediculously nice primes (from what im told) that make perfect light-weight walkaround lenses. And I'd take a larger aperature over IS anyday.

17-40 would fit in well but it's a bit slow at f/4. Personally I'd go for a 35L but I'll be the first to admit I'm a bit biased towards primes!

Cheers
Bill

Point taken, August23. Am I to assume that all lenses I listed are equally good for all tasks? Probably not. This thread is in hopes that those who do similar work and own these lenses, can share their opinions.

I haven't even began reading Understanding Exposure and I have gear fit for a 20+ year pro. Point is, take everything everyone says with a grain of salt, a BIG grain of salt. That said, if you can afford it, and you don't mind a prime, the 35L is your best bet.

EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS

It is a much better walkaround lens than the Brick (EF 24-70 f2.8L), despite not being able to use it on the 1D.

That leaves you with teeny, tiny gap if you put the 70-200 on the 1D (88 [55 x 1.6] versus 91mm [70 x 1.3] equivalent), but that's really not enough to mention.

My 2 cents.

Have Fun,

Why does everyone denounce the brick as heavy? It is NOT HEAVY. I expected lenses to weigh this much when I first got into this. I was surprised how light they are. People who actually comlpain about the 24-70's weight really need to drink more milk.

august23 wrote in post #2833214
Why does everyone denounce the brick as heavy? It is NOT HEAVY. I expected lenses to weigh this much when I first got into this. I was surprised how light they are. Peopel actually COMPLAIN about the 24-70's weight really need to drink more milk.

I can lift it - I do it all the time. But carry it around your neck all day, attached to a body, and you'll know you've done it. And the lens body will likely make a bruise in your stomach because it always points down.

The EF-S 17-55 IS is much more balanced, and carries much more easily.

Another 2 cents.

Have Fun,

I say BRING ON THE PAIN.

I have a hard time choosing the 17-55. Heard the IQ is impressive, but to buy plastic construction at that pricetag scares me, specially since it would be on a body that gets thrown into the front seat of my car, carried around my neck a couple hours a day, and see just as much wear and tear as the Camera body. (you see, I have done this with the 50mm 1.8, and so far I am on my third copy, but at $70 a pop, who cares).

This is why most of the lenses I chose are L (not because of the red ring), and why in the past I always used Sigma EX. Metal barrels are a lot more 'wear and tear' friendly.

Do you want a lens that you can use on both bodies? Never mind. I see the 17-55 in the poll.

Awesome question. No EFS, unless the EFS lens is a must have (say everyone agrees that 17-55 is the lens to have, but it is an EFS mount). Otherwise, interchangeability is always desirable.

if you are getting a 1 series (as it seems) i see almost no reason to get the 17-55. the 24-70 fits the rest of your kit perfectly, and should perform your desired operations great, and will fit on both bodies.

I say the 24-105 f/4 L IS USM.

Fills the small gap in your focal ranges perfectly, whilst giving you a bit of overlap on the other lenses, meening you won't have to be swapping every 5 seconds. Also, the IS means that the f/4 isn't so much of a problem. It's a great lens, fantastic for portraits I find (used on a colleagues 30D) and a brilliant combination for walkabouts.

Just my 2 cents

Tom

Thanks for the comments so far, everyone.

Mr. The Kid, you do have a point there. I am replacing the Sigma 25-70 2.8, and the Canon L version makes me afraid that the investment (1k plus) will give me the same results I got before (not bad at all, but I am looking for excellence as far as IQ is concerned). What I like about the 24-70 focal range, is two camera setup, two lenses, and that is it. For a street photographer, that is the dream setup, in a way.

Tom, I also like the idea of the 24-105 as a walkabout lens. I saw the size, and it is smaller than the 24-70L. My concern with that lens, is not only the F4 for indoors (despite IS), but also the focal range. (the longer the focal range on a zoom lens, the more potential for IQ issues - Hence the prime lovers).

Has anyone ever had 24-105L and 24-70L in hand and use, to tell me differences? There is this one famous link online about a comparison, but it seems to be a bit outdated, and also not as objective.