24-105mm f/4L or 24-70mm f/2.8L

Hey everyone,

Let me start off by saying that I am new here and still pretty new to photography. I've been reading the Scott Kelby books and just doing random shots off and on since I got my XTi a few years ago. I had some "good" shots but was never really satisfied with my skill level but that will come in time. You can see from my sig that my main lens is the Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and it has been a very great lens so far. Basically I am looking to get my next lens and have seen a lot of reviews of the two topic lenses.

Mostly I am trying to do automotive photography and I wouldn't mind learning portrait photography but it's mostly automotive for me. The reason I like the 28-135 is because it does have IS for when it's not on a tripod (which I do have) and it has a little more range so if I wanted to use it for other types of shots I could but at the same time the f/2.8 is really nice to have compared to the f/4.

Basically I'm not sure which to get or which would benefit me more because I'm still learning so I figured the best place to find out is here.

Thanks in advance.

with a xti have you looked at the 17-50/17-55 options?

Canon, sigma, and tamron all make wonderful lenses that are 2.8 with IS / VC / OS.

No I have not, I can jump on B&H right now and check them out then watch some YouTube videos (that's my normal researching steps ha)

Why do you recommend those over the ones I posted? Just want to make sure I'm going in the right direction. I've been reading how much better the "L" series is which is why those were the ones I was looking at.

Is there a certain range I should be looking for when doing automotive photography? I won't be doing anything at tracks so mostly just still shots (for now) of cars at different locations.

Thanks for the feedback! Keep them coming!

With a crop camera 24mm might not be wide enough for you.

Since I do have a crop camera, is there certain things I should know for the future?

If you do a search you will find countless threads on this very topic.

muskyhunter wrote in post #11803427
With a crop camera 24mm might not be wide enough for you.

uh, did you read his post? He has a 28-135 and is looking at a 24-70 or 24-105...

Sticking to what you're considering, I would consider how important IS is to you. For some people, having IS would important enough that having f/4 wouldn't be bad, but if you're more likely to be able to hand-hold or use a tripod for your shots, then you might be fine with no IS and f/2.8.

If your current lens is wide enough for you at 28mm, then these two lenses are great choices. I'd also see if you can head over to a camera store and try them out in person, preferably on your camera so you can take the shots home and look at them.

And Tommy's of course right...search is king here, just search around for what you need. Most likely the information is already out there.

my95gtstang wrote in post #11803326
Why do you recommend those over the ones I posted? Just want to make sure I'm going in the right direction. I've been reading how much better the "L" series is which is why those were the ones I was looking at.

L lenses are very nice, but that little red ring does not automatically make them better than the competition.

I agree that something like the 17-55IS would be a better choice for you. I think you will be happy to have the extra width. 24 just isn't very wide on a crop camera.

The 17-55IS is generally considered to be optically "worthy" of the "L" designation, but Canon does not designate any EF-S lenses as "L".

my95gtstang wrote in post #11803326
Is there a certain range I should be looking for when doing automotive photography? I won't be doing anything at tracks so mostly just still shots (for now) of cars at different locations.

So long as you are usually able to get reasonably close, I imagine the 17-55ish range should serve you very well.

I love my 24-70 on my 7D. Great colors and contrast with that combo. I use it at car shows as well and haven't run in to problems with 24 not being wide enough.

With that said... The 17-55 is sharper (in my experience) and has IS. The ONLY reason I don't own this lens anymore is that I have a couple FF bodies and I like my glass to work with everything. So in your situation I would have to recommend this option.

I use a 24-105 on my crop frame all the time. It's great for mountain biking. It's got great range and it compact enough to store in my backpack. Plus it's weather sealed which helps protect it against the outdoor elements.

After reading everyones suggestions I went on B&H and put together a little setup for the 17-55 to see what the price would be. I know I have a lot to learn and still am confused about certain things but I'm sure they will start making sense the more I read and practice.

I know that searching is the best way. I searched for a while today trying to find someone in a similar situation and wasn't really finding the answers I was looking for. I've basically spent all day on here surfing around while I'm not busy at work. But I will continue to in the future. Not trying to give people headaches but I'm still a noob.

I'm trying to find articles that explain the difference between crop camera (because I just found out I had one ;]) and trying to determine the differences between the lenses.

Thanks again for the help so far.

bpark42 wrote in post #11803511
L lenses are very nice, but that little red ring does not automatically make them better than the competition.

I agree that something like the 17-55IS would be a better choice for you. I think you will be happy to have the extra width. 24 just isn't very wide on a crop camera.

The 17-55IS is generally considered to be optically "worthy" of the "L" designation, but Canon does not designate any EF-S lenses as "L".



So long as you are usually able to get reasonably close, I imagine the 17-55ish range should serve you very well.

Thanks for the response. That does make sense and I guess the "red ring" won't make my skills better haha makes perfect sense. I just read that they had less lens creep and were smoother. Not sure about sharpness or not.