Help buying a new Lens

[jdavtz]

He was pretty clear about it in his first post. He didn't specify a focal length range, but said that he needs some basic versatility: landscapes, portraits, and video all interest him. Fair enough. Lots of people start out with those basic criteria, and that's why lenses like the 24-105 exist.

But my point really was that he already has a lens, and if most of his videos and shots are, for example, shot in the 18-28mm range of that lens, then a 24-xx lens probably isn't a great option.

And if, for example, he is being limited all the time by shutter speeds too slow to handhold, then a 24-70 or 17-55 f/2.8 lens might not do the trick, and he might need a couple of primes instead.

As an example, the 24-105 f/4 certainly wouldn't add much hand-holdability compared to the 18-55 IS "kit" lens -- camera shake would still be the main problem.

And as another example, the 24-70/2.8 will probably be less hand-holdable (heavier, no IS) than the 18-55 IS kit lens, so he could end up with more blurry photos despite having a lens that's 10x more expensive.

 

[Policar]

Why is it expensive? Because you choose to spend (waste) large amounts of money on gear you probably are not ready for.

That's not the kindest way of putting it, but I totally agree. Unless you've got tons of money to try out everything and see what sticks (which can work), it's easier to develop a style and see what works and THEN spend the money.

Imo, the 17-55mm IS makes more sense, but that is just my opinion. 24-70mm is a set of focal lengths designed for "general purpose" full frame, and 17-55mm provides the same field of view on a crop sensor, plus you get IS. If you already had a killer wide zoom sure the 24-70mm could complement that, but you really need IS for video with dSLRs unless you use a tripod or camera stabilization or stick to focal lengths of 50mm and below. Otherwise the skew catches up with you. I use a 17mm (or 18mm) in video all the time. It is the standard ultra-wide focal length for video. If the kit lens is what you're used to and it works, 17-55mm will be like the kit lens plus. You'll lose something with anything else.

I actually dig the 17-50mm Tamron IS. Good image quality, great IS, fast, and (gasp) affordable. Pair it up with the 85mm f1.8 and you have a great kit. I plan to get one at some point, but more for video than stills. All the same, no way you will be disappointing with any "L" lens. The build quality alone is awesome... I don't own any so I'm not really biased in favor or against.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Through the years I have wasted more money on cheaper lenses (Pintos), than better and more expensive lenses (Ferraris). I should have spent my money on a good lens or two, instead. The way I see it now: a good lens holds its value well. If you don't like it, there will be plenty of people you can sell it to. Besides, I see the lens as a better long-term investment than the camera.

But to each his or her own