Buying my first L glass, cant descide

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you can't decide on which focal lengths you need, what makes you think you need an L?

What kind of sports are you looking to shoot? That'll determine your focal length needs. The 24-70mm is more of a "walkaround" than the 70-200mm.

Mystwalker wrote in post #5282014
Primes may be "god" in term of IQ, but you are still "human" - how fast can you swap lens?

Personally, I do not like switching lens. I like that less then letting my feet do the zooming

Looks like OP already has short/med range covered? I say 70-200.

You are forced to shoot differently with primes. You don't swap lenses when you want to change your FOV, you simply change your "point of view".

The inability to exercise control over FOV forces the photographer to be more creative in their approach, IMO.

Double Negative wrote in post #5292715
Don't take this the wrong way, but if you can't decide on which focal lengths you need, what makes you think you need an L?

What kind of sports are you looking to shoot? That'll determine your focal length needs. The 24-70mm is more of a "walkaround" than the 70-200mm.

Really there is no reason I need any lens since I dont get paid to take pictures. I could easly do with my sony P&S.
But I enjoy this as a hobby and I fell its better to have good glass that can be used on better cameras if I grow, or will still hold a good value if i descide to sell later on.

Oh btw I ended up renting the 70-200 f/2.8IS. Should be here Monday and I'll have two weeks to see how I like it. Then I'll try the 24-70 or the 16-35.

alot of info in hereit looks like

i bought the 70-200 f/4L as my first L

the reason beeing is a do only sports for now.

i do have a 28-135 Is that came as a kit lens with my 40d but i have yet to use it. the 50 1.8 and 70-200 f/4l are the only things that touch my camera. dont get me wrong the 28-135 is good lens but its just not what i needed. the question to ask yourself is what focal length would u use the most? do you wish you had more reach most of the time? or does the kit lens cover mostly what you need (in terms of focal length)

as far as for walkarounds im finding myself leaning more towards a prime due to the sharpness price and DOF control

It depends on what you are shooting mostly, but in your position, I would get the 70-200. You have the kit lens and a 50mm to me the 24-70 would be redundant, get something that you don't have to cover the full spectrum. The kit lens when used at f8-16 and not at either extreme of wide angle or telephoto can get some good pictures, and the 50mm is a good lens. 70-200 all the way.

robbyh wrote in post #5303604
Really there is no reason I need any lens since I dont get paid to take pictures. I could easly do with my sony P&S.
But I enjoy this as a hobby and I fell its better to have good glass that can be used on better cameras if I grow, or will still hold a good value if i descide to sell later on.

Oh btw I ended up renting the 70-200 f/2.8IS. Should be here Monday and I'll have two weeks to see how I like it. Then I'll try the 24-70 or the 16-35.

As long as your renting glass you really should try out the 17-55IS. Another option would be the Tamron 17-50 (for about half the price of the 17-55, w/o IS, and w/ similar IQ). This focal length is the bread and butter of most photogs w/ a crop body.

Don't get hung up on just buying "L" glass; primes and some 3rd party lenses (like the Tammy) will give you the excellent IQ and may better serve you needs.

A Tamron 17-50 and a Canon 70-200 f/4 L would give you an awesome focal range, stellar IQ, and cost about the same as the 24-70L alone.

robbyh wrote in post #5277662
If you had to pick between the 24-70 and the 70-200 f/2.8 (non is) which would it be and why?

Those are the 2 I'm trying to desice between. Currently I dont shoot anything specific. I would like to try some sports, but I also would like to have a good walk around lens that is versatile.

If those are the two choices it would come down to whether you will shoot more inside or outside, or if you can't give up something (both are a compromise). The lesser compromise for an outside shooter would be the 70-200 because it can do some moderately long range stuff and 70mm is still workable for portraits. It's barely workable inside if the quarters are cramped. You'll always be able to use it for head and torso shots, but you'd need a bunch of room to get a full length or group shot with it indoors. Outside you'd just back up and do whatever you like.

On the other hand, the 24-70 is all about indoors and can do some wider stuff for landscapes if that's what you like, but it will be practically useless for sports or action and it is completely useless for anything longish. It's even a compromise in low light. It's a great portrait lens and a fine wedding lens if you have flash available. Other than that it is not especially versatile IMO.

I mostly agree with sando...

sando wrote in post #5277686
With an XTI? I'd go for the 17-55 2.8 IS instead. You'll find 24-70 not wide enough at the wide end on a crop body.

Then I'd save up for the 70-200 2.8 IS.

I have both the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 24-70 f/2.8L lenses and I find the 17-55mm lens a more versatile glass on a 1.6x camera. It is especially better on a Rebel (series) camera because of its lighter weight. IMO, the 24-70L doesn't balance well with that heavy lens. A battery grip helps but, the lighter 17-55mm lens is the ticket for the small Rebel (series) cameras.

I mesh my 17-55mm f/2.8L with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. These two are a super combination. The f/4L IS is a lot lighter than the f/2.8L and matches with a Rebel (series) camera better because of its weight.

I carry my 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses everywhere on 2 bodies. I think that I would seriously balk at carrying the weight of the f/2.8L IS lens on some of my more rugged photo excursions; especially combined with the weight of the 24-70L lens.

I don't usually require a wider lens. I can make do very well for most shooting opportunities with the 17mm as my widest focal length and I don't miss the range between 55 and 70mm one bit.

The f/2.8L might be a smidgen better for isolating individual athletes but, for general overall shooting - there is not much you cannot do with the lighter weight f/4L. Get the f/4L IS lens AND an extra body. You could get a used extra body for the difference in price between a f/4L IS and an f/2.8L IS 70-200mm lens..

Those two lenses on two bodies really make one heck of a wonderful setup.

RPCrowe wrote in post #5305127
Those two lenses on two bodies really make one heck of a wonderful setup.

Agreed.

sando wrote in post #5277686
With an XTI? I'd go for the 17-55 2.8 IS instead. You'll find 24-70 not wide enough at the wide end on a crop body.

Then I'd save up for the 70-200 2.8 IS.

If you just don't have to own an "L" right now then Sando is offering good advice.

I have both the 17-55MM EF-S IS and the 24-70MM EF L and I use the 17-55MM EF-S IS far more on my 30D...it is a great street and low light lens. IQ is equal to the 24-70MM IMHO.

timnosenzo wrote in post #5277672
I'd probably pick the 24-70 because I use that range more.

+1, and it is smaller..........

Sounds like reasonable thinking. I'm fond of saying, "spend money on the glass - bodies come and go" myself. Buy a lens, a good lens - once. You'll have those for a lifetime whereas bodies will likely get upgraded from time to time.

IMO, the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 is a fantastic combo. Covers a huge range and the quality is top-notch throughout. Bonus that the filters are all 77mm and they're all weathersealed.

robbyh wrote in post #5303604
Really there is no reason I need any lens since I dont get paid to take pictures. I could easly do with my sony P&S.
But I enjoy this as a hobby and I fell its better to have good glass that can be used on better cameras if I grow, or will still hold a good value if i descide to sell later on.

Oh btw I ended up renting the 70-200 f/2.8IS. Should be here Monday and I'll have two weeks to see how I like it. Then I'll try the 24-70 or the 16-35.

"decide" not "descide".

I picked up my Sigma 24-70 at a great price and love the lens! I would trade this in a heartbeat for a 24-70L. From what I've read from lurking these forums the 17-55 is a wonderful lens, though not tagged "L" it's performance is up to par with L quality glass.

The 24-105L is also a forum favorite, but it all depends on what you need for you avg subject matter.

Well the 70-200 just arrived.. I cant wait to get off work and try it out. Actually I think I'll be leaving a little early today
But boy is this a heavy lens. I can see how shooting with this one for an extended period will require a mono pod or something.