A wise lens upgrade?

[JBeckwith]

My current lens lineup only consists of the 24-105 f/4L and 50 1.8.

I have an offer on the table to sell my 24-105 for about $720. I love this lens but I have been looking to go a little wider for landscapes and also a little longer for portrait work. With Canon's current refurbished pricing I could get both the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 (non-IS) f/4L for about $900.

This means I would achieve all my goals of having a wider lens, longer lens, and I would still have the 50 to fill the difference all for only about $200 out of pocket. I am curious if anybody has enough experience with any of these lenses to confirm that it would be a worthwhile deal for me or if I should hang onto the 24-105 and stick with my current setup.

 

[kennephoto]

Only issue I see for you is you lose IS completely I don't know how important you have considered IS but that might be something to think about. You picked good lenses though, I've used all the lenses you mentioned. I loved my 70-200 F4 non IS. Honestly I'm in the same boat as you. I want a wider lens as I have a 24-105 and a 50mm. I wouldn't mind selling the 24-105 considering how little I use it after I got the pancake lens for my 5D. Maybe I should sell my 24-105.

 

[sjschall]

I agree with kennephoto, you will miss IS at the long end!

 

[JBeckwith]

I agree with kennephoto, you will miss IS at the long end!

Yeah I hadn't really thought about that. I was more thinking range and image quality. From The digital picture it looks like the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) has better IQ than any of the other 70-200 versions except the 2.8 II.

 

[Loswr]

I agree with kennephoto, you will miss IS at the long end!

Yeah I hadn't really thought about that. I was more thinking range and image quality. From The digital picture it looks like the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) has better IQ than any of the other 70-200 versions except the 2.8 II.

I'd look again. The ranking is f/2.8 IS II > f/4 IS > f/2.8 non-IS > f/4 non-IS = f/2.8 IS.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

From The digital picture it looks like the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) has better IQ than any of the other 70-200 versions except the 2.8 II.

You misread something. The f/4 non IS is good for the price, but is way down on the list.

I really preferred my 24-105mmL to my 17-40mmL, there is a reason for its low cost, it needs to be stopped down considerably for best results.

Still, if you want ultra wide, the list is limited, and the 24-105L is already weak at 24mm.

I found a low cost used 17mm prime from Tokina that I like a lot, its f/3.5 and built like a tank. They are no longer made.

Get the 70-200mm f/4 IS if you can swing it.

 

[tron]

Have you considered that you would switch between these two lenses probably often?

 

[JBeckwith]

After thinking it over and considering all of your advice I think I am going to go with just the 70-200 f/4 IS. It's about the price of both the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4 non IS combined, but I think it will be worth it.

I have always considered myself a WA shooter but when I really go back and look through the pictures, yeah I take a lot from 24-70mm, but almost all of the keepers are beyond 70mm. I think this will give me the best bang for my buck.

The refurbished version is currently out of stock but they said they will give me a call when it is available. I've never had a company do that so I think that's pretty cool.

 

[mwh1964]

Perhaps consider also the 70-300L. It is a very capable lens at same price as the 70-200 F4 IS. I really enjoy that lens. Only downside is it doesn't take canon brand extenders except the 1.4 at very longest focal length. But then if I need longer than 300 I just pop it on my 60D and I get 480. Enjoy choosing.

 

[fedupandenglish]

I'd second the 70-300L, it's my favourite lens

 

[EOBeav]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with others about the 70-200 f/4. It is a great portrait lens. Will you wish you had IS and an f/2.8? Perhaps, but you need to consider your upper price limit. Both of those lenses at $900 refurbished is a great deal. What's more, that 70-200 f/4 L also makes a fantastic landscape lens. You'll know what I mean once you start using it for that purpose.

 

[Zv]

I've shot with a 17-40 and 70-200 f/4L IS combo and it works really well. I've never used the non IS version but am sure the IQ is good enough for your purposes. If you have a tripod for portraits you'll be fine. Personally I'm more of a IS shooter. I love the freedom of having no tripod to carry around and still get sharp shots at slow SS. The IS version has amazing IS im my opinion. Well worth the extra, what $300? A good tripod costs more than that.

My 17-40 is pretty sharp. I've had no issues with corner sharpness. It's quite acceptable except maybe the very very extreme corner. Which no real person looks at. A great lens and worth the money.

 

[Zv]

Here's a shot taken at 17mm. A little extra sharpening was applied in PP. I find the 17-40 images sharpen up quite nicely.

 

[mrsfotografie]

It took me almost forever to buy the 24-105, having bought numerous alternatives but now that I have it it is the one lens I couldn't do without. IQ wise it easily beats my 24-70 f/2.8 MkI.

My strong advice is to keep your 24-105, be a little patient and save up for the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4L IS.

 

[Zv]

It took me almost forever to buy the 24-105, having bought numerous alternatives but now that I have it it is the one lens I couldn't do without. IQ wise it easily beats my 24-70 f/2.8 MkI.

My strong advice is to keep your 24-105, be a little patient and save up for the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4L IS.

I also recently got my 24-105L and I agree with that.

 

[distant.star]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with others about the 70-200 f/4. It is a great portrait lens. Will you wish you had IS and an f/2.8? Perhaps, but you need to consider your upper price limit. Both of those lenses at $900 refurbished is a great deal. What's more, that 70-200 f/4 L also makes a fantastic landscape lens. You'll know what I mean once you start using it for that purpose.

Thanks, Beav, I'm with you on this.

I still can't find the source, but I recall Roger at LensRentals writing somewhere that the 70-200 f/4.0 non-IS is slightly sharper than the IS version. On his site his take is "...one of the sharpest zooms made." My take is that while "technical specs" and such may rank it not as high, seeing those differences in the real world is mostly fantasy. I'd agree you will probably see a difference with the f/2.8 II, but such difference is not worth over $1500 for anyone but very top professionals.

I've had the f/4.0 non-IS for several years now and it would be my choice for what the OP mentions. It's perfect for anything from a tripod -- e.g., portrait and landscape. It's weaknesses are the non-IS and the not-so-wide aperture. My experience is it's great handheld outside in good light. It's sharp throught it's entire focal range at any aperture. Overall it approaches my 135 f/2.0 in image quality.

The OP also said he wants wider, and you don't get wider putting all your money into the 70-200 F/4.0 IS version. The 17-40 is the answer there, especially landscapes. I like the 17-40 and use it a lot. If you pay attention to what you're doing with it, you'll get great results. First, you do need to get smaller than f/4.0 -- I stay at at least f/5.6 or smaller. The distortion on the wide end can give you some clunkers if you're not paying attention -- I made the mistake of doing a hasty portrait (it was on the camera) of a man holding a baby. Too close, his hand is large out of proportion to the rest of the image. On the other hand, I do like that distortion in some images, especially landscape. Finally, I think it gets soft on the long end, so I stay under 35mm.

Anyway, I think the OP's initial take is the right one for him. He'll make a mistake if he listens to gearheads who will have him spend more money for something he doesn't need that may by 2% "better" theoretically.

 

[Vossie]

Personally, I would not rid myself of a general purpose lens. I'd keep the 24-105 and save for a 70-200 L IS or 70-300 L IS. (Or the 200mm 2.8 prime) After that you can start expanding on the wide end. In the meanwhile, If you mainly want wider for landscapes, you can consider shooting multirow panorama in situations where your 24mm isn't wide enough.

 

[sunnyVan]

My current lens lineup only consists of the 24-105 f/4L and 50 1.8.

I have an offer on the table to sell my 24-105 for about $720. I love this lens but I have been looking to go a little wider for landscapes and also a little longer for portrait work. With Canon's current refurbished pricing I could get both the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 (non-IS) f/4L for about $900.

This means I would achieve all my goals of having a wider lens, longer lens, and I would still have the 50 to fill the difference all for only about $200 out of pocket. I am curious if anybody has enough experience with any of these lenses to confirm that it would be a worthwhile deal for me or if I should hang onto the 24-105 and stick with my current setup.

I struggled over similar situation a few months ago. I thought I wouldn't need 24-105 anymore. I bought 17-40L and tried it for a month. I kind of liked it, but it couldn't serve as my general purpose lens. Meanwhile I already sold my 24-105. I missed it so much after it's gone. And guess what? I repurchased it again. I could've given Tamron a try but I really don't prefer third party lens if given a choice. My repurchase price is the same as the sale price of my previous lens. I did lose some commission though.

I do wish I could go wider. But I'm going to wait a little bit this time. 24mm is wide enough for me most of the time.

For portrait, maybe you could get an 85 1.8. or 100 f2. They are both awesome. The 135L no doubt is even better but I don't know if it fits your budget.

So to summarize, I'd keep what you have right now. Get a portrait lens such as 85 1.8 or 100 f2. For landscape, save up and get 17-40 later. Don't get rid of the 24-105.