I have a Canon 60D with Sigma 18-200mm OS and Tamron 17-50mm. But I'm looking to sell those and get a Canon 24-105mm L lens plus 430EX II flash. Is this a good choice? I was also looking at the Canon 24-70mm L lens as well. But I was leaning towards the L lens and flash combo. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon 60D Need a new lens.
- Thread starter iTouch
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My big question is why the change? Are you finding your current glass limiting?
That said, when I recently moved up to L glass, I was amazed at the difference in image quality...really quite striking. I've got the 24-105 4.0 L as well as the 70-200 4.0 L and couldn't be happier....well...OK...maybe the 2.8 would make me happier, but a LOT poorer.
Anyway - see if you can try/borrow the L glass and see if you feel the same way - it's a lot of money to spend and if you don't see a difference, you'll be pretty unhappy...
And...fwiw - I also just moved from my XSi to a 5D Mk II...and was similarly blown away by the full frame sensor and increased light sensitivity...absolutely amazing with my L glass....
My two cents anyway...
Adam
That said, when I recently moved up to L glass, I was amazed at the difference in image quality...really quite striking. I've got the 24-105 4.0 L as well as the 70-200 4.0 L and couldn't be happier....well...OK...maybe the 2.8 would make me happier, but a LOT poorer.
Anyway - see if you can try/borrow the L glass and see if you feel the same way - it's a lot of money to spend and if you don't see a difference, you'll be pretty unhappy...
And...fwiw - I also just moved from my XSi to a 5D Mk II...and was similarly blown away by the full frame sensor and increased light sensitivity...absolutely amazing with my L glass....
My two cents anyway...
Adam
$1800? If you are talking new, the 17-55 sells for around $1100 and while the IS version of the 70-200 sells for around $1250. Did you mean the non-IS version?
Either way, I completely agree with your choices - those two lenses cover a lot of ground.
Yes I do find the glass a little limiting and I want to get an L lens as well. I want a great walk around lens. I would also get a 50mm 1.4 along the way as well. Unless someone has another suggestion. I had the 50mm 1.8 and it was great. But I just didn't like the cheap build quality of it. I tried the Canon 17-55mm and didn't feel the quality was that much better than the Tamron 17-50mm in terms of the pictures I was taking. I also want the Canon 70-200mm 2.8L II as well but that's something way down the line. I think I will get the 24-105mm since I also want to shoot quite a bit of video as well. Thanks for the help.
I'm mixing up USD and EUR all the time.
About 1800 euro.
Maybe you tried a bad 17-55 with your 60D. But the Canon is in a while different league than the Tamron. Try looking at it at 1:1 crops. I had some issues with my gear, but I have my full kit at Canon now for calibration. Should be good afterwards.
edit:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=679&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
I'd rather have no lens than the Tamron lens.
The 17-55 is probably sharper than the 24-105 in the end.
Last edited:
Do you need the extra width of the 17mm you currently have? (bear in mind that's 27mm vs 38mm on the crop sensor of the 60D).
Or the extra length of the 105mm?
Have you considered the EFS 15-85? It's a lot wider (24-136mm vs 38-168mm on the 60D). From the reviews I've read the optics aren't far off the 24-105L and the image stabiliser is newer.
If you're happy you don't need anything wider than 24mm (38mm on the 60D) do you need the wider aperture of the 24-70mm L (f2.8 vs f4 for the 24-105)?
Or the extra length of the 105mm?
Have you considered the EFS 15-85? It's a lot wider (24-136mm vs 38-168mm on the 60D). From the reviews I've read the optics aren't far off the 24-105L and the image stabiliser is newer.
If you're happy you don't need anything wider than 24mm (38mm on the 60D) do you need the wider aperture of the 24-70mm L (f2.8 vs f4 for the 24-105)?
I vote for the 24-70mm f/2.8 L, add the 430 EX II next month.
The order of purchases for my kit (Canon 50D);
24-70mm f/2.8 L
2 x 430EX II w/ ST-E2
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
14mm f/2.8 L II
I will never have to buy glass again!
----------
[edit] Forgot about my $100 50mm f/1.8 II, lots of fun shooting with it too.
The order of purchases for my kit (Canon 50D);
24-70mm f/2.8 L
2 x 430EX II w/ ST-E2
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
14mm f/2.8 L II
I will never have to buy glass again!
----------
[edit] Forgot about my $100 50mm f/1.8 II, lots of fun shooting with it too.
That's a pretty good list of "glass to get" for me. I have the 50mm f/1.8 already, and I just got a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. I may want the 24-105mm instead of the 24-70mm because I prefer a bit longer reach for "walk around".
Ah, but what if it's the non-VC version he has?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Yes it's the non VC version. I did research on the lens before purchasing like I do with all my purchases. So no one else thinks the 24-105mm is a good choice? I would supplement this with a faster prime lens probably the 50mm.
What don't you like about the 17-50mm?
Your non-VC 17-50mm and the 28-75mm f/2.8 from Tamron are among the sharpest lenses you can buy for the money (or 3x the money for that matter), and the 24-105mm strikes me as an odd choice for a crop body. (That's my opinion, not to say it isn't the right choice for you)
I'm not sure how much of an "upgrade" (if at all) that would be speaking in terms of IQ...
What you do get are improvements in other areas: build, IS, weather sealing and a bit more telephoto (at the expense of wide) are these important to you?
There's a significant difference in perspective between the 17mm and 24mm, not to mention the 24-105mm is a slower lens.
If I were you I'd be keeping the 17-50mm and replace the 18-200mm with the 70-200mm f/4.0L IS if you're not happy with the performance of the Sigma.
Last edited:
While agreeing to the sequence and combination of those lenses: you will mostly add some longer tele (300/4 or 400/5.6; oops or like me with 500/4).it never ends: next desire is a TS
I want a lens with more range. Just don't want to change the lens that's why I wanted a good "walk around lens." I thought this was a good compromise. The Tamron is a nice lens as well but I also want to get an L lens. I have a feeling that I will upgrade the camera body as well since I have a tendency to do that. My friend recommended the 24-70mm, which is another nice lens as well. But it's also heavier and bulkier. Also, I wanted the "build, IS, weather sealing and a bit more telephoto" as you mentioned. I know it's a compromise but I want to shoot a lot of video as well.
If you had a Nikon, their best walk-around lens is the 28-300mm. I know that a lot of pro photographers swear by that lens. Scott Kelby took a recent vacation to Greece and only took that lens on his camera. He loved that he never had to change it out and didn't need a heavy camera bag with him. Canon has a 28-300mm L lens as well, and I expect it is likely pretty good, too, but it is a lot more expensive than the Nikon 28-300mm.
I also want to get the 70-200mm 2.8L II. But that will have to wait. I should have 24-105mm by the end of September. I just have to sell the 2 lenses I have now.