| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/10/2008 06:20:57 AM · #1 |
Feel free to respond with opinions and or comments, this is more of a thinking out loud than anything but any input would be great also :)
Till recently my main lens(s) was the 17-40F4L and 70-300IS, well as some know I drown the 17-40, it still works so so still quite sharp but has serious problems when shooting even remotely in to any light source. I'm also on my 2nd 70-300 but not getting in to that one but have lucked out on both 70-300 lenses as they are very sharp. BUT, I'm wanting to go to faster lenses now and I'm torn between either the 70-200 F2.8IS or the 24-70F2.8, my only wish was that the 24-70 was a little wider closer to the 17mm mark then I don't think there wold be hesitation.
I mite be tempted at looking at higher end 3rd party lenses but it seems the 40D is picky about whats mounted to it as Ive gotten error99 with a couple Sigma lenses and the kit lens from the XTi, Ive had the 17-40 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8IS, 50mm F1.8, 16-35 F2.8 on it with no problems...
-dave
|
|
|
|
01/10/2008 06:34:17 AM · #2 |
I dont have either, but I like the sound of the 24-70 for an all around lens. But if its for specific needs, then I guess you'd have to decide by looking through your bag.
Bet that 24-70 is speedy. I want one, so if you get it and don't like it, holla.
GL |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 06:56:13 AM · #3 |
| I shut my eyes and forked out the money for the 24-70 L and never looked back. I love this lens sooooo much. My next buy will be the 7-200 2.8 L for sure. |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 07:28:43 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by candlerain:
7-200 2.8 L for sure. |
Now that would be a lens...:) |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 10:29:59 AM · #5 |
I did rent the 70-200 F2.8IS and I did like it but it was seriously heavy and not sure if its something I would want to carry around all day...
I mite rent them both again and see if I have a fav between the two, my main problem is Im going in as a second shooter so to speak for a friends wedding and I want to get in to more portraits but really love shooting plants and animals also...
Then again like I mentioned before I must have lucked out with my 70-300 as its very comparable to the 70-200 I rented for sharpness...
BUT lol the 24-70 is wider, good for portraits, lighter and about $800 less :P
|
|
|
|
01/10/2008 10:41:52 AM · #6 |
Dave, I have both of those lenses (well the non-IS version of the 70-200 f2.8). I love them both. I haven't used the 24-70 on a crop camera, since I got the lens together with a 5D. But I have used the tele on my 20D, and it was beautiful. Wonderful sharpness and bokeh, and is great at gathering light. Really good for portraits, too, especially outdoors.
The 24-70 is a wonderful lens, too. On the full-frame it looks nice and wide, but is a little cramped on the crop camera, so it won't match the view of your 17-40. You mentioned that the 70-200 is heavy, and the 24-70 is pretty hefty, too! I don't mind that personally, in fact I prefer the extra bulk.
I would expect that you know all the pluses and minuses for each lens. On the 40D, the wider lens will be a great walk-around lens, and tele is great for sports and outdoor portraits, and getting that nice telephoto compression effect. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/07/2025 10:03:01 AM EDT.
