Lens Upgrade Advice - Please Help

[PhotoDim]

I am currently using a Canon 40D with the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and 50mm f/1.8. I am looking to upgrade the 28-135mm to something that produces better quality. I travel a lot and need a good lens that will produce great memorable photographs without too many regrets.

Currently, I am looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105mm f/4L IS. I have read many reviews and comparisons about both but would like the expert advise of PhotoCamel users as well. Please advise. I understand that the 24-70mm is quicker because of the shorter f-stop and can let in more light. However, the 24-105mm does have an additional 35mm of reach and the image stabilization. I do frequently use the 135mm end on my current 28-135mm and don't know if 70mm would be enough. However, I do like the fact that it is f/2.8 throughout. The next point is IS. How important is that, considering that I do not use a tripod and travel a lot and take photographs holding the camera. Will it be more of a factor in low-light than anything?

If the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105mm f/4L are not suitable, would it be better to get the 17-40mm f/4L (I have heard this lens is great) and another lens such as the 70-200mm f/4L to cover most of the focal range?

Here are my key points in making a decision:
1. I am looking for great sharpness in images and image quality
2. I am looking for the best walk-around solutions as I travel frequently and often do not have the opportunity to change lenses (and prefer not to change them too frequently).
3. I often use the latter end of the zoom but am willing to go for a smaller range if it means getting a better lens with more sharpness.
4. I take photographs holding the camera (my hands are not the steadiest) and am not entirely sure how much of a factor the image stabilization will play.
5. More importantly, if spending this much money, I want the best glass (or combination) that I can get for the money so that I don't regret the decision later on.

Thank you so much for your help, guidance, and advice!

[cyclohexane]

Originally Posted by PhotoDim

I have read many reviews and comparisons about both but would like the expert advise of DPReview users as well

It'd probably be a good idea to have "Photocamel" in the place of "DPReview", sort of like when applying for multiple jobs with the same cover letter and having the wrong potential employer in the letter... =)

4. I take photographs holding the camera (my hands are not the steadiest) and am not entirely sure how much of a factor the image stabilization will play.

For this situation, IS pretty much always helps, though in great light it is much less of a factor.

[PhotoDim]

So what is your verdict, cyclohexane?

[cyclohexane]

Personally, on a 40D I'd rather have the 17-40/70-200 combination (also bringing the 50, as it's small), as the 24-xx lenses aren't that wide on the 40D. Also, if you get the 70-200 non-IS, even with both lenses you'll still have spent less than a new 24-105 f/4L IS, if I'm not mistaken.

If choosing between just the 24-70 and 24-105, I'd get the 24-105.

I'm not a Canon owner (was a Canon user briefly), but I'm pretty sure the 24-105 is as sharp, if not sharper, than the 24-70 when both are used at f/4. All the 24-70 owners I've talked to have dinged its sharpness up until about f/5.6, saying that while it is adequate it could be much better. Also, with the 24-105 you'd get IS and the extra length at the long end.

[brian.austin]

I have a 24-105/4L as my standard walkaround and studio lens. I love it but occasionally miss the extra stop in low light situations, especially in weddings. Flash makes up for it usually and, if not, I'll pull out the 70-200/2.8L and step back a bit.

The IS helps but I tend to keep it off unless the situation warrants it.

I have not tried any of the other lenses you mention, however, so this is a bit one-sided.

Good luck.

[ohenry]

I have the 24-70 f/2.8L and do not have any issues with sharpness throughout the focal length or aperture range. I've never used the 24-105, but I like the idea of the longer range and IS, but have no plans to replace the 24-70 with this one. The 17-40 f/4L is a very nice lens that works well on the 1.6 factor cameras. All of the 70-200 versions are sharp lenses. I have the f/2.8 IS version and my only nit about it would be the weight.

Quality wise, having one lens to do all things generally doesn't work as well as having several lenses covering the same range. Any of the lenses you discuss are great lenses and if you only plan on purchasing one, you really need to determine what it is that you are going to photograph more frequently and which focal length appeals to that best. Personally, I'd opt for the 17-40 plus the 70-200 combo.

[mcbit]

I have 16-35L, 24-70L and 70-200L IS which works well for me as I normally carry 2 bodies. If I was restricted to carrying one body and one lens I'd certainly be considering the 24-105L IS.

Like Henry I have no real issues with any of the other lenses.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by PhotoDim

I am currently using a Canon 40D with the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and 50mm f/1.8. I am looking to upgrade the 28-135mm to something that produces better quality. I travel a lot and need a good lens that will produce great memorable photographs without too many regrets.

Currently, I am looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105mm f/4L IS. I have read many reviews and comparisons about both but would like the expert advise of PhotoCamel users as well. Please advise.

IMO both lack a wide(r) end to be called true 'walkarounds' on a 1.6x crop body.

For outdoors, travel, landscape (studio) the 24-105F4 L IS wins with extra lenght and IS, for lowlight/repo/PJ/wedding the 24-70F2.8 L is a bit more suited.

If the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105mm f/4L are not suitable, would it be better to get the 17-40mm f/4L (I have heard this lens is great) and another lens such as the 70-200mm f/4L to cover most of the focal range?

the two-lens kit would have *my* favour, but in stead of the 17-40 *I* would look at the EF-S17-55F2.8 IS, as it has both F2.8 *and* IS as an extra layer of icing on it's cake , preferably paired with the lighter F70-200F4L IS for travel...

Here are my key points in making a decision:
1. I am looking for great sharpness in images and image quality
2. I am looking for the best walk-around solutions as I travel frequently and often do not have the opportunity to change lenses (and prefer not to change them too frequently).
3. I often use the latter end of the zoom but am willing to go for a smaller range if it means getting a better lens with more sharpness.
4. I take photographs holding the camera (my hands are not the steadiest) and am not entirely sure how much of a factor the image stabilization will play.
5. More importantly, if spending this much money, I want the best glass (or combination) that I can get for the money so that I don't regret the decision later on.

Well, both 24-105, 24-70, 17-40+70-200F4L and 17-55IS+70-200F4IS would have plenty of 1., are light enough to cover 2., all the 'shorter' lenses sure beat the 28-135 in IQ, the only thing 28-135 has 'left' to choose it is it's focal lenght, so that covers 3.
IS (24-105 or 17-55 - ?70-200?) will indeed help you to handhold your camera 'as long as possible', so much for 4. and about 5.: it is always a good advise to get the best lens you can (barely) afford

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[Pony]

From your own description it sounds like the 24-105 might best suit your needs.
1. All these lenses provide great image quality.From there:
2.This lense covers the widest range of focal lengths.If you can't change or don't prefer to change lenses,why introduce a 2 lens option.Both the 17-40 & 70-200 are at opposite ends of focal length.
That 30mm difference can introduce alot of lens changing.Plus you still have your fast prime lens.
3. The 24-105 will cost you 30mm at the long end but will give you the quality your after and F/4
will be constant.You still have the versatility.Again,don't consider a 2 lens kit if you mostly shoot at the longer end.
4.The stabilizer really makes this lens what it is.When shooting in normal daylight IS doesn't provide any real advantage.It will get you many images you wouldn't otherwise get when lighting is low and opens up new shooting opportunities during those situations.
5. The 24-105 is optomized for digital,whereas the 28-135 IS isn't.The L glass will be around for along time and is also better sealed for weather conditions.
Since you already have the 28-135,shoot with it at 70 and 100mm and see if those imposed focal lengths are acceptable before you put out money for L glass.

[stoph]

I have the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS. I would very quickly recommend the 17-55 as your walk around. It isn't very heavy and performs very well.

[afterburn]

I have had the 17-55 2.8 IS, and while a great and sharp lens, it was a bit sterile to my taste (for lack of better words to describe it). I actually prefer the 17-40L over the 17-55, despite the latter is arguably a little sharper and has less distortion.

I now have both the 17-40L and the 24-105L, and I love those lenses. Of course on my 5D, 24mm is really 24mm and 17mm is REALLY wide. Judging from your use, you don't need the wider than 24, which is already significantly wider than the 28 you have now.

As a walkaround lens, it is very hard to beat the 24-105L. It has a wonderful range, very good quality, colors are beautiful and (micro) contrast is excellent.

I wouldn't give up that lens for anything.

[lowbone]

I use a 24-105 as a travel lens and rarely find myself wishing for more. It is an excellent lens that I think will meet your needs.

[jfrancho]

The advice to get a 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 (in any variety, as long as it is white) along with a fast prime like the 50 f/1.4 is my usual "stock answer" for these questions. However, in your case, it sounds like the 24-105 f/4L IS would suit you best. Do not let the "slower" rating of f/4 throw you off the scent of this lens - it is the ultimate walk around glass.

[aam1234]

Add me to the 17-40 + 70-200 f4 IS group. This combo costs $1,300 (or $1,210 now after the instant rebate, which ends July 19th ... two days from now!). In comparison, the 24-70 alone costs $1,190.

Btw, you can't go wrong with any of the lenses you've listed.

Let us know what you decide on.

[jfrancho]

Ummm, you need to go relearn addition. Those two lenses would be $650 and $1025, respectively including the rebates. That adds up to $1675.