anyone sold 17-40 & 70-200f4 just to buy a 24-70mm f2.8?

JoePro · 27th September 2004

HI,
I have a 10D, with a 50mm f1.8, and two L lenses, the 17-40 f4 and the 70-200 f4. These seem to be fairly popular lenses, given the L badge and the relatively reasonable prices they are sold for. Also remember they are light to carry, unlike many of the other L lenses, so that means less weight if one is carrying just one lens on the camera, or with other lenses and flash, accessories in a nice camera bag, that itself can weight about 2kg.

Has anyone thought of or better yet, sold these 2 popular lenses just to buy the 24-70mm f2.8, which weighs 950g, all of 2.1 lbs?

Obvioulsy there is a big difference in the range, less wide and much less tele, but how's the quality and do you think having one lens that nearly does it all (let's qualify all meaning 80-90% of your shots). Doing away with the need to swap lenses for those rare occasions when you need a wide shot or the need to zoom in on a subject?

Prices are about $2450+ at CP for this heavy baby, and of course its a faster lens but other than that, is there really any other advantage that I'm not seeing?

I suppose a 10/10 condition 17-40 and 70-200 should be able to get about $1000 or a bit more in the used market (assume both with warranty as mine are)

Any thoughts?

Kind regards ALL CS members...

ps. checked out the 20D at CP earlier today, does look smaller and hand grip is smaller. Focus is interesting and quick but shutter is LOUD and I'm not sure if it actually creates any movement in the body when it takes the shot...

SniperD · 27th September 2004

a good question to ask is - Do I need the 24-70?

centrino · 27th September 2004

which lens to get really depend on what u want to shoot. for me I like to travel and shoot so i prefer wider lens. 24-70 on 10D/20D is not wide at all. so it's all up to your preference.

me too, hope canon can make the shutter quieter...

Terence · 27th September 2004

I think nickmak is considering doing just that for the 24-70.

Got one for sale if you're interested

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=93308

nickmak · 27th September 2004

Originally Posted by Terence

I think nickmak is considering doing just that for the 24-70.

Got one for sale if you're interested

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=93308

Yup! But trust me, I have the same lenses as you, but its really hard to part with the three lenses for one... If you are a wide shooter like me, then its a really really tough choice. I'm actually considering whether to dive in or not... First of all, change the lens that you really use a lot... Right now, I'm told to shoot sports for the rest of the year so I am changing the 70-200 f4L to the f2.8 version first as its my main priority. The 24-70L is a great lens and I 'gian' the whole time and would like to have this lens first but due to my money constraints (and parents too) I have to decide on my priorities first...

So ask yourself if you really need the lens or not...

OT: Terence, not saying I'm not interested in the lens but I think I'll give the 24-70L a pass first and wait till you have another one for sale. Cheers!

djork · 27th September 2004

i use the 17-40,24-70 and the 70-200.
some events i can get away just using the 17-40, but people are more relaxed if i'm not right in front of them snapping away, so i like to use a combi of 17-40 and 70-200 (assuming i have the time to swap lens)

as for the 24-70, i use it for events where 17 is too wide and 40 doesn't get me close enough, and changing between 17-40 and 70-200 is too troublesome.

JoePro · 27th September 2004

one of the questions asked was what do you want to shoot with the lens?

at this point in my life family shots, holidays and portraits make up the majority of my pictures. That's why I was considering this lens. The 70-200 f4 does do portraits but I find a little difficulty in holding it steady. Either i'm not used to the lens, or I have early stage Parkinsons' disease. I don't think this is a weight issue, just a balance issue.

Thought the 24-70 would help me get the shots I'm missing from the 40mm -70mm range I'm missing, with a slightly larger aperture. Even though I have the 50mm f1.8, it does need me to change the lens for the shots and then may require me to change back for another composition. Also slightly paranoid about dust in the camera...

The tele side is a little under-utilised. My alternative is to buy a 50mm 1.4 (better built) and a 85mm 1.8 but they are primes are will require more changing. On the plus side I might get better quality and they are much lighter wheras the other one is H-E-A-V-Y!

hard to swap 3 for 1 but will weigh it all carefully

joe

mr_jason · 27th September 2004

How abt selling the 24-70 f/2.8L and buying the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L, accompanied with a 50mm f/1.8 and a 85mm f/1.8. That's what I did, as I found the 24-70 f/2.8L neither wide nor tele enough on a 1.6x crop body.

Only thing I lose out on is probably 24mm @ f/2.8, other than that it's ok.

Keep the lenses you have.

release · 27th September 2004

I am using the exactly same lens set you have. Trouble in changing lens, yes, but I don't really mind that much. If you really hate changing lens, you may consider to get a second body.

John Tan · 28th September 2004

Originally Posted by mr_jason

How abt selling the 24-70 f/2.8L and buying the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L, accompanied with a 50mm f/1.8 and a 85mm f/1.8. That's what I did, as I found the 24-70 f/2.8L neither wide nor tele enough on a 1.6x crop body.

Only thing I lose out on is probably 24mm @ f/2.8, other than that it's ok.

Keep the lenses you have.

Why lose out in 24mm? You still have your 17-40mm right?

RossChang · 28th September 2004

Originally Posted by John Tan

Why lose out in 24mm? You still have your 17-40mm right?

24mm with Max Appeture of 2.8... doubt u'll get tat on the 17-40... unless the one u have is the 16-35.

JoePro · 28th September 2004

Just a clarification, if I were to buy the 24-70 at $2450 (CP's quote) I'd really have to sell all my lenses to fund the purchase

so bye bye
17-40, 70-200 and perhaps 50 f1.8.

I've been down to CP again today (soon I better get season parking) and I think I'll probably do this

sell off my mint condition 70-200 f4L and 50mm f1.8, and buy these two primes

50mm f1.4
and
85mm f1.8

will just have to do without a tele lens for now until I either really need one, in which case the cheaper 200mm prime looks like a decent choice, or resort to getting a 135 f2 and a 1.4 teleconvertor.

Will be posting my two lens for sale...

Appreciate your thoughts and your suggestions and it has helped me reach a decision.

While the 85mm f1.8 is not one of the more popular lenses out here, the reviews I've read seem positive and it focuses alot faster than the expensive 85mm f1.2L big brother. Of course I'm not dishing out money for that... too heavy for my pocket and my camera bag. Plus I may need to go and work out just to hold it steady.

Thanks fellow CS memebers !

nickmak · 28th September 2004

Originally Posted by JoePro

Just a clarification, if I were to buy the 24-70 at $2450 (CP's quote) I'd really have to sell all my lenses to fund the purchase

so bye bye
17-40, 70-200 and perhaps 50 f1.8.

I've been down to CP again today (soon I better get season parking) and I think I'll probably do this

sell off my mint condition 70-200 f4L and 50mm f1.8, and buy these two primes

50mm f1.4
and
85mm f1.8

will just have to do without a tele lens for now until I either really need one, in which case the cheaper 200mm prime looks like a decent choice, or resort to getting a 135 f2 and a 1.4 teleconvertor.

Will be posting my two lens for sale...

Appreciate your thoughts and your suggestions and it has helped me reach a decision.

While the 85mm f1.8 is not one of the more popular lenses out here, the reviews I've read seem positive and it focuses alot faster than the expensive 85mm f1.2L big brother. Of course I'm not dishing out money for that... too heavy for my pocket and my camera bag. Plus I may need to go and work out just to hold it steady.

Thanks fellow CS memebers !

Keep the 50mm f1.8 first. I had many PMs from the dudes here that the 50mm f1.4 is soft wide open. I saw some samples and was taken aback by the truth!

JoePro · 28th September 2004

Thanks Nickmak for your advice - I'll consider carefully. Reviews seem to be ok for the 50mm 1.4. And i do like the build quality.

I've not seen any pictures from it, but "the proof, (as they say,) is in the pudding..."

Thanks for letting me know this...

27th September 2004	#1
JoePro Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Central Posts: 278	anyone sold 17-40 & 70-200f4 just to buy a 24-70mm f2.8? HI, I have a 10D, with a 50mm f1.8, and two L lenses, the 17-40 f4 and the 70-200 f4. These seem to be fairly popular lenses, given the L badge and the relatively reasonable prices they are sold for. Also remember they are light to carry, unlike many of the other L lenses, so that means less weight if one is carrying just one lens on the camera, or with other lenses and flash, accessories in a nice camera bag, that itself can weight about 2kg. Has anyone thought of or better yet, sold these 2 popular lenses just to buy the 24-70mm f2.8, which weighs 950g, all of 2.1 lbs? Obvioulsy there is a big difference in the range, less wide and much less tele, but how's the quality and do you think having one lens that nearly does it all (let's qualify all meaning 80-90% of your shots). Doing away with the need to swap lenses for those rare occasions when you need a wide shot or the need to zoom in on a subject? Prices are about $2450+ at CP for this heavy baby, and of course its a faster lens but other than that, is there really any other advantage that I'm not seeing? I suppose a 10/10 condition 17-40 and 70-200 should be able to get about $1000 or a bit more in the used market (assume both with warranty as mine are) Any thoughts? Kind regards ALL CS members... ps. checked out the 20D at CP earlier today, does look smaller and hand grip is smaller. Focus is interesting and quick but shutter is LOUD and I'm not sure if it actually creates any movement in the body when it takes the shot...

27th September 2004	#2
SniperD Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Behind the viewfinder... Posts: 5,954	a good question to ask is - Do I need the 24-70? __________________ EYE-DEAS

27th September 2004	#4
Terence Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: I'm a Llama! Posts: 4,716	I think nickmak is considering doing just that for the 24-70. Got one for sale if you're interested http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=93308 __________________ Visit my photo blog Email only please, NO PM!

27th September 2004	#6
djork Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Hong Kong, Pokfulam Posts: 1,195	i use the 17-40,24-70 and the 70-200. some events i can get away just using the 17-40, but people are more relaxed if i'm not right in front of them snapping away, so i like to use a combi of 17-40 and 70-200 (assuming i have the time to swap lens) as for the 24-70, i use it for events where 17 is too wide and 40 doesn't get me close enough, and changing between 17-40 and 70-200 is too troublesome. __________________ Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

27th September 2004	#7
JoePro Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Central Posts: 278	three lens for one... one of the questions asked was what do you want to shoot with the lens? at this point in my life family shots, holidays and portraits make up the majority of my pictures. That's why I was considering this lens. The 70-200 f4 does do portraits but I find a little difficulty in holding it steady. Either i'm not used to the lens, or I have early stage Parkinsons' disease. I don't think this is a weight issue, just a balance issue. Thought the 24-70 would help me get the shots I'm missing from the 40mm -70mm range I'm missing, with a slightly larger aperture. Even though I have the 50mm f1.8, it does need me to change the lens for the shots and then may require me to change back for another composition. Also slightly paranoid about dust in the camera... The tele side is a little under-utilised. My alternative is to buy a 50mm 1.4 (better built) and a 85mm 1.8 but they are primes are will require more changing. On the plus side I might get better quality and they are much lighter wheras the other one is H-E-A-V-Y! hard to swap 3 for 1 but will weigh it all carefully joe

27th September 2004	#3
centrino Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 332	which lens to get really depend on what u want to shoot. for me I like to travel and shoot so i prefer wider lens. 24-70 on 10D/20D is not wide at all. so it's all up to your preference. me too, hope canon can make the shutter quieter...

27th September 2004	#8
mr_jason Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,076	How abt selling the 24-70 f/2.8L and buying the 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L, accompanied with a 50mm f/1.8 and a 85mm f/1.8. That's what I did, as I found the 24-70 f/2.8L neither wide nor tele enough on a 1.6x crop body. Only thing I lose out on is probably 24mm @ f/2.8, other than that it's ok. Keep the lenses you have.

27th September 2004	#9
release Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 149	I am using the exactly same lens set you have. Trouble in changing lens, yes, but I don't really mind that much. If you really hate changing lens, you may consider to get a second body.

28th September 2004	#12
JoePro Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Central Posts: 278	if I bought it would have to sell ALL to finance it... Just a clarification, if I were to buy the 24-70 at $2450 (CP's quote) I'd really have to sell all my lenses to fund the purchase so bye bye 17-40, 70-200 and perhaps 50 f1.8. I've been down to CP again today (soon I better get season parking) and I think I'll probably do this sell off my mint condition 70-200 f4L and 50mm f1.8, and buy these two primes 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 will just have to do without a tele lens for now until I either really need one, in which case the cheaper 200mm prime looks like a decent choice, or resort to getting a 135 f2 and a 1.4 teleconvertor. Will be posting my two lens for sale... Appreciate your thoughts and your suggestions and it has helped me reach a decision. While the 85mm f1.8 is not one of the more popular lenses out here, the reviews I've read seem positive and it focuses alot faster than the expensive 85mm f1.2L big brother. Of course I'm not dishing out money for that... too heavy for my pocket and my camera bag. Plus I may need to go and work out just to hold it steady. Thanks fellow CS memebers !

28th September 2004	#14
JoePro Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Central Posts: 278	Thank you NickMak - for advice on EF50mm1.4 Thanks Nickmak for your advice - I'll consider carefully. Reviews seem to be ok for the 50mm 1.4. And i do like the build quality. I've not seen any pictures from it, but "the proof, (as they say,) is in the pudding..." Thanks for letting me know this...