Need Help Deciding on New Lens

[DL400]

Hey Everyone,

I currently shoot with a Canon Xsi and have been doing so since it came out. I have the 50mm f/1.4 on it 99% of the time and still have the kit lens.

I am looking to a new lens and have also rented the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 IS before.

I enjoy shooting portraits, landscapes, kids, people, events...

I am stuck between the options below. Can anyone please help advise?
Thanks!

• Canon 24-70 f/2.8
• Canon 70-200 f/4 IS
• Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non IS
• Similar Tamron
• Similar Sigma

[gturner]

I would go with the 70-200 F4 IS. Lighter, faster and sharper than the 2.8.

The 24-70 is excellent, but you would get more use out of the longer lens in my opinion.

[ceremus]

I guess the question is do you want a standard zoom, basically the same focal range as your kit lens but with better IQ, or will you get more use out of the telephoto lengths? Frankly you won't go wrong with any of the 70-200mm L zooms, the f/4's are razor sharp and the f/2.8's are extremely versatile. Mostly a question of whether you need the low light capability of an f/2.8.

Personally the 24-70 f/2.8 isn't wide enough for me on a crop body. It's an awesome bread and butter lens and pretty ideal if you have a full frame body, or plan to upgrade to one in the future. But if you're on a crop body and don't plan to go to full-frame any time soon, I prefer the 17-55 f/2.8. Similar in price, excellently sharp, true wideangle on a crop view, and has IS. The build quality while not bad isn't up to L lens level, but the image quality is that good.

[Rentham]

The 24-70 isn't my favorite lens for IQ, but damn it is hard to put down because of how useful that focal range is. To Ceremus' point, you should think about where you are going to end up in terms of gear relative to your needs now. If you are going to ever go full frame and shoot events, the 24-70 is your workhorse lens. Additionally if the 70-200 f/4 is a stop gap because you can't afford the 2.8 IS right now, think about waiting until you can afford the one you really want. Buy the best and cry once.

[DL400]

Thanks for all the comments!

Someday I would like to get the 5dMkII or III if we're talking 2-5 years down the road....

Would love to get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but due to budget constraints, can't even go there.

I do believe in a fast lens is a better lens so I'm thinking the 24-70 f/2.8 but then started thinking, well, the 24-105 IS f/4 has a little more reach and has IS for the upper range focal length...

Basically i have a budget around $1300-$1500. Another lens that was recommend was the 70-300 L series in lieu of the 70-200 f4 IS...

Or should I upgrade to a 7D with a 28-135 kit and still have my 50mm f/1.4?

Would it seem weird to have a 50 f/1.4 and a 70-200 or 70-300 but no mid range(well still have my kit lens i suppose)

[Yogesh Sarkar]

If you are planning to upgrade to full frame, sooner rather than later, then a possible option is to go for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc. It is comparatively cheap and would give you decent enough wide focal length and hopefully, you won't end up incurring too much of a loss, while selling it.

That should also free up your budget somewhat for the 70-200 f2.8 or better yet, 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Yogesh Sarkar

If you are planning to upgrade to full frame, sooner rather than later, then a possible option is to go for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc....

Um. This is a crop-body lens. While it will mount and work, it will vignette on full-frame (i.e., its image circle does not cover a full-frame sensor). And it would also be an ultrawide, not a walkaround.

I love my 24-105 on the 5Dii, but it's not really fast enough for available light shooting of moving subjects, so figure out if your shooting interests fit more comfortably with f/2.8 unstabilized, or f/4 with IS. I tend to shoot things and scenes more often than people, and am usually outside in the daytime with a walkaround zoom--for indoors shooting, I'm either lighting or using a fast prime.

[Yogesh Sarkar]

I am not recommending that lens for 5D, I am recommending it for XSI, which the OP has at the moment and is only planning to buy the 5D in next couple of years. So it makes sense to buy a somewhat cheap (comparatively speaking of course) zoom which works well on the crop bodies and then get the real deal, along with the 5D and sell off the crop lens along with the body (which wouldn't really make sense, since second body is always nice to have).

[veritasimagery]

Originally Posted by Yogesh Sarkar

I am not recommending that lens for 5D, I am recommending it for XSI, which the OP has at the moment and is only planning to buy the 5D in next couple of years. So it makes sense to buy a somewhat cheap (comparatively speaking of course) zoom which works well on the crop bodies and then get the real deal, along with the 5D and sell off the crop lens along with the body (which wouldn't really make sense, since second body is always nice to have).

Then maybe you worded your other post wrong.

"If you are planning to upgrade to full frame, sooner rather than later, then a possible option is to go for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc."

Apparently you meant "later rather than sooner". Cuz why, if you are planning on upgrading to a full frame right away (sooner rather than later), would you buy a crop lens that won't fit the upgrade? Now that option makes sense if it will be a few years (later, rather than sooner) before you upgrade to a full frame.

Either way, in my opinion, if I know that at some point down the road I will upgrade to a full frame, then any lenses I purchase now should be able to fit that body. I look at it as an investment in the future.

[Yogesh Sarkar]

Context of that reply was based on the suggestion of purchasing the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS.Which also happens to be crop sensor lens and is a lot more costlier, and thus possibly cause more loss, when it comes time to sell it off.

If my reply confused you, then I must apologize for that.