which lens should I buy?

[MrJones]

Hi all,
I'm new to the forums though I love the newsletter!
I'm thinking of buying a new lens. my budget only allows me to pick one of the two I want and I'm having a hard time deciding.
the first one is the canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM L series which is a great zoom lens.
the second one is the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM which is also great.

right now I have the 55-250mm from canon (not L) and the 18-55mm. both of them are great but not as sharp as I want.

help?

[Sime]

Well, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII is a very nice lens - I love it and will buy it when I can afford to. The 24-105 is a very good lens, too. My friend uses the 24-105 very often and he loves it. (He's a pro, I'm not)

I suppose it depends what you want to use it for - I'm primarily a music photog, so a fast zoom 70-200 is about the right focal length for three songs in the pit for me. (as my longer lens)

[OsmosisStudios]

Are you sure its the lens and not technique or conditions?

[MrJones]

I think so... you can never know..
I have canon 18-200mm lens which is not good at all.. just a waste of money. I can see the difference between that lens and my other lenses.
as I understand the L series has much better optics and performance than the more common lenses, am I right?

[Sime]

It may well be worth posting a shot here that you don't like from that lens with the EXIF - this might help? Like a group diagnosis?

[MrJones]

it's not that i don't like.. it's just that it could be better.
I'm going in a professional direction and the quality that was good as an amateur isn't necessarily be good for a pro.

[Sime]

Sure, I understand and I see this a lot... Maybe it's best to start out with the lenses you have and then, when you hit a physical "this lens really isn't good enough for what I need it to do" then upgrade? I know a lot of people that are headed in the pro direction that buy all the kit, don't get anywhere and end up poorer than they start out - it's not fun to watch.

S

[inkista]

Generally speaking, when you need a lens, you actually won't be having a hard time making this decision, and if you are waffling, it's going to be between two of the same type of lens (i.e., two different walkaround zooms, or two different telephoto zooms).

Yes, the two L lenses you're looking at are much nicer lenses than the two you currently have. But whether they're the right lenses for you to buy depends on a lot of things you haven't told us, like what you plan to shoot professionally. An event photographer generally has different needs from a portrait, sports, or landscape photographer.

General vague desire for "better image quality" or "sharper" isn't really enough to be going on when plunking down the cash for a four-figure purchase. A lot of the non-L lenses are actually as sharper (or sharper) than some Ls. I own three L lenses, and the sharpest lens @100% crop in my bag, bar none, is my EF-S 60mm f/2.8L Macro USM. Sharpness isn't everything.

The 24-105L is a great lens (it's one of my three), but it sucks at available light. f/4 is just too damn slow. It's a terrific walkaround lens, but on a full-frame camera it can be less pleasing than on a crop body, because the corner performance is not quite up to par in terms of the other Ls out there. At 24mm, it exhibits distortion, CA, and is perhaps softer than something like the 24-70 f/2.8L USM--which is the lens most pro wedding shooters go for instead. Despite the lack of IS, f/2.8 as a max. aperture whomps f/4 when it comes to available light shooting. Unless you specialize in architectural photography and still lives, the 24-70 may be a better purchase, and if you're going for landscapes, then the (much cheaper, btw) 17-40 f/4L goes much wider--especially on a crop body (which you are evidently shooting with, since you have the 18-55 and 55-250). On a crop, the 24-105 is a normal-to-telephoto lens more than it's a wide-to-tele.

See? Lots of other factors to consider. Honestly, nearly every walkaround lens is better than the 18-55 in some way. The point here is not to buy "the best lens." The point here is to buy the lens that's the best fit for you and what you shoot. The 24-105 is more of a walkaround/travel/catchall lens. While it can and does get used for pro work, it's more of a "compromise" lens than the more specialized 17-40L and 24-70L. It is, after all, the 5DMkII's kit lens.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM (and its Mk II successor) are droolworthy lenses that most pros end up having in their bag at one point or another. But they're big, white, heavy, and conspicuous. A lot of pro wedding photographers use one, but there's no way they're not going to be noticed around the dance floor--particularly if they add a flash. For some sports and most wildlife, the lens is too short. For fast action photography, the IS may be helpful, but is mostly moot, since you're going to be shooting about 1/200s anyway. Is it a great lens? You betcha. Is it what you actually need? Only you can answer that.

I don't own a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. I own an EF 135mm f/2L USM, instead.

As for technique, just make sure you've ticked off these points before heading into L glass purchasing (because if you haven't mastered this stuff, L glass is still going to show the same "flaws"):

• Do you know how to hold your camera?
• Are you sure the shutter speed was fast enough for handholding (1/focal_length or faster)? If it wasn't, did you stabilize the camera? (IS, tripod, monopod).
• Did you stop down for added sharpness?
• Was your DoF deep enough for the subject to be focused?
• Was your aperture wide enough not to cause diffraction blur?
• Were you in control of what the AF system was focusing on?
• If you can, did you calibrate the autofocus system for the lens?
• Did you control your ISO and avoid underexposure to reduce noise?
• Did you post-process and sharpen your photo correctly?

[MrJones]

thanks Inkista for the elaborated answer. it helped a lot!

to make things a little clearer:
I want to use the lens for portraits and for event photography (let's say a wedding or a party).
the 55-250mm is gives me good results overall and that's why I want to replace my kit lens (18-55mm) with a more serious lens.
the reason I'm considering the 24-105mm and not the 24-70mm is basically because I do need that extra zoom when taking photos for a wedding or so. on the other hand, you're right that on this kind of photography i'll be needing the extra light.

I'm using the Canon 40D so the full frame factor doesn't apply.

if we take into consideration all of the lenses available, which one would you recommend for someone who wants to use it for both weddings and portraits?
I would like to get a good object / background separation.

thanks.

[inkista]

I think if you want a wedding lens, you got two options here:

1. Learn to get closer (or frame with more context/environment) and shoot available light with the 24-70L.
2. Add a 580EXII (or other speedlight) and learn to use on-camera flash.

Probably both. (Ok, you could also only take on daylight outdoor weddings, but that's not really practical.)

IS doesn't make up for f/4 unless nobody's moving. IS simply doesn't increase your shutter speed. You need max. aperture or higher ISO for that.

I would also say, look into fast primes--especially for the portraiture. They're not everybody's cuppa. Still, I would say maybe try borrowing/renting an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or EF 100mm f/2 USM and seeing if that'll work for you. The additional two stops you'll get over f/4 is non-trivial, both in terms of light gathering and background blurring. They also won't break the bank. (The 85L and 35L would be the L-level fast primes, but they're both >$1500, and more limited in use than a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM--also, the 85/1.8 autofocuses faster than the L, which has a focus-by-wire mechanism).