lens question (1 Viewer)

Not really a birding lense question, really more of a weight vs quality question.

I currently lug around either a 17-40 f4, or the older 28-70 f2.8. Sometimes I feel the need to carry both. My camera is a 1.3x crop. I love the IQ of the 28-70, really classy straight out of the camera. The 17-40 is OK, and generally fine once processed, but clearly not as good. From 70mm, I am covered by the 70-200 f4.

As is always the case, I find if I bring everything I don't use it, and if I don't bring something I find myself wanting it.

So here is the question. I have heard very good things about the 24-105 f4 lense. Then again I heard good things about the 17-40, yet it does not compare to the 28-70. Would I be disappointed to sell the 17-40 and the 28-70, and replace them with the 24-105? I bought the 17-40 when I was using a 1.6x crop body so that kind of made sense. I don't anticipate returning to a 1.6x crop, and I don't use the wide end particularly often - only when I don't have the lense on me do I really feel like using it.... 17 vs 24 equates to 22mm vs 31mm, so a noticable difference at the wide end, but perhaps liveable with. IS on the 24-105 is probably not essential, though no doubt it helps a bit. I'd save 685g, as the 24-105 is just under half as heavy as the two lenses I currently have....

Am I suffering from a case of the grass is always greener? I really love the 28-70, I would probably miss it.

Has anyone had this dilemma?

Thanks
Jonathan

jalethbridge said:

Am I suffering from a case of the grass is always greener? I really love the 28-70, I would probably miss it.

Has anyone had this dilemma?

Click to expand...

I can't help I'm afraid but have had the same dilemma, I have the same two lenses that you do frequently consider the 24-105... I hardly ever use my 17-40 but fear I'd miss the wide end if I let it go (though 24mm on full frame is quite wide). The 28-70 f2.8 is a stunning lens, it's my most used non-birding lens and I'd be loathed to get rid of it. I've heard a lot of good about the 24-105 and it does seem like the perfect one lens solution for a lot of shooting, I'm just not convinced it's as good as the two lens option. Hopefully I'm meeting up with a friend who shoots with a 24-105 soon so I'll be able to compare them.

you said

it does seem like the perfect one lens solution for a lot of shooting, I'm just ---convinced it's as good as the two lens option.

Did you miss out a "not"?
When you do have the opportunity to test it out, I'd appreciate a real-use comparison. I'm sure it's very very good, but it would take a lot to beat the 28-70. I've had it for 11 years, it has performed faultlessly for all of those years. And if I sold it doubt I'd get much for it as everyone wants the extra 4mm on the replacement.


Thanks
Jonathan

jalethbridge said:

you said

it does seem like the perfect one lens solution for a lot of shooting, I'm just ---convinced it's as good as the two lens option.

Did you miss out a "not"?

Click to expand...

I did indeed miss a not, teach me to try and reply while watching CSI... I know what you mean about the 28-70 I picked one up used a few years ago and have been amazed by how well it performs. As and when I get the chance to test the 28-70 against the 24-105 I'll report back with my opinion.

I might be able to answer that, having seen the output from Postcardcv's 28-70 and its me he's referring to who uses the 24-105. I think you'll find the 24-105 doesn't have the out of camera image quality of the 28-70, its probably closer to the 17-40.
Saying that though I use the 24-105 a lot for lifestyle and studio portraiture and weddings.
With a pretty minimal sharpening action I'm totally happy at the sharpness of images I produce.
I keep thinking that i probably should swap to the 24-70 but then a scan of the exif after shoots shows how much I use the 70 to 105 range on a 1.3 crop and ff body. Changing to a 24-70 would therefore mean using the 70-200 far more and being honest I'm generally in favour of swapping kit as little as possible on shoots. And even on a short lens I'm pretty certain that IS has helped get me shots that I may have struggled with using the 24-70

paul goode said:

I might be able to answer that, having seen the output from Postcardcv's 28-70 and its me he's referring to who uses the 24-105. I think you'll find the 24-105 doesn't have the out of camera image quality of the 28-70, its probably closer to the 17-40.

Click to expand...

It might have been you I was referring too... shuffle over to Norfolk and we can give them a good testing. I have a feeling that both lenses have pros and cons, perhaps I just need one of each!

Thanks for your input so far. Even without seeing any tests, I am fairly convinced that I need to keep the 28-70. I clearly have a good copy, and it rocks. As Paul said, images from the 17-40 need some help, but come out perfectly acceptable in the long run. But compared to the the 18-55 kit lense, it is a shining gem! For a brief period of time (and I mean brief) I had the kit lense to try out. My dad bought a camera and for an extra £30 you got the lense. I gave him the £30 and took it away to play with. I think the lense was for sale within a couple of weeks. It's good to know that you do get what you pay for when it comes to optics and lenses. It's a shame they're so expensive though.
Regards
Jonathan

I have both a (now) 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 lenses. And I can say that it seems that they are both very useful. On a crop camera, however for general shooting I would go with the 17-40L because of the 17mm focal length. For birding, however it would seem that the longer reach of the 24-105 would be appropriate. It's an IS lens but one does lose an f-stop, hence some control over DOF. A tough decision.

I use the 24-105 as a general "walkaround" lens and it has taken some very good photos.