FAQ: A starter guide to buying lenses for your Canon digital SLR camera.

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
What about the older lenses that Canon made?

Canon made L lenses for a long time. Good optics should be good optics. What if you came across an L lens from the 80's or 90's?

Canon does not service some vintage EF L lenses, even if you wanted to pay for it. Among these are the 80-200 2.8L and the 100-300 5.6L. You would have to go third party for repairs. Parts for these are crapshoot, third party places stock up on donors, so if they are out, you might have to wait a while.
I couldn't recommend one of these. If you have a taste for vintage, get an adaptor and shoot some primes.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
What about the older lenses that Canon made?

Canon made L lenses for a long time. Good optics should be good optics. What if you came across an L lens from the 80's or 90's?

The lenses that Canon made during the 80s are in FD mount, not the current EF mount. FD lenses are not compatible with EF lenses because an FD lens mounted to an EF body is too far away from the sensor, meaning it loses infinity focus. Kinda a drag, because Canon made some nice FD lenses supposedly.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
What about the older lenses that Canon made?

Canon made L lenses for a long time. Good optics should be good optics. What if you came across an L lens from the 80's or 90's?

Most of the L lenses are from the late 80's and 90's

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html

 

[JoeyM]

Funny, the lenses recommended for me weren't from the original post. So would the Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD or the Canon Wide Angle EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens be better for everyday use? The Canon is cheaper but maybe the Tamron is more versatile?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Nice write up. :thumbsup:

 

[daniel1113]

Nice guide... I wish it was available when I first started with a DSLR.


Although you are correct that there really is no high-quality all-purpose lens that can meet all the needs of a photographer, I think the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens comes pretty damn close. I probably use it for 75% of my shots.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
What about the older lenses that Canon made?

Canon made L lenses for a long time. Good optics should be good optics. What if you came across an L lens from the 80's or 90's?

The lenses that Canon made during the 80s are in FD mount, not the current EF mount. FD lenses are not compatible with EF lenses because an FD lens mounted to an EF body is too far away from the sensor, meaning it loses infinity focus. Kinda a drag, because Canon made some nice FD lenses supposedly.

What about the lenses made in the 90's?

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
What about the older lenses that Canon made?

Canon made L lenses for a long time. Good optics should be good optics. What if you came across an L lens from the 80's or 90's?

The lenses that Canon made during the 80s are in FD mount, not the current EF mount. FD lenses are not compatible with EF lenses because an FD lens mounted to an EF body is too far away from the sensor, meaning it loses infinity focus. Kinda a drag, because Canon made some nice FD lenses supposedly.

What about the lenses made in the 90's?

See my post about out of production EF L glasses above.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: JoeyM
Funny, the lenses recommended for me weren't from the original post. So would the Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD or the Canon Wide Angle EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens be better for everyday use? The Canon is cheaper but maybe the Tamron is more versatile?

This really depends on your shooting style. I have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that I got for $300, and it's one of my favorite lenses because it is razor sharp. At 30mm x 1.6 = 48mm equivalent, it's right in the "normal" 50mm range, which I find is great for general shooting.

But it's not for everyday situations. A 17-50mm would afford you a lot more versatility.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: pontifex
The dark horse: This is a lens that belongs in every single Canon SLR owner?s backpack - bar none. At a mere $80 USD, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, a.k.a. the ?Plastic Fantastic?, offers an incredibly large aperture, stunningly sharp visuals and a fanastically low physical weight at the cost of a fixed focal length, plastic construction and a sometimes frustrating stepper-style autofocus motor. But for the price and versatility, you simply cannot go wrong.


anyone know an equivalent Nikon lens?

uhhh, the Nikon 50mm f/1.8

well obviously but i meant in quality and versatility and price...

Well now that you put it that way, I'd have to go with the...Nikon 50mm f/1.8

You've got to be kidding me. Are you dense?

fvck you. when you originally replied you made it sound like it would just be the nikon 1.8 because its the same specs as the canon. if thats still what you mean, you're just a retard.


yllus posted this:
Walkabout Lenses

So far we?ve looked at the ultra-wide (10mm - 20mm) and zoom (70mm - 200mm) lens ranges. How about that crucial in-between area for stuff that?s not too closeby and not too far away?

Good: Once again, we go first-party with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens. On a 1.6x field of view crop body like the Canon EOS 350D, Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XT, Digital Rebel XTi) or Canon EOS 30D, that works out to a 27.2 - 64mm focal range; just what we?re looking for. Located squarely in the medium price range for quality lenses (especially considering its ?L? status), the 17-40mm will run you about $680 USD.

Almost as good, but cheaper: The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC actually takes an advantage on the score of maintaining a large aperture of f2.8 over its entire range of focal lengths, but takes a step back in its lack of high speed autofocusing mechanisms (especially when compared to Canon?s USM technology) and in that nearly unmeasurable ?sharpness? attribute. However, at $360 USD, how can you complain?

The dark horse: This is a lens that belongs in every single Canon SLR owner?s backpack - bar none. At a mere $80 USD, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, a.k.a. the ?Plastic Fantastic?, offers an incredibly large aperture, stunningly sharp visuals and a fanastically low physical weight at the cost of a fixed focal length, plastic construction and a sometimes frustrating stepper-style autofocus motor. But for the price and versatility, you simply cannot go wrong.

he made it sound like the 1st 2 lenses were the ones to get but the cheap 50mm was super great compared to the others. i'm just asking if Nikon had something similar. so get off your fvcking elitist, know-it-all, high horse.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: pontifex
The dark horse: This is a lens that belongs in every single Canon SLR owner?s backpack - bar none. At a mere $80 USD, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, a.k.a. the ?Plastic Fantastic?, offers an incredibly large aperture, stunningly sharp visuals and a fanastically low physical weight at the cost of a fixed focal length, plastic construction and a sometimes frustrating stepper-style autofocus motor. But for the price and versatility, you simply cannot go wrong.


anyone know an equivalent Nikon lens?

uhhh, the Nikon 50mm f/1.8

well obviously but i meant in quality and versatility and price...

Well now that you put it that way, I'd have to go with the...Nikon 50mm f/1.8

You've got to be kidding me. Are you dense?

fvck you. when you originally replied you made it sound like it would just be the nikon 1.8 because its the same specs as the canon. if thats still what you mean, you're just a retard.


yllus posted this:
Walkabout Lenses

So far we?ve looked at the ultra-wide (10mm - 20mm) and zoom (70mm - 200mm) lens ranges. How about that crucial in-between area for stuff that?s not too closeby and not too far away?

Good: Once again, we go first-party with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens. On a 1.6x field of view crop body like the Canon EOS 350D, Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XT, Digital Rebel XTi) or Canon EOS 30D, that works out to a 27.2 - 64mm focal range; just what we?re looking for. Located squarely in the medium price range for quality lenses (especially considering its ?L? status), the 17-40mm will run you about $680 USD.

Almost as good, but cheaper: The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC actually takes an advantage on the score of maintaining a large aperture of f2.8 over its entire range of focal lengths, but takes a step back in its lack of high speed autofocusing mechanisms (especially when compared to Canon?s USM technology) and in that nearly unmeasurable ?sharpness? attribute. However, at $360 USD, how can you complain?

The dark horse: This is a lens that belongs in every single Canon SLR owner?s backpack - bar none. At a mere $80 USD, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, a.k.a. the ?Plastic Fantastic?, offers an incredibly large aperture, stunningly sharp visuals and a fanastically low physical weight at the cost of a fixed focal length, plastic construction and a sometimes frustrating stepper-style autofocus motor. But for the price and versatility, you simply cannot go wrong.

he made it sound like the 1st 2 lenses were the ones to get but the cheap 50mm was super great compared to the others. i'm just asking if Nikon had something similar. so get off your fvcking elitist, know-it-all, high horse.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show...ct.php?product=61&sort=7&cat=12&page=2

The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is better than the Canon 50mm f/1.8. Would you please just STFU already. Geez.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: JoeyM
Funny, the lenses recommended for me weren't from the original post. So would the Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD or the Canon Wide Angle EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens be better for everyday use? The Canon is cheaper but maybe the Tamron is more versatile?

That Tamron is a good purchase, it's a toss-up between that and the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC I mentioned in the post.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD = $449.00 USD
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Autofocus = $359.00 USD

As you can see, there's significant price difference to be factored into the equation (comparing non-macro to non-macro lens varieties). I won't get into the he-said, she-said of quality control issues.

I have trouble recommending prime lenses to the average prosumer; few people understand why the fixed focal range/sharpness tradeoff is worth it. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is the exception I'll make because it's almost a throwaway piece due to the price.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: JoeyM
Funny, the lenses recommended for me weren't from the original post. So would the Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD or the Canon Wide Angle EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens be better for everyday use? The Canon is cheaper but maybe the Tamron is more versatile?

That Tamron is a good purchase, it's a toss-up between that and the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC I mentioned in the post.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD = $449.00 USD
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Autofocus = $359.00 USD

As you can see, there's significant price difference to be factored into the equation (comparing non-macro to non-macro lens varieties). I won't get into the he-said, she-said of quality control issues.

Wow, I never knew the Sigma was such a good deal. From the reviews, it looks like the Sigma is just as sharp as the Tamron, and cheaper too. Sigma's EX contruction is better than Tamron's to boot.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why no primes?

ZV

Well, to cover the same range with Primes is 10 to 100 times more expensive.

Point.

That said, with my zooms, I find that I almost always use either 50mm or 28mm on the walk-around lens and 300mm on the long zoom. (Film camera, convert to equivalent FOV for a DSLR.) For portraiture I'll pull out the 135 f/2.8 screwmount ($10 on eBay, exceptional little lens, I practically stole it).

I think that 3 or 4 well considered primes would cover that reach, but you're right that with modern lenses it would be more expensive. I think that lens manufacturers have realised that aside from a few screwball hobbiests like me, only pros want primes and have decided to price the primes accordingly now.

ZV

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Why no primes?

ZV

Well, to cover the same range with Primes is 10 to 100 times more expensive.

Point.

That said, with my zooms, I find that I almost always use either 50mm or 28mm on the walk-around lens and 300mm on the long zoom. (Film camera, convert to equivalent FOV for a DSLR.) For portraiture I'll pull out the 135 f/2.8 screwmount ($10 on eBay, exceptional little lens, I practically stole it).

I think that 3 or 4 well considered primes would cover that reach, but you're right that with modern lenses it would be more expensive. I think that lens manufacturers have realised that aside from a few screwball hobbiests like me, only pros want primes and have decided to price the primes accordingly now.

ZV

Yeah, it's really kinda sad. Based on a materials and manufacturing standpoint, primes should be cheaper than zooms, yet they are still really expensive

Not to mention a lot of the old primes don't have AF, which consumers want because it's more convenient and because most cameras now don't have split screen focusing.

If I had my way I'd like primes to be cheap, have AF, and have the aperture control ring right on the lens itself.

 

[kalster]

kinda off topic question I guess
when you buy a new lens, what sort of tests (of taking pictures ofcourse) do you do to verify your copy is sharp (as sharp as reviews suggest) and focuses correctly.

 

[91TTZ]

What would be a good lens for taking macro shots of bugs and things?

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
What would be a good lens for taking macro shots of bugs and things?

Canon makes macro lenses. They have the EF-S 60mm and the 100mm. Some might tell you to stay away from the EF-S becuase if you upgrade to a 5d or better, you won't really be able to use it. Unlike camera bodies, glass holds its value exceptionally well though.

 

[ElFenix]

i just want an 18-200 F4L USM IS please.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
What about the older lenses that Canon made?

Canon made L lenses for a long time. Good optics should be good optics. What if you came across an L lens from the 80's or 90's?

I recently sold a 70-200 f/2.8L built in 1995 and it took wonderful photos.

YMMV, homey.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: yllus
FAQ: A starter guide to buying lenses for your Canon digital SLR camera

There?s an unfortunate reality that many people who take that big step into prosumer camera gear face early on: There is no such thing as a high-quality, do-everything lens. That is, a lens that will take wide-angle shots and, with a twist of the barrel, reach in and touch someone with a deep zoom. While my trusty and somewhat aged Canon PowerShot A70 had a very usable 35mm - 105mm range (3x zoom), a prosumer would typically be looking to double that to something along the lines of 10mm - 200mm. But a quality 20x zoom lens does not exist.

So, we find ourselves considering multiple lenses; at least two, maybe three. Before spouting off lenses and their specs, take a moment to consider the type of photography you?re inclined to be doing.

Landscape & Architecture Photography

If you?re a urban landscape photographer, your natural inclination is to take pictures of the impressive buildings that loom above you, or of the width of a city street as people cross by, or of graffiti splayed out across a delapitated building. You?ll want a ultra wide-angle lens, seeing as the constriction of city streets will likely leave you not much room to maneuver away from your subject and still get a clear shot.

Good: The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is a beautiful piece of work that gives its user crisp shots with great autofocus speed. At 10mm, you?ve got a very wide field of vision that you can use to stand across the street from a skyscraper looming over you and still make the best of the shot.

Being a first-party Canon lens, build quality and optics are top-notch - but then again, so is the price. The 10-22mm will run you about $680 USD (brand new). Sample photos can be viewed on the POTN Canon Digital Photography Forums right here.

Almost as good, but cheaper: The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM will run you about $499 USD (brand new), which is a considerable savings over the Canon 10-22mm, and comes up with some very impressive visuals of its own (see the POTN thread on the Sigma 10-20mm).

Sigma?s Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) technology matches up comparably with Canon?s USM autofocusing technology, and their 10 year warranty on lenses in Canada is unmatched. It makes getting the Canon 10-22mm, even if you?ve got the cash, a tough call.

Sports & Events Photography

If your primary goal is to attend sporting events or concerts and want the ability to zoom right in to isolate one or two subjects, you?re in need of a telephoto lens. You?re also going to need a ?fast? lens which has the ability to freeze fast-moving action. The ability to do this will cost you, and there?s no way around that.

Good: As is almost always the case, a first party Canon lens stands out as the best option. Here you?ve got the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, which on a Canon 300D, 350D, 400D, 20D and 30D will actually reflect a focal range of 112-320mm. This is another high-quality ?L? lens from Canon with a constant f/2.8 aperture through the entire zoom range and image stabilization (denoted by ?IS? in the lens name) added on top. That?ll run you a hefty $1700 USD, but that?s the accepted price of a quality telephoto lens.

Almost as good, but cheaper: Can you do without the image stabilization? (IS is always a good idea at long zoom ranges, but sometimes keeping within budget is of more importance.) Pick up the exact same Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM for $1140 USD. However, you?ve got a second route to go as well. Sigma again steps in with a quality budget option with the Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM for $750 USD.

The dark horse: Well-known as a ?starter? L lens, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM offers the same beautiful optics of its more expensive siblings at half-cost, but with a noted limitation in aperture (thus limiting your lens?s ?speed?). However, at a mere $580 USD this lens has proven to be an extremely popular purchase option.

Walkabout Lenses

So far we?ve looked at the ultra-wide (10mm - 20mm) and zoom (70mm - 200mm) lens ranges. How about that crucial in-between area for stuff that?s not too closeby and not too far away?

Good: Once again, we go first-party with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens. On a 1.6x field of view crop body like the Canon EOS 350D, Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XT, Digital Rebel XTi) or Canon EOS 30D, that works out to a 27.2 - 64mm focal range; just what we?re looking for. Located squarely in the medium price range for quality lenses (especially considering its ?L? status), the 17-40mm will run you about $680 USD.

Almost as good, but cheaper: The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC actually takes an advantage on the score of maintaining a large aperture of f2.8 over its entire range of focal lengths, but takes a step back in its lack of high speed autofocusing mechanisms (especially when compared to Canon?s USM technology) and in that nearly unmeasurable ?sharpness? attribute. However, at $360 USD, how can you complain?

The dark horse: This is a lens that belongs in every single Canon SLR owner?s backpack - bar none. At a mere $80 USD, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, a.k.a. the ?Plastic Fantastic?, offers an incredibly large aperture, stunningly sharp visuals and a fanastically low physical weight at the cost of a fixed focal length, plastic construction and a sometimes frustrating stepper-style autofocus motor. But for the price and versatility, you simply cannot go wrong.

Notes

In order of appearance, sample photos for each of the lenses mentioned in this post:

1. Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5 - 4.5 USM samples
2. Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM samples
3. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM samples
4. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM samples
5. Sigma APO 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM samples
6. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM samples
7. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM samples
8. Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC samples
9. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II samples

Links

1. My blog: Building a stable of lenses for your Canon SLR camera.
2. Canon Digital Photography Forums (All real-user samples pulled from this website, great resource!)
3. B & H Photo Video (Great online imaging store)
4. Sigma4Less (One-stop shop for Sigma SLR lenses)

Canon TS lenses (specially the 24mm TS L) would also be great candidates for Landscape & Architecture Photography. And, auto focus speed isn't a requirement for this type of photography.

IMHO, the best walk around lens is the 50mm (fast/light weight/sharp), and the runner up is the 24-105mm L IS. I choses the 24-105mm over the excellent 24-70mm L due to weight/size/IS for superior hand held shooting.

The 70-200mm L/IS are fine lenses, however they are way too big & heavy for indoor sport. For me the best indoor sport lens is the 85mm f1.8 lens (85mm f1.2 L manual focus was my favorite lens), and a dream come true would be a rapidly quick focus 85mm f1.2 L IS if Canon ever make such a monster. A 300mm f2.8 L IS would be a great indoor or out door sport companion if weight & money isn't a concern. The 300mm f4 L IS is about the best combination of speed/weight ratio when you need to get that closeup shot.

 

[shuttleboi]

Originally posted by: yllus
FAQ: A starter guide to buying lenses for your Canon digital SLR camera

There?s an unfortunate reality that many people who take that big step into prosumer camera gear face early on: There is no such thing as a high-quality, do-everything lens.

Nonsense. My 24-105mm F4 L is an exceptional high-quality do-everything lens on my 5D. Occasionally I reach for my 17-40mm for architecture, but my 24-105mm has effectively relegated my other lenses to my shelf (Tamron 28-75mm, Canon 70-200mm F4, 100mm macro, 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8).

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
Canon TS lenses (specially the 24mm TS L) would also be great candidates for Landscape & Architecture Photography. And, auto focus speed isn't a requirement for this type of photography.

IMHO, the best walk around lens is the 50mm (fast/light weight/sharp), and the runner up is the 24-105mm L IS. I choses the 24-105mm over the excellent 24-70mm L due to weight/size/IS for superior hand held shooting.

The 70-200mm L/IS are fine lenses, however they are way too big & heavy for indoor sport. For me the best indoor sport lens is the 85mm f1.8 lens (85mm f1.2 L manual focus was my favorite lens), and a dream come true would be a rapidly quick focus 85mm f1.2 L IS if Canon ever make such a monster. A 300mm f2.8 L IS would be a great indoor or out door sport companion if weight & money isn't a concern. The 300mm f4 L IS is about the best combination of speed/weight ratio when you need to get that closeup shot.

That is great to know, because I was looking at the 24-70mm L lens.


And thanks yllus! Great write up, especially for a DSLR noob like myself.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: shuttleboi

Originally posted by: yllus
FAQ: A starter guide to buying lenses for your Canon digital SLR camera

There?s an unfortunate reality that many people who take that big step into prosumer camera gear face early on: There is no such thing as a high-quality, do-everything lens.

Nonsense. My 24-105mm F4 L is an exceptional high-quality do-everything lens on my 5D. Occasionally I reach for my 17-40mm for architecture, but my 24-105mm has effectively relegated my other lenses to my shelf (Tamron 28-75mm, Canon 70-200mm F4, 100mm macro, 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8).

Bolded for clarity. I would hardly consider the 5D a prosumer, or a $1000 lens.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
Canon TS lenses (specially the 24mm TS L) would also be great candidates for Landscape & Architecture Photography. And, auto focus speed isn't a requirement for this type of photography.

IMHO, the best walk around lens is the 50mm (fast/light weight/sharp), and the runner up is the 24-105mm L IS. I chose the 24-105mm over the excellent 24-70mm L due to weight/size/IS for superior hand held shooting.

The 70-200mm L/IS are fine lenses, however they are way too big & heavy for indoor sport. For me the best indoor sport lens is the 85mm f1.8 lens (85mm f1.2 L manual focus was my favorite lens), and a dream come true would be a rapidly quick focus 85mm f1.2 L IS if Canon ever make such a monster. A 300mm f2.8 L IS would be a great indoor or out door sport companion if weight & money isn't a concern. The 300mm f4 L IS is about the best combination of speed/weight ratio when you need to get that closeup shot.

I'll have to admit near total ignorance on Canon TS lenses. Will look them up ASAP, thanks.

Hmm. I'm going to look into the 85mm f/1.8 then and add it if the general consensus is a good one. And I should really have added the Canon 25-105mm right off the bat as a walkaround but for some reason I always forget of its existence.

Originally posted by: shuttleboi

Originally posted by: yllus
FAQ: A starter guide to buying lenses for your Canon digital SLR camera

There?s an unfortunate reality that many people who take that big step into prosumer camera gear face early on: There is no such thing as a high-quality, do-everything lens.

Nonsense. My 24-105mm F4 L is an exceptional high-quality do-everything lens on my 5D. Occasionally I reach for my 17-40mm for architecture, but my 24-105mm has effectively relegated my other lenses to my shelf (Tamron 28-75mm, Canon 70-200mm F4, 100mm macro, 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8).

The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L is a good walkaround lens, but I certainly don't think it does everything. 24mm on the low end isn't wide enough, nor is 105mm long enough. I'd still tack on a Canon EF-S 10-22mm and Canon EF 70-200mm to extend that range.

Originally posted by: JackBurton
That is great to know, because I was looking at the 24-70mm L lens.

And thanks yllus! Great write up, especially for a DSLR noob like myself.

:thumbsup: