Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hey all,

I am entertaining the thought about buying the Canon 24-105 f4L, or a combo of the Canon 70-200 f4L non-IS + Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC, for roughly around the same price range. I've only had the pleasure of shooting with the Canon 24-105 f4L, but have not had the opportunity to try out the other 2 lenses.

Currently, I'm a hobbyist using the T3i, w/ kit lens (18-55 f3.5-5.6) and 50mm f1.8. I enjoy shooting portraits (mostly street/on location, and in studio when possible), street, and outdoor events. Also thinking about getting an external flash unit for night and indoor(low light) stuff, but that's another topic for another day.

Pros in favor of Canon 24-105:
-one lens that covers most of the focal length I usually shoot (also convenient when travelling)
-Image stabilization
-L glass quality

Cons of Canon 24-105:
-F4 may not be wide enough sometimes

Pros in favor of Canon 70-200 f4L non-IS + Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC combo:
-F2.8 from 17-50mm
-focal length range extended wider (17mm) and longer (200mm)

Cons of this 2 lenses combo:
-no image stabilization (especially for longer focal lengths, how do you get away with no-IS?)
-L glass quality only for 70-200mm range

Please feel free to suggest alternative lens, preferably keeping in mind roughly the same price range.

Thanks for your advice!

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 does come in VC so you can have IS. As you've probably read that the non-VC lens tested have generally improved sharpness over it's VC cousin.

I really did like my 17-50 2.8 non VC when I had my Canon.

I can't comment on the other lenses.

It really comes down to what you want though. Is 24mm wide enough for you? Is 105 long enough for you? For me, personally, I'd answer "no" to both of the following questions. You narrow down what's best for you though.

While the 24-105 is nice because its a one lens setup, but only works if the focal range meets your needs, along with with the f4 aperture.

My opinion would be to buy the 2 lens setup. If you can save up more, get the 70-200 f4 IS, well worth the difference, imo.

Just keep in mind, there's no perfect lens out there, there's always one trade off in every lens.

Agreed. I love the 70-200 range so I saved for the best lens in that range. Given your scenario here's what I would do:

Go for the Tamron (non-vc, too many people unhappy with their VCs) and the 70-200. I agree about saving the extra bit for the IS on the Canon, it is helpful. BUT, that's not where I'd stop. In a longer term plan I'd start saving for a MKI 24-70 Canon and when I'm close sell the Tamron to make the difference. If you take care of it and pay a good price you should be able to get at least 75% of the cost back on the Tamron after a year of using it.

Here's four reasons why I'd stay away from, and did stay away from, the 24-105L.

1. The first reason is there are very very few examples of people selling their MKI 24-70s to get a 24-105. People go the other way a lot.* Why? While the 24-70MkI does have its issues it's a better lens than the 24-105. It just is.

2. Lens creep. It bugs me a lot. This is when you hold the lens facing the ground and gravity causes it to extend. I will not tolerate that. That or earwigs. The 24-105 is often guilty of doing this. As is the 17-55 (a major reason I didn't choose that).

3. The market is saturated with the 24-105. They're part of every pro/sumer kit sold, there are dozens of em on KijijiList monthly and the value on them has not yet bottomed out. Why do you think people sell them when they got them as a kit? They either have a 24-70 or primes, both of which are better. The 24-70 MkIs are trickling down in price but not at the rate of the 24-105s.

4. Except in video I will always take a faster lens over one with IS. 2.8 > 4.0

This is not to say the 24-105 is bad, the IQ is still quite good and the IS is great if you're doing video (I rarely do). Those are the reasons I wouldn't be interested in one. Wide enough, not long enough are up to how you shoot. I'm finding 24mm on a crop often wide enough. If it's not I want a UWA, not a 17mm. That's me. Look through the hole. If you see what you want press the button. Forget the numbers.

If you're dead set on a 24-105 don't pay more than $700 for it.

Proof is searchable on POTN. If you did go the other way blah blah blah great for you, don't care.

another possible option is the canon 18-200, goes between 400-500

i have/had all 3 lenses before and i end up keeping the 24-105..

Eddy, I too was in your spot.

I have both the Non-VC 17-50 and the 70-200. Still from time to time, I still consider the 24-105.
As far as the Tamron goes, at least my copy, its pretty sharp and does well in low-light with 2.8 and for the money...its a steal.
The 70-200 is without IS, but in daylight, I don't need it. I shoot a ton of soccer with my kids and at 1/1000th you don't need IS.
When I need stabilization, I use a tripod.

ions said it best...look through the viewfinder and if you like what you see - shoot it. +1 about the $700

If you like primes, 200 2.8 is a killer lens as well.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who likes the 24-105L. I have shot a ton of work with it and really like the results. It won't win a specifications war but it gets the job done in studio and even in low light.

I shot all of these (not including the face close up) with the 24-105L. http://www.m2c.ca/commercial.html

I have a tamron 17-50 non VC for sale

24-105 on a crop body not that great especially on the wider end, it comes down to how often you would use the 50 to 105mm range.

When I was on mainly crop body, i had my 30mm f1.4 as primary, 17-50 for wide and 85mm f1.4 for everything tighter.

When I traveled, 17-50 and 30mm was all I brought.

+1
The colour rendition is the best I've seen its the only travel and walk around lens you will ever need.

Magic, Metrix...I'm having one of those times.

Nice sets of your site, Magic.

Cheers urbanite. Metrix, its very versatile isn't it?

Perhaps I should start a support group for owners of under-rated lenses Hi, my name is Mark and I own a general purpose lens.

Mark you're Avatar reminds me of like Kevin Levrone.

Canon's lens collection makes me rethink from time to time about switching over, and the 24-105 f/4 is a huge part of that. I think it might be looked past since a lot of Canon shooters have aps-c cameras.

But to the OP you won't be disappointed in the Tamron, incredibly versatile lens, sharp, close min. focusing, constant 2.8.

I absolutely LOVED my 24-105 on my aps-h sized 1D mkIV...perfect walk around/travel lens for 80% of situations...
...of course, I still lugged around a whole bunch of other lenses in the off chance I encountered one of the 20% situations.

Tamron 17-50mm non-VC is much sharper with VC. Higher reselling value too. When I had it, I sold it for $400. Literally new as heck.