85mm & 24-105 or 24-70?

I'm looking to purchase either a 24-70mm or a 24-105mm and an 85mm prime. I want a good walk around lens as well as a lens that I can use to shoot pictures at events/concerts (of performers, etc.).

I've used the 24-70mm and it worked well in low light conditions (obviously the 2.8 helps a lot as I've tried 4L before and it's too slow sometimes). With that in mind, I would like a little more reach for a walk around lens so the 24-105 seems like an obvious choice. However, as it's not fast enough in low light conditions, I thought that perhaps coupling it with an 85mm 1.8 would be a good idea.

I'm not sure what the trade-offs would be between those two options so please chime in with any comment/advice. Would you go with option A and just get the 24-70mm or go the 2 lens route and get the 24-105 + the 85mm prime?

PS- I suppose since the focal length is longer with the 24-105, the IQ is probably a little lower than that of the 24-70mm's.

What body would you be using the lens on?

Personally, I'd go to the two lens route! 24-105: Awesome lens! 85: Awesome lens! I think you get the best of both worlds with that combo- reach and speed. And for walking around you'll find the 24-105 to be more friendly (read: lighter) than the 24-70. Plus the IS is a nice bonus on the 24-105 and having a good prime around will come in handy for more than a concert.

e.omega wrote in post #7725895
What body would you be using the lens on?

Same as you, an XSi.

Yeah I'm leaning toward that 2 lens route as well. Another thing that just came to mind is wedding. I don't do it professionally but would like to be able to take some pictures if/when I go with friends. Will the 85mm be okay?

For the cost of the Canon 24-70L, you could get the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM and the 85mm f/1.8.

Of the two configurations you've come up with I'd go with the 24-105 and the 85. The 24-70 isn't that fast to me for shooting in those indoor conditions so the 85 would be nicer assuming you can live without the zoom. The 24-105 is a better walkaround lens for my purposes because of both the extra reach and the IS.

I have 85mm and 24-105L. 85mm is GREAT. 24-105L is not good indoor lens but if you have flash, you're good.

Exposure101 wrote in post #7725934
Yeah I'm leaning toward that 2 lens route as well. Another thing that just came to mind is wedding. I don't do it professionally but would like to be able to take some pictures if/when I go with friends. Will the 85mm be okay?

yes, a lot of pro wedding photog's use it. i know ill be looking to get one for the next wedding i shoot.

I would go with the 2 lens route as well. Depending on the situation, you can be prepared and have the best of both worlds.

Good luck!

Tony-S wrote in post #7727113
For the cost of the Canon 24-70L, you could get the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM and the 85mm f/1.8.

I just looked up the Sigma 24-70 and it seems to have mediocre reviews. If I was going to go with the 24-70mm I would just go with the Canon and be done with it. Seems like the consensus here is to go with the 2 lens route.

I'd personally stick to the 24-70 for the simplicity factor and the fact that it's performs better in low light situations. The IS is nice in the 24-105 but I wound up selling mine due to the fact that it doesn't deal with moving subjects very well. Then save up for the 70-200 2.8L IS.

Exposure101 wrote in post #7728425
I just looked up the Sigma 24-70 and it seems to have mediocre reviews. If I was going to go with the 24-70mm I would just go with the Canon and be done with it. Seems like the consensus here is to go with the 2 lens route.

Make sure you're reading about the new HSM model. The side-by-side comparisons I have seen indicate it is sharper than the 24-70L. I know mine is excellent and better than the one time I tried a 24-70L.

Bukanza wrote in post #7728438
I'd personally stick to the 24-70 for the simplicity factor and the fact that it's performs better in low light situations. The IS is nice in the 24-105 but I wound up selling mine due to the fact that it doesn't deal with moving subjects very well. Then save up for the 70-200 2.8L IS.

Yeah for sure. I think that sometime down the road I will most likely end up with a 10-22mm, 24-70mm and then a 70-200 (or maybe a 100-400mm). The reason why it's a dilemma is because I probably won't do a lot of wild life shoots so I'm looking to get something that's good for general walk-arounds (for now).

Yeah I looked it up on Amazon and it's not too popular (only 4 people bought it).

It's only been out for a few weeks. I think I got B&H's first copy...

Tony-S wrote in post #7728620
Make sure you're reading about the new HSM model. The side-by-side comparisons I have seen indicate it is sharper than the 24-70L. I know mine is excellent and better than the one time I tried a 24-70L.

do you have a link to one of these side by side comparisons?

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE