Get An Extra 20% Off Regatta New Season Arrivals

Canon Lens Decisions Descisions...

Jools_jti 15 257 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2008 1:11PM
I have searched and read but still find myself in a slight dilemma.

Upgrading some lenses, currently have a 24-105 f4 L but it's very tatty and I am sure past it's sell by date. I am looking to either get a new one or switch camps to the 24-70 F2.8 L. I got the 24-105 as a second hand upgrade to my 28-135 IS. Although a better lens, not by a huge amount, this may be down to the state of the 24-105. Now my questions is, is the 24-70 a better lens over optic quality, I think I can manage with the loss of the extra length but if the optics aren't hugely different, the length will be a draw back to the 24-105, or rather a new one.

The other canon lens question is about my 70-200 f4, great lens, love it, using it more and more, so am thinking maybe going up a step to the 2.8 would be nice. If so, do I go for an IS or non-IS, I haven't won the lottery or lost a relation so money isn't free and easy. I am just wondering if the IS is a much better lens. I understand it should allow a three stop benefit but have also read lots of stories of the non-IS being optically stronger. I am already using a non-IS, so...

Comments and feedback from owners of these lenses very much appreciated at this costly crossroads.

kerso will appreciate the answers too, am sure Wink
da_nige 17 1.2k United Kingdom
22 Oct 2008 2:16PM
I had the 24-105 and bought a 24-70. Now maybe I got a bad copy of the 24-105 but the 24-70 is so much better. I compared my 24-105 to my uncles and there wasn't much difference. It was definitely the weakest of my Ls (17-40, 70-200 f4, 300 f4IS). 24-70 is sharper, more contrasty, better bokeh etc etc.

70-200s. The f4IS is said to be the sharpest followed by the 2.8 no-IS. That said the 2.8IS is stunning too. Whatever you decide it'll be good.

With Ians prices you cant go wrong either.

And while I've been writing this my burger bun in the toaster has just burnt!!
Overread 13 4.1k 19 England
22 Oct 2008 2:22PM
I don't think the IS version of the f2.8 is optically stronger at all - but IS is a wonder, especially as the f2.8 version is a heavier lens to hold. I consider it worth saving up and getting.
Jools_jti 15 257 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2008 2:51PM
da_nige, I owe you one burger bun, sorry. Thanks for the reply, I have heard or rather read that many people find the 24-70 and whole better beast, but am not sure if these are older versions of the 24-105 which went through the big recall and subsequent concerns over quality. You have endorsed what I have heard/read.

As for the 70-200, I didn't know there was a f4 IS, thought it was only the f2.8 with options on IS. But my confusion on this is over the various opinions of which is the better lens. As I am using this more and more I really want to get the most out of it, so thought stepping up to the 2.8 would be wise. I may just have to look at the 2.8 IS and go back to value beans and bread for a few more months. Smile

Thanks to you both.
da_nige 17 1.2k United Kingdom
22 Oct 2008 3:15PM
The 2.8 IS is a great lens. FWIW my 24-105 ws a UV date code (2007) so wasn't one of the early ones

The burger bun was OK thanks, I managed to salvage it!!
Jools_jti 15 257 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2008 3:32PM
ta, think my decision is made, just have to swallow take a deep breath and let Ian know, and my bank Sad

Good news on the burger, crispy buns can be a right turn off Smile
ChuckBrix 16 127 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2008 3:36PM
My two bits worth.

I got the EF 24 - 70 F2.8 in February 2004.
Its not the lightest lens but when you use it it just feels right, the results are just so good, lovely and sharp when you need it, yet it can give lovely out of focus areas when wide open.

I had the EF 70 - 200 F2.8 Non IS from 2001 up to spring of this year. It was a cracking bit of kit also, but I decided to change it for the IS version and have not been disappointed.
Again it is not light but I decided a while ago that I was going to have the best lenses I could afford if possible.

I would recommend both these lenses.
Jools_jti 15 257 United Kingdom
22 Oct 2008 4:00PM
Thanks ChuckBrix

I am going to wait a little and upgrade to the 2.8 IS, I still have the f4 for now and can then offset selling that against it.

Now off to the classifieds, there is a section for souls, right? Smile
da_nige 17 1.2k United Kingdom
22 Oct 2008 9:08PM
Just to give you an idea of prices I bought my 24-70 a couple of months ago on another forum for 550. It looked brand new, the guy really looked after his kit.
colin beeley Plus
18 1.2k 10 England
23 Oct 2008 6:40AM
read this first i had both & sold the IS it is soft at the 200mm end & don't either bother puting an extender on it ! my non is 70/200 2.8 L with a 1.4 extender is pin sharp i just use a monopod. i also found it to be a lot sharper without a filter on the front. if you don't need the 2.8 speed go for the f/4 L IS version.
User_Removed 16 4.9k England
23 Oct 2008 9:49AM
As I have it, I think the 70-200mm f2.8 non IS, is probably the best value L lens in the series. Extremely sharp and super fast AF, loses very slightly with a 1.4x............ I love it
Jools_jti 15 257 United Kingdom
23 Oct 2008 11:55AM
Cheers Colin, that does make interesting reading.

This is why I have such confusion over this lens, so many differing opinions, and four options to choose from.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.