Alternative to 24-70L

My wife and I have been happily using the 28-135IS but bought the 10-22EFS recently, which we love, and were getting interested in "L" quality glass. Although the price was steep we considered the 24-70L until we saw the weight, nearly a kilo with a filter. That's way too much for my wife to be comfortable with and, since I'm the one that lugs the backpack around ( camera, three lenses, plus video camera) I wasn't thrilled either.
Considered the 17-40L at about half the weight and cost, but is 40mm a bit too short for portrait/model/wedding shots? There aren't many of these in the sample galleries and we'd like the versatility to take these shots. My wife has done some model shots for aspiring actors and, as proud grandparents, we want to have a good lens pointed at young grandchild for at least the next decade!
If anyone has suggestions for a reasonably lightweight, versatile walk around lens that can give L glass results I'd appreciate the input, non Canon lenses are fine. Price say to $800 US, around $1000 Australian, cheaper would be good but do want the same sort of IQ as the 10-22.

Thanks,

Hal Littlewood

Third party versions are lighter & cheaper.

hal55 wrote in post #4108118
My wife and I have been happily using the 28-135IS but bought the 10-22EFS recently, which we love, and were getting interested in "L" quality glass. Although the price was steep we considered the 24-70L until we saw the weight, nearly a kilo with a filter. That's way too much for my wife to be comfortable with and, since I'm the one that lugs the backpack around ( camera, three lenses, plus video camera) I wasn't thrilled either.
Considered the 17-40L at about half the weight and cost, but is 40mm a bit too short for portrait/model/wedding shots? There aren't many of these in the sample galleries and we'd like the versatility to take these shots. My wife has done some model shots for aspiring actors and, as proud grandparents, we want to have a good lens pointed at young grandchild for at least the next decade!
If anyone has suggestions for a reasonably lightweight, versatile walk around lens that can give L glass results I'd appreciate the input, non Canon lenses are fine. Price say to $800 US, around $1000 Australian, cheaper would be good but do want the same sort of IQ as the 10-22.

Thanks,

Hal Littlewood

24-105mm! Beautiful lens and a pleasure to use... Gerry

The natural fit on and APS-C camera along with the 10-22 is of course the EF-S 17-55 IS USM. Optics are similar to L quality while the build quality is more on par with the EF-S 10-22 you have now.

If you are not buying a 5D in the near term the 17-55 is a better choice than the 17-40 for three reasons:
1. One stop faster (f/2.8 vs. f/4)
2. Longer where it counts (40mm is pretty short for this type of lens - a lot of 5D shooters will tell you the 70mm of the 24-70 is a bit short and the 17-40 on APS-C gives an even shorter FOV equivalent of 64mm).
3. Includes IS

JeffreyG wrote in post #4108157
The natural fit on and APS-C camera along with the 10-22 is of course the EF-S 17-55 IS USM. Optics are similar to L quality while the build quality is more on par with the EF-S 10-22 you have now.

If you are not buying a 5D in the near term the 17-55 is a better choice than the 17-40 for three reasons:
1. One stop faster (f/2.8 vs. f/4)
2. Longer where it counts (40mm is pretty short for this type of lens - a lot of 5D shooters will tell you the 70mm of the 24-70 is a bit short and the 17-40 on APS-C gives an even shorter FOV equivalent of 64mm).
3. Includes IS

Second what JefferyG said, but you would have to add another $125 US for new ($924 from B&H using code PS07074YV0W). Seen some go used for $850 and up.

Apparently the Sigma 24-70mm EX version is a good one.

I'd agree the best quality choice at that budget for APS-C would be the 17-55 IS. If you want the longer end of the range on a much cheaper budget the Sigma 24-70 is cheap and good, the 24-60 is slightly cheaper and lighter with a 77mm filter. 17-50 Tamron or 18-50 Sigma also excellent choices and much lighter than the 24-70 lenses.

There is a sigma 24-60 2.8 that is $200 on amazon.com. It is a great lens. Very sharp too!

For $200 that lens is an absolute steal. Essentially identical in performance from what I've seen to the Sigma 24-70 2.8 but with a 77mm filter size and somewhat lighter. At that price it makes a nifty fifty look like bad value!

I second the 17-55 IS, fantastic lens which is the perfect match for any crop body.

I would also agree and go for the simga. But if you want an L lens I would say to go for the 24-105 as that is a lighter one than the 24-70.

Cheers

I'd suggest the sigma 24-70mm f/2.8. It's ~$400 and just as good optically as the L. You just lose the build quality, weight, price, weathersealing and AF... It's a great lens for the money though.

JeffreyG wrote in post #4108157
The natural fit on and APS-C camera along with the 10-22 is of course the EF-S 17-55 IS USM. Optics are similar to L quality while the build quality is more on par with the EF-S 10-22 you have now.

If you are not buying a 5D in the near term the 17-55 is a better choice than the 17-40 for three reasons:
1. One stop faster (f/2.8 vs. f/4)
2. Longer where it counts (40mm is pretty short for this type of lens - a lot of 5D shooters will tell you the 70mm of the 24-70 is a bit short and the 17-40 on APS-C gives an even shorter FOV equivalent of 64mm).
3. Includes IS

the 17-55 and 24-105L aren't exactly lightweights either.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #4109259
the 17-55 and 24-105L aren't exactly lightweights either.

ed rader

I consider the three essentially equal in terms of size and weight. You're not gonna notice the difference after an afternoon out.

lungdoc wrote in post #4108538
For $200 that lens is an absolute steal

No kidding. Ridiculously low...and a fine lens indeed.