Which lens to buy? 24-105 f4, 24-70 f2.8 or 70-200 f4?

[ArtByPino.com]

I currently own a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L and a 50 f1.8 and use two camera bodies at all times. So, am not sure which of the above to get...any thoughts?

I use a 5dMkII and Rebel XSi (typically use the 50 on it for portraits) and the 16-35 on the Mkii for architecture and interiors.

Want a lens mainly for doing closeups of people and architecture detail.

Thanks

@ArtByPino

[GadgetRick]

Well, closeups of people and architecture are two different beasts. For people, you don't need such a long lens. For architecture you need a longer lens.

Out of your choices, none of them will cover these two things properly--I don't think there is a lens which will unless you're talking about the 18-200mm but you're going to give up other things in that lens which may not be good for you. All of your choices are excellent lenses though.

[RichardTaylor]

The Canon 24-70 is great for the people pics, on either body, and ok for architectural detail, if you are close enough. I don't own one however I do own a 24-105 and it is a good general purpose lens, the only thing wrong with it is the distortion at the wide end.

Example at 24mm on a 5D.



===============================
The 70-200 F4 L is good for picking out detail at a distance and ok for people and great for head shots.Some examples - all candids at events

(1).


(2)


(3)

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by GadgetRick

Well, closeups of people and architecture are two different beasts. For people, you don't need such a long lens. For architecture you need a longer lens.

I think you've got this one backwards

There's no one lens that will cover the range you're looking for with the quality you've come to expect. The 24-70 will be a good choice, though, for sure.

[ArtByPino.com]

Thanks, all.

Richard - helpful that you posted the pixs...so, I take it that the distortion at 24 would be similar on the 24-70?

Using the 50 on the XSi gives me 80 which works well for portrait and since I have the 16-35, I am thinking that the 70-200 would complete my range (within the limitations of my budget - ideally, would want to buy both, the 24-70 and the 70-200). So, Richard if you had the collection of equipment I have, which lens would you invest in? Any other lens that I ought to be looking at?

Also, the colors are quite vibrant - are the pixs touched up or is the 70-200 - of course, the photographer matters! - really that good?

[RichardTaylor]

Thanks for the kind words.
The 70-200 F4 L is a good lens, although not as good as my 135 F2 L, but it is a lot more versatile IQ is great and focussing is very fast.
The first 2 were taken wide open and the last one at F4.5, all with a 40D.
They have all been PP'd from the original RAW files, although as soon as you see the images on the screen you know it is a good lens, it just has that "pop". It was laso my first L lens..

I believe the 24-70 F2.8 does have some distortion but it is not as bad as the 24-105. I have never used a 24-70.

I would go with the 70-200 and possibly look at a "standard" zoom down the track.
Either way you can't go wrong.
I started with a standard zoom, Canon 17-85 EF-S IS, so the choice was a lot easier.

[GadgetRick]

I have the 28-70 (the lens before they came out with the 24-70) and I find it's on my camera 90-95% of the time (only because I don't have a 70-200 ). But I've not had my 50 on in a long time.

I love the lens. I'm sure the 24-70 is just as good (if not better). I've not noticed much (if any) in the way of distortion. But I haven't shot buildings and such with it--where you'll REALLY notice the distortion.

There are tools available which you can use to get rid of the distortion--the Canon software will do this as will PT Lens. When LR3 actually ships, it will also have this bundled with it. So it's easy to fix.

[ArtByPino.com]

Thank you, Gentlemen...