Good walkaround lens??

[Andycane]

I've been looking around for awhile and while i have narrowed it down to 2 lens for a walk around lens as the first:Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens, and the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens.

They both cost a little over a thousand,and both are considered L series and I just can't make up my mind on which one will best serve my needs. I need input on some the little things that they won't put on the bullet-points, or marketing lingo.

I understand that the first has a lower aperture (2.8), but no IS, whereas the 2nd has a higher (4)aperture but has IS. I've never had an IS type lens, so how much of a benefit will it provide & how will the pictures turn out? Will having the IS be equivalent of a pseudo type lower f-stop. Since the first only achieves 70mm, does having a lower mm mean better quality glass throughout the ranges, or does the extra 35mm provide as an extra room to work with no sacrifice in quality?

Is one lens considered great & the other is considered good in terms of optical quality? i need something that will help separate the 2 lens so I can determine which 1 will fit my needs.

My current lens kit includes the macro 100mm f/2.8 & the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (white lens) Telephoto Zoom Lens so i'm looking for the 3rd piece of the puzzle that will provide as a good general & walk around lens. as I don't really plan to purchase any other lens.

Is there plans for the first lens to have IS down the road, or is there another lens that i might have overlooked.

[Rrdjserv]

I would recommend reading online reviews. Canon L lens are usually top of the line. IS is suppose to be equivalent to one or two f-stops. --Rick

[Andycane]

ok, thanks. can you help direct me to some good review sites?

Thanks for clearing the air regarding to how much lower i can expect the f-stop when using the IS. Do you have any experience with either lens? If so, any impressions that I can gather from?

[RTaylor]

to me, a 24-70 isn't really a walk around lens. Most people I hear when they speak of owning a walk around lens, they talk of one they really dont have to change and can use it for a variety of focal lengths.
I own Nikon. I still own but really no longer use my 28-70 lens as I found I had to continually change to my 70-300 just to get closer to or over 100mm which I seemed to use a lot.
So I eventually purchased the 18-200VR which is the equivalent of Canon's IS.

DPReview always has great reviews.
Here is one on their 18-200IS lens



http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...p5-5p6_is_c16/

[Punwit]

Hi Andy,

The IS will help offset the faster glass as regards handheld shots but it won't help you with the isolation that the larger aperture will provide. One thing you could do is look at the images you've already taken and assess whether you take lots of shots between 70mm and 105 mm. If a good percentage of your shots are in that range then you might regret not having the extra reach if you're only taking one lens on your walks.

Only you can decide whether the extra reach or the faster glass with it's concomittent shallower dof is more important to your shooting style.

Here is another site with good lens reviews. http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php Don't overlook third party lenses either. Tamron has an offering with a prodigious 15x zoom range in the 18-270.

Darren

[Buddy4344]

I have the 24-105L and it is my "workhorse" walk around lens. That said, I do wish I had more on the short side, so I bought a Sigma 10-20 to marry with it. Turns out I only use the UWA for landscapes and nearly always use the 24-105. With IS and also camera's able to shoot higher ISO, I have even shot in very low light (I was shooting yesterday at 640 ISO and the results are quite usable with a little clean-up in post processing.)

I will admit the other lens you mention is fast and gets great reviews, so you have good choices here.

[RTaylor]

Darren, I heard great things about the Tamron 18-270. If I didnt already own the 18-200VR, I would have purchased it

[skeuos]

I agree whole-heartedly with Darren's analysis. Find out what range most of your shots fall into, and if many fall into the 70-100mm range, then you have your answer.

IS is a major plus. If you shoot a lot indoors or in lower light, you definitely should consider it. Us lucky Pentax shooters (and Sony and Olympus . . .) don't have to make that decision in the glass

Think also about where you shoot most, too. Living in the city, I'm very often hard-pressed to break out the 75-300, and I spend most of my time in wider angles. There's usually too much going on nearby to justify the reach of a longer lens.

My two cents

steve

[Rrdjserv]

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/24-105/

http://photo.net/equipment/product-d...product_id=488

[Andycane]

after looking at various reviews, it seems most reviewers leans towards the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens. Since most of my photos will most likely be outdoors, and the fact that it has the extra reach as well as IS. I think this will fit my needs. Now i just need to find it.

thanks for all the inputs, and sites. Cheers