Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:17 pm

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:53 pm 
Hi Friends,

I need your advice for a versatile general walk around lens for my canon 400D. I feel either the 24-70mm F2.8 or the 24-105mm f4 could be a good option. I am a bit confused of the two. On one hand 24-70mm is one stop faster, the 24-105mm has a longer focal range with IS in its favor. I currently own canon 17-85mm but some how am not too confident with its build and picture quality.

Please advice that from a practical standpoint, as a daily day to day walk around lens, which lens of the two will prove to be more apt?

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:07 pm 
Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM is what I'd recommend. Its what I'm planning to get to upgrade my 18-135, which to be honest I'm pretty pleased with so it wont be straight off.

Gordons reviewed it here

The problem with the zooms you're looking at is they only go down to 24. I wouldnt find that wide enough for a walkabout zoom. Its designed for a FF camera (24mm divided by 1.6 crop factor = 15mm). I use the 18mm end of mine all the time, 15 would be even better.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:05 pm 

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 498
Location: 1 AU from the nearest star

A few years ago, I was in your exact same situation.
I had a 17-85mm lens and was looking to upgrade.

I watched Gordon's review of the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM on a XTi/400D several times.
I also walked around a bit with the lens set to roughly 24mm to see what I would lose and if I wanted to go wider.

After trying out the lens in the store, I was hooked. I planned later to get a UWA if I needed the extra reach. Within a week I acquired this lens and have not regretted it.

In my case, the extra reach and IS was more important than the f/2.8 aperture. I had a 50mm prime for when I needed more light.

Later on, I did end up getting a UWA lens for the extra reach, and eventually a 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II for situations where I wanted more light. While I do not regret the UWA or the 24-105mm, there have been times when I regret the 16-35mm. Though at Christmas time the 16-35mm gets more use than any other lens I have. Part of the problem I might have is I bought the 16-35mm and the 85mm f/1.8 USM too close together, and have not spend enough time with either to fully appreciate it. The more I take them with me, however, the more I enjoy using it, and the less frequent do the thoughts of "what if" occur.

The 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a great lens and I would recommend watching the video here on cameralabs to see if it would work for you. It is wider than the 17-85mm and would be a step up.

All in all, the 24-105mm is the lens I take with me the most. I cannot recall a time where I left this lens behind, yet there are times where I have left any of the other lenses, or somtimes all of them, behind. The only lens that comes close to having with me as often is my 50mm f/1.4 USM.

Canon 5DIII, Rebel XTi/400D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes
Vivitar 50mm f/1.8 for OM System

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 5:30 am
Posts: 111
Location: Kerala, India
Even though there r many good reviews in favor of 15-85,
my advice is to stick with the L lens
15-85 have better IQ, but the BQ is not a huge step up, u may feel almost same( as B.Q is one of ur main concern)

L lens -Its really something special, and remember- the resale value of the L lens tends to stick some where close to the brand new as this always keeps its value, also will be useful if u have any kind of FF upgrade in the future

In between ur 2 choices,, i feel that f 2.8 is far more important than IS.
Its doesn't means that IS is not at all important, but in the focal length range what we were taking about, its relatively less important

So i will vote for EF 24-70 f2.8---- took two step forward, if u r out of reach(@ 70mm), u wont regret, i have 1 of that, its great- build quality is 1 step up that of 24-105( even though both r L- at least in my point of view)
Also 24-70's lens hood work through out its zoom range( others- is only in the wide part)
Its the bed and butter for thousand of pros around the world---- do u need more proof?
But i really don't know how its balance with ur 400D

CAMERAS:- Nikon D800 & Sony H50
LENSES:- Nikon AFS 50mm F1.8 G, Nikon AFS 24-70 F2.8 G, Sigma APO 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
Wish list:- Nikon SB 700, Elinchrom FX 400

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:50 pm 

Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:02 am
Posts: 396
Check list.

Since you have a 17-85 IS...

1) Turn off your IS and take some pics. Do you miss the IS?
2) Avoid taking pics 71-85mm. Do you miss the extra zoom?
3) Avoid taking pictures wider than 24mm. Do you miss the 17-23mm?

If you answer yes to 1: Get the 24-105L IS, 15-85 IS, or 17-55 IS.
If you answer yes to 2, you should look at the 15-85 IS, or 24-105L IS.
If you answer yes to 3, then the 15-85 IS, 17-55 IS, 16-35L, or 17-40L.
If you answer no to all, get the 24-70L.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:46 pm 

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 994
Location: SE Texas
Before buying the 24-70mm 2.8L, try to rent (hire) one for a bit, and actually walk around with it, all day. This is a quite heavy lens! Some of these heavy pro zoom lenses will not balance well on lighter cameras, and too much weight toward the front can make make the whole ensemble seem heavier than its actual weight. (I consider the 400D to be a very light-weight camera; I used the USA equivalent XTi regularly for a while, and it is still available for me to use.) My idea of a walking-around lens is something a bit lighter than the 24-70mm 2.8L, though I would love to own one for shooting at some social functions.

A heavy lens may not be such a bad thing, depending upon how one carries the camera while walking about, and how one holds the camera while shooting. Does one primarily let the camera hang by a neck strap, or does one hand-carry the weight of the camera? If the weight is mostly borne by one hand, is it the right or left hand? The left hand cradles the lens, whereas
the right hand usually grips the camera body. All of this affects what one
finds comfortable to carry and shoot. If one bears the weight of the camera
primarily in the right hand, a heavy lens on a light camera is more likely to
be uncomfortable.

I have not settled upon one perfect walk-around lens. Much depends upon where I plan to walk on a given day, the light level, and how open the area. My wife is a much more accomplished photographer than I, and she believes in the 18-200mm zoom, accepting the distortion at the extreme ends of the zoom range, and the aperture limitations.

As I ponder the two lenses mentioned in the original post, I would lean toward the 24-105mm as a walk-around lens choice, and the 24-70mm 2.8 as more of a working lens to use for a planned shoot. The nearest lens to these two, that I own, is the 28-135mm EF that was packaged with my first 7D as a kit lens. I would want an ultra-wide-angle lens, such as my 10-22mm EF-S, to be available, with any of these choices, as neither 24mm nor 28mm is very wide on a crop-frame camera body. Actually, I can very much enjoy my 10-22mm, alone, for a day of walking about! :)

Canon 5Ds R/7D2/7D/5D/40D/1D2N/M3; Nikon F6/D3s/D700/FM3A/1Dx/Coolpix A. Lens selection undergoing changes; some favorites: Zeiss 2/135 APO Sonnar, Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS and 135L, Nikkor 14-24/2.8G and 24-70/2.8G.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:55 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 1173
Location: bit east of Melbourne
I am going to ask the stupid question, what is wrong with the 17-85 besides lacking confidence.
The image quality of the others maybe a tad better and the build quality, but its all relative. I have used mates 40D with the 17-85 and the 100-400L and it takes great pictures.
I think the 400D and the 17-85 make a very good combo, its build quality is pretty good, about as good as a 400D. If you want better pics, you may also want to consider upgrading your body. The sensor in the 400D is a good match for the 17-85 that is all I am saying.

Ultimately think about what aperture you need, if its 2.8 you have got the 17-50 or 28-75 from tamron or 17-55 and 24-70 from Canon. Unless you look at a prime lens ie have you used something like the 50 1.4 usm?

If its all round range, the 15-85 or the 24-105 f4.

But if you get a lens that starts at 24 or 28 you may still need a wide angle lens.

Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, Canon 40 2.8 STM, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group