Which lens makes sense for me considering:

the lenses in my signature, that I like to shoot walking around and portrait range more than anything, and I'm trying to think upgrade and long term at this point.

I am thinking of the 24-70L or the 24-105L .

Scenarios and opinions welcome and appreciated! thanks.

If you think you will end up shooting low light stuff where your subject is moving I would go for the 24-70 as the extra stop will get you a faster shutter speed. If your are shooting low light of still subjects the IS on the 24-105 should cover you.

If low light isn't a concern then maybe the 24-105 would be better for walking around as the extra reach maybe of use to you. Personally I don't really like zooming in more than what my eyes can see where I stand. That is why I went with the 24-70 and for the low light, moving object shots.

The bokeh on the 24-70 is also fantastic so maybe that maybe a +1 for the portrait department.

I'll say ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS instead.

tbrasington wrote in post #6895912
If you think you will end up shooting low light stuff where your subject is moving I would go for the 24-70 as the extra stop will get you a faster shutter speed. If your are shooting low light of still subjects the IS on the 24-105 should cover you.

If low light isn't a concern then maybe the 24-105 would be better for walking around as the extra reach maybe of use to you. Personally I don't really like zooming in more than what my eyes can see where I stand. That is why I went with the 24-70 and for the low light, moving object shots.

The bokeh on the 24-70 is also fantastic so maybe that maybe a +1 for the portrait department.

I am leaning that way. I'm also open to buying more of a zoom in the future.

gasrocks wrote in post #6895923
I'll say ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS instead.

Can I ask the thought behind that one? I'm just curious. Thanks.

Jryan wrote in post #6895889
the lenses in my signature, that I like to shoot walking around and portrait range more than anything, and I'm trying to think upgrade and long term at this point.

I am thinking of the 24-70L or the 24-105L .

Scenarios and opinions welcome and appreciated! thanks.

Depending on your budget the Tamron 28-75 would be a good option. You could buy a Tamron 28-75 and a Canon 70-200 F4 for the same price as a Canon 24-70. Just a thought!

gasrocks wrote in post #6895923
I'll say ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS instead.

+1 .

gasrocks wrote in post #6895923
I'll say ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS instead.

I agree with this, or something similar, because you've nothing wider than 28mm at the moment which is not wide on a 40D. Therefore a 17-55 would add much more versatility rather than a slight improvement in IQ.

Madweasel wrote in post #6896017
I agree with this, or something similar, because you've nothing wider than 28mm at the moment which is not wide on a 40D. Therefore a 17-55 would add much more versatility rather than a slight improvement in IQ.

Gotcha, that does make sense.

The only downside of either 24-xx lens on a crop body is that its not wide enough for a general use lens, so you will need something shorter that 24mm as well (10-22, 17-55/2.8, 17-40 or 16-35). I chose the 24-105 & 16-35 and couldnt be happier.

Went with the 17-55.

Thanks for the advice, it made a lot of sense to me.

"I'll say ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS instead."

Jryan wrote in post #6895961
Can I ask the thought behind that one? I'm just curious. Thanks.

I have both the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as medium range zoom lenses. I purchased and shot with the 24-70L before Canon brought out the 17-55mm IS lens.

While both of these lenses produce excellent IQ, I prefer the 17-55mm IS lens for general and travel photography because:

... It is wide enough that I don't normally need to carry a wider lens

... It is considerably lighter in weight than the 24-70L

... The IS capability makes this lens a very viable low light glass

However, I prefer the 24-70L for studio work because:

... The longer end is better for head and shoulder portraits. In fact 70mm is, IMO, just about the perfect focal length for that use (112mm equivalent).

... The additional weight is not a problem because in studio work, I am not carrying the camera around my neck for 8-10 hours

... The 24mm short side is no drawback since my studio is huge (1/2 of an RV garage) and I can just move back to get a wider view

... Lack of IS is no drawback since I always shoot with studio strobes which will negate camera shake

... The 24-70L will provide a larger image ratio than the 17-55mm so I can often make a shot without needing to switch to a macro lens

That said; since I have both lenses, I will keep them and use them. However, if I had purchased my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens prior to the 24-70L, I would not buy the "L" lens. I would use my 70-200mm f/4L IS or 90mm Tamron f/2.8 Macro when I needed a longer focal length or larger image ratio,

By the way, my general photography and travel kit is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS on a two cameras (30D and 40D). These two lenses, along with a 1.4x TC to extend the 70-200mm focal length provide me with a very adequate focal range for 90-95% of my shooting. When I throw in a flash, a few filters, extra batteries and CF cards; I have a very capable and light weight kit for all sorts of photography.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/28-105.shtml

RPCrowe wrote in post #6896316
"I'll say ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS instead."



I have both the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as medium range zoom lenses. I purchased and shot with the 24-70L before Canon brought out the 17-55mm IS lens.

While both of these lenses produce excellent IQ, I prefer the 17-55mm IS lens for general and travel photography because:

... It is wide enough that I don't normally need to carry a wider lens

... It is considerably lighter in weight than the 24-70L

... The IS capability makes this lens a very viable low light glass

However, I prefer the 24-70L for studio work because:

... The longer end is better for head and shoulder portraits. In fact 70mm is, IMO, just about the perfect focal length for that use (112mm equivalent).

... The additional weight is not a problem because in studio work, I am not carrying the camera around my neck for 8-10 hours

... The 24mm short side is no drawback since my studio is huge (1/2 of an RV garage) and I can just move back to get a wider view

... Lack of IS is no drawback since I always shoot with studio strobes which will negate camera shake

... The 24-70L will provide a larger image ratio than the 17-55mm so I can often make a shot without needing to switch to a macro lens

That said; since I have both lenses, I will keep them and use them. However, if I had purchased my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens prior to the 24-70L, I would not buy the "L" lens. I would use my 70-200mm f/4L IS or 90mm Tamron f/2.8 Macro when I needed a longer focal length or larger image ratio,

By the way, my general photography and travel kit is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS on a two cameras (30D and 40D). These two lenses, along with a 1.4x TC to extend the 70-200mm focal length provide me with a very adequate focal range for 90-95% of my shooting. When I throw in a flash, a few filters, extra batteries and CF cards; I have a very capable and light weight kit for all sorts of photography.

Thank you for that explanation.