Going to take the plunge and buy a Canon "L" series lens

[Doggiedog]

I've been waiting quite a while to buy an L series lens. I have an EF-S 17-85mm lens but I'm not too happy with it.

I'm looking to buy a 24-105 f/4.0L but before I do, I'm wondering if anyone knows if any new Canon lenses are coming out in the near term or if there any rumors out there. I don't want to have waited 2 years and then have something new come out right beforehand.

Thanks,

DD

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Are you going to be comfortable with that zoom range? The 24mm end may not be wide enough for you if you want it as a walkaround lens, and the f/4 aperture may be limiting as well.

As for new lenses, I don't know of any other than an EF 14/2.8L II and an EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6IS USM.

 

[ElFenix]

like fuzzy said, that lens leaves you with basically no wide angle (normal is 43 mm, this lens resembles a 39-168). also, it's not particularly fast. if you'll be upgrading to a 5D or a 1Ds it'll give you a much better field of view on that camera, though. it's also beaten on it's long end by the 70-200 f/4L. you might get better service out of a 3rd party lens in combo with the 70-200 f/4L.

 

[Kelvrick]

Is the 17-85 the only other lens you have? Are you looking for kind of a walk-aroundable lens? I'd prefer the sigma 18-200 OS if thats the case.

Have you looked at the 17-55 2.8 IS? It'll probably pair up well with a 70-200 or 70-300.

 

[Doggiedog]

I've got the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS. Its a good walkaround lens but I don't feel like its very sharp. I have a lot of friends who have the 24-105 f/4.0L and the 28-70 f/2.8L and love the PQ from those lenses. I've got a 50mm f/1.4 which takes comparable pictures to those L lenses but my zoom lens leaves a lot to be desired.

Since I'm coming from a f/4.0-5.6, I don't think I'm losing much on the way of aperture (other than the annoying habit of having to reset the AV setting when I zoom back in). On the versatility front, I don't think I need too long of a lens. 200mm is too much for me, I don't know the 17-200mm lens you mention but I will definitely sacrifice lens size for more sharpness with the aperture wide open.

Edit: Oh and I think my next camera (currently 20D) will be a full frame so I'm shying away from the EF-S mounts. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is really compelling though.

 

[OdiN]

This:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/...200mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html

And This:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/..._8_4_Di_Autofocus.html


Might be a decent combo.

Edit:

Well...I guess if you have the 17-85, then get a 70-200L and leave it at that. The Tamron I doubt is all that much better than the 17-85, unless you need the larger apertures.

 

[Kelvrick]

I was talking about this Sigma 18-200 OS for $470.

If OP doesn't have a problem with third party, I'd take the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS over the Canon F4 IS. Its his money though.

OP says he doesn't even think he needs 200 though and if he doesn't need the wider angles and 24 is good enough, I personally salivate over the 24-70 2.8L.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I was talking about this Sigma 18-200 OS for $470.

If OP doesn't have a problem with third party, I'd take the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS over the Canon F4 IS. Its his money though.

OP says he doesn't even think he needs 200 though and if he doesn't need the wider angles and 24 is good enough, I personally salivate over the 24-70 2.8L.

meh, the 18-200 doesn't really impress me IQ wise. Not that I wouldn't get one if I was trying to travel.

And a 70-200 OS doesn't exist AFAIK.

 

[Doggiedog]

Somehow I doubt any of those lenses will take better pictures than a 24-105 f/4.0L or the 28-70 f/2.8L. Image quality is the most important thing to me right now, well, within a reasonable price.

I'm not happy with my existing zoom lens which is why I want to replace it, not augment it with a larger lens.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: randomlinh
And a 70-200 OS doesn't exist AFAIK.

My mistake. Thought it was OS.

 

[corkyg]

When I was using a 20D, my "walking around" lens was the EFS 17-85mm. I found it to be excellent and as sharp as you set it for. The 20D has mode settings which allow the user to set default factors such as sharpness.

The 24-105 is very well suited to the %D and the 1D series. It is a true 24mm, not 38.4mm.

What I really liked for a good lens for the 20D was the 16-35 L lens. That was perfect for all my indoor missions/shoots.

I also like the Tamrom DI series with the 20D and D60.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Is the 17-85 the only other lens you have? Are you looking for kind of a walk-aroundable lens? I'd prefer the sigma 18-200 OS if thats the case.

Have you looked at the 17-55 2.8 IS? It'll probably pair up well with a 70-200 or 70-300.

apparently that sigma is a bit of a hit n miss. its the lens i wanted too but after reading some reviews im not so sure.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I owned the 24-105 on my EOS-20D (crop body) and have since sold it for the EFS 17-55.

While the "L" had much better build quality and maybe a tad better color/contrast, the 17-55 is sharper, is much better in low light, and has a range that is MUCH better for a crop body. While 24mm is better than 28mm, 24 is still pretty darn wide.

You might consider the EF 17-40 F4L + EF 70-200 F4L combo for the same price as the 24-105.

As for new lenses on the horizon, Canon just released the EF 14 F2.8L MkII. Before that the 16-35 F2.8L MkII. I would expect another "L" to debut with the EOS-5D successor in FEB 2008 but nothing before then.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I owned the 24-105 on my EOS-20D (crop body) and have since sold it for the EFS 17-55.

While the "L" had much better build quality and maybe a tad better color/contrast, the 17-55 is sharper, is much better in low light, and has a range that is MUCH better for a crop body. While 24mm is better than 28mm, 24 is still pretty darn wide.

You might consider the EF 17-40 F4L + EF 70-200 F4L combo for the same price as the 24-105.

As for new lenses on the horizon, Canon just released the EF 14 F2.8L MkII. Before that the 16-35 F2.8L MkII. I would expect another "L" to debut with the EOS-5D successor in FEB 2008 but nothing before then.

What I'd like to see is the 17-55 EF-S w/o the IS so I can realistically justify it I'd say an updated 17-40.. f/2.8L maybe, but it'd probably cost the same as the current 17-55 EFS, heh

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I owned the 24-105 on my EOS-20D (crop body) and have since sold it for the EFS 17-55.

While the "L" had much better build quality and maybe a tad better color/contrast, the 17-55 is sharper, is much better in low light, and has a range that is MUCH better for a crop body. While 24mm is better than 28mm, 24 is still pretty darn wide.

You might consider the EF 17-40 F4L + EF 70-200 F4L combo for the same price as the 24-105.

As for new lenses on the horizon, Canon just released the EF 14 F2.8L MkII. Before that the 16-35 F2.8L MkII. I would expect another "L" to debut with the EOS-5D successor in FEB 2008 but nothing before then.

What I'd like to see is the 17-55 EF-S w/o the IS so I can realistically justify it I'd say an updated 17-40.. f/2.8L maybe, but it'd probably cost the same as the current 17-55 EFS, heh

Actually, I have come to like IS a lot.

I doubt we'll ever see a 17-40 F2.8L as there is a 16-35 F2.8L.

I think a realistic dream would be a EF 17-55 F4L IS. Now, I might sell my EFS 17-55 for that lens.

But I guess there have some rumors concerning a EF 24-70 F2.8L IS MkII for the next-gen EOS-5D. If the thing doesn't weigh 3-5 lbs. it might be the lens to buy, certainly on FF bodies.

Look to the recent introduction of the new "cheap" IS lenses, the EFS 18-55IS and EFS 55-250IS, Canon's strategy will be to avoid in-camera IS and instead add IS to more lenses, of course jacking up the price $500 in the process. This would make Canon lots of money, and in the end, this is all they care about.

 

[essasin]

Glass is like computer tech... there is ALWAYS something better around the corner. Just pick your point and have fun shooting.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Actually, I have come to like IS a lot.

I doubt we'll ever see a 17-40 F2.8L as there is a 16-35 F2.8L.

I think a realistic dream would be a EF 17-55 F4L IS. Now, I might sell my EFS 17-55 for that lens.

But I guess there have some rumors concerning a EF 24-70 F2.8L IS MkII for the next-gen EOS-5D. If the thing doesn't weigh 3-5 lbs. it might be the lens to buy, certainly on FF bodies.

Look to the recent introduction of the new "cheap" IS lenses, the EFS 18-55IS and EFS 55-250IS, Canon's strategy will be to avoid in-camera IS and instead add IS to more lenses, of course jacking up the price $500 in the process. This would make Canon lots of money, and in the end, this is all they care about.

I have no doubt I'd like the IS... I was just looking at a cost perspective Or, yeah, stick that new cheaper IS system in. The new kit lens looks interesting, but I'm a stickler for f/2.8.

And I forgot about the 16-35, heh...

 

[corkyg]

And now, there is a new 16-35 f/2.8 L MK II. Kinda pricey. I'm not going to trade in my "old" 16-35 L f/2.8.

BTW - f/2.8 lenses generally mean a 77mm objective lens - mucho glass and fairly weighty to carry around. But, . . . I never let that bother me.

 

[essasin]

Originally posted by: corkyg
And now, there is a new 16-35 f/2.8 L MK II. Kinda pricey. I'm not going to trade in my "old" 16-35 L f/2.8.

BTW - f/2.8 lenses generally mean a 77mm objective lens - mucho glass and fairly weighty to carry around. But, . . . I never let that bother me.

I actually perfer it to be 77mm as it saves me money on filters.