# 24-70mm lens. Which one?



## spamis (Oct 20, 2013)

I currently have a T2i and want to purchase a 6D. My 17-55mm is my favorite lens for the T2i but it will not work on the 6D. It looks like the 24-70mm will be very close to the 17-55 (27-88mm) but which one do I get? I really don't want to spend the $2,000 (give or take) for the 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM so I'm left with the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM ($1,200 used) or the a EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM (used for about $1,000). I would consider the II USM if everyone believes that it is the only option but I can't see how I could justify a $1,000 difference in price. And while you're at it, is there really that much difference between the two two f/2.8's? Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2013)

The full frame equivalent of your 17-55mm lens is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 IS lens. So...the 24-105mm f/4L that's available as a kit lens and adds only $600 to the price of the body, when used on FF is actually wider, longer, and faster (in terms of DoF for equivalent framing) than the 17-55mm on APS-C. The lower ISO noise of the 6D more than makes up for the 1-stop of shutter speed difference going from f/2.8 to f/4.

Bottom line, the relatively inexpensive 24-105L is a great choice as a walkaround lens for FF.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 20, 2013)

You don't mention why the 17-55 was your favorite lens and what you tend to shoot. I went from the EFS 15-85 on a 7D to a 24-105 on a 5DIII. I agree with Neuro, but the way I would phrase it is that I do not think the 24-105 gets enough respect. It is an excellent lens. I enjoyed my 15-85 on my 7D more than the 24-105 on my 5DIII, but that was more due to the incredible range you have with the 15-85 (24-136 equivalent). The FF images are better.

If you want a general purpose lens on FF, the 24-105 is great. Perhaps add a few primes like the 50 f/1.4 for low light/DOF. If you need every bit of light because you are shooting indoors, I would look at the used 24-70 Mk I (MK II if you can afford it). 

TDP recommendation page is also helpful in comparing lenses. Here is the link to the general purpose lens.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx


----------



## Gary W. (Oct 20, 2013)

Hey all,

Ever consider the Tamron? It has VC (Vibration Control) and goes for around the $1200 mark. Seen some impressive reviews on it, too!

Gary W.


----------



## thfifthcrouch (Oct 20, 2013)

Actually there is a 1.8/f zoom, the new lens from sigma 18-35mm. Reviews suggest that it is really something else.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 20, 2013)

I agree with the recommendations for the 24-105, its a terrific general purpose lens. The 24-70 f/4 is roughly similar in IQ to the 24-105 (better at 24mm, worse at 35-50mm), but cost nearly twice as much. Until the 24-70 f/4 comes down considerably in price I can't see any reason to buy it over the 24-105.

The 24-70 2.8 II is the best available normal zoom, its image quality IS worth the price difference between it an the Mk I. This lens has been on sale this week from B&H and Amazon for $1,699 including a $300 rebate from Canon. Watch and this deal may be offered again.


----------



## ahab1372 (Oct 20, 2013)

thfifthcrouch said:


> Actually there is a 1.8/f zoom, the new lens from sigma 18-35mm. Reviews suggest that it is really something else.


but it is for crop cameras only


----------



## Vossie (Oct 20, 2013)

The 24-70 2.8 ii is quite a bit more expensive than the 24-105, but since I got the 24-70, the 24-105 has not been used anymore. I kept it for the occasional video (IS) and for travel (more reach and lower weight), but the 24-70 is so much better that I rather crop a bit more than have the xtra reach.

Sigma just announced its own 24-105 f4; if you can wait a bit until reviews come out, it could be a nice alternative to Canon's 24-105.


----------



## seekthedragon (Oct 20, 2013)

Best quality: Canon 24-70 II
Best value: Tamron 24-70.

I have the first, and I'm really happy with it, as it is razor sharp wide open. However, if I would buy a new zoom now, I would probably go with the Tamron. Little worse in every aspect, but has IS and is almost half the price.


----------



## sleepnever (Oct 21, 2013)

What are you looking to do with it / what do you shoot? You should figure out what you love so much about the 17-55 first. If its the wide end, maybe look at a 17-40L ($849). It vignettes a bit on FF until you stop down to about f/8, but its an otherwise great lens and will save you half the cost of a 16-35L II, which only does marginally better in the vignette area.

One option you could go with is to buy the 6D and then use LensRentals.com or BorrowLenses.com or someone local and try out the various ones people suggest for far less $$ than outright buying and then not liking what you bought. That's how I go about it before I plunk down for a new lens these days.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 21, 2013)

spamis said:


> I currently have a T2i and want to purchase a 6D. My 17-55mm is my favorite lens for the T2i but it will not work on the 6D. It looks like the 24-70mm will be very close to the 17-55 (27-88mm) but which one do I get? I really don't want to spend the $2,000 (give or take) for the 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM so I'm left with the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM ($1,200 used) or the a EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM (used for about $1,000). I would consider the II USM if everyone believes that it is the only option but I can't see how I could justify a $1,000 difference in price. And while you're at it, is there really that much difference between the two two f/2.8's? Thanks.



Does Adorama still ahve the $1620 special on the 24-70 II? A few stores had them for that after special sale and mail in rebate and cash back deals ($1699 without the latter).

There is a huge difference between the 24-70 2.8 I and II (the new one also has a bit better AF, more noticeably so when paired with a 5D3/1DX that use the new ultra-precision mode it has, not sure if the 6D allows that or not though). The 24-70 f/4 IS is better than the 24-70 I too.
The Tamron 24-70 vc might be an option too, although that one I've never tried.

The 24-105 is far inferior to the 24-70 II and quite inferior to the 24-70 f/4 IS. Of course the price is far, far superior so it all depends on how much you have and what your priorities for spending are (and what they are for shooting too, if you just shoot centered subjects with the rest a blur and do it a lot hand-held at slow shutter speed the 24-105 IS might work out fine; if you love 24mm (where the 24-105 is not at its best) corner to corner with fine natural landscape details and shoot against bright skies at times and hate PF and so on the newer ones might leave you much happier; etc.) You can take plenty of awesome shots with the 24-105 and dont need anything else. That said, the others can deliver those shots in nicer technical ways, occasionally by a good deal. Some don't care about that, some do.


----------

