Should I upgrade from EFS 17-85mm to EF 24-105mm L lens?

[avsquare]

perhaps I might consider the tokina 11-16mm to pair with my 17-85mm..... as for the telephoto zoom.. the 70-200 IS II USM f/2.8 seems expensive

no need the 70-200L IS II if you don't shoot low light at tele range..

It's DAMN huge and HEAVY.. Even for someone like me who walk around with 2-2.5KG of gear usually, I'm complaining that this chunk of glass is heavy. My heaviest lens is probably either the 24-70L or 70-300L which is near 1KG.. 70-200L IS II close to 1.5KG bro.

Consider the 70-300L for the range and if you don't need constant aperture and don't hate extending barrel design when zooming. If not, 70-200 f/4L IS is a good choice.

 

[wahseng]

no need the 70-200L IS II if you don't shoot low light at tele range..

It's DAMN huge and HEAVY.. Even for someone like me who walk around with 2-2.5KG of gear usually, I'm complaining that this chunk of glass is heavy. My heaviest lens is probably either the 24-70L or 70-300L which is near 1KG.. 70-200L IS II close to 1.5KG bro.

Consider the 70-300L for the range and if you don't need constant aperture and don't hate extending barrel design when zooming. If not, 70-200 f/4L IS is a good choice.

u mean this EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM? last time using the old cheap 75-300mm always get camera shake esp at the 200-300 mark. everything looks so close & shaky :bsmilie:

 

[avsquare]

u mean this EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM? last time using the old cheap 75-300mm always get camera shake esp at the 200-300 mark. everything looks so close & shaky :bsmilie:

Yes, EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

As for the shake - IS can only assist to a certain extend.. normal handshake is ok.. but if your hand is really wobbling, no current IS can help you on that.. get a tripod

Or re-check your exposure settings again. Maybe you are too close, or maybe your shutter speed is really too slow.

 

[Halfmoon]

It's DAMN huge and HEAVY.. Even for someone like me who walk around with 2-2.5KG of gear usually, I'm complaining that this chunk of glass is heavy. My heaviest lens is probably either the 24-70L or 70-300L which is near 1KG.. 70-200L IS II close to 1.5KG bro.

Consider the 70-300L for the range and if you don't need constant aperture and don't hate extending barrel design when zooming. If not, 70-200 f/4L IS is a good choice.

Bro

How you rate the 70-300mm L??? I am considering selling 70-200F4 & 70-300mm non-L to get the 70-300mm L..... :think::think:

 

[avsquare]

Bro

How you rate the 70-300mm L??? I am considering selling 70-200F4 & 70-300mm non-L to get the 70-300mm L.....

70-200mm f/4L IS @ Wide MTF:

70-300L @ Wide MTF:

70-200mm f/4L IS @ Tele MTF:

70-300L @ Tele MTF:

Based on MTF chart given by Canon, 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-300L is VERY VERY close in quality. Having used both lens before, I'm in agreement with this. My personal view on the 2 lens are:

70-200mm f/4L IS
+ Constant aperture
+ Does not protrude when zooming
+ Small sized and light weight, compatible with 1.4x extender for non EOS-1D bodies and compatible with 2x extender with EOS-1D bodies. If your 1D is the APS-H sensor, you can get a 364mm f/5.6 or 520mm f/8 and retains AF, at a affordable price with portability.
- Too thin, I don't like the "grip" feel of the lens

70-300L
+ Extra 100mm in focal length with great optics as it's 70-200mm brothers
+ Thicker barrel, giving a very solid grip and feel.
+ Shorter than the 70-200mm brothers, which means, more portability and easier packing.
+ Not as common in 2nd hand market, which means you don't face the problem of "oversupply" and having to lower price to stay competitive, if one day you intend to sell
- Can be heavy
- The zoom ring is at the front while the focus ring is closer to the body, kind of "reversed" from the usual lens. Due to it's short design, you may find yourself "accidentally" touching the focus ring while zooming. Not a problem for me. If you are not someone who will accidentally hit your mode dial and changed shooting modes, you shouldn't find this an "issue"
- Aperture changes while zooming
- Extending barrel while zooming



Hope the above input will be useful

 

[Halfmoon]

70-200mm f/4L IS @ Wide MTF:
Based on MTF chart given by Canon, 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-300L is VERY VERY close in quality. Having used both lens before, I'm in agreement with this. My personal view on the 2 lens are:

70-200mm f/4L IS
+ Constant aperture
+ Does not protrude when zooming
+ Small sized and light weight, compatible with 1.4x extender for non EOS-1D bodies and compatible with 2x extender with EOS-1D bodies. If your 1D is the APS-H sensor, you can get a 364mm f/5.6 or 520mm f/8 and retains AF, at a affordable price with portability.
- Too thin, I don't like the "grip" feel of the lens

70-300L
+ Extra 100mm in focal length with great optics as it's 70-200mm brothers
+ Thicker barrel, giving a very solid grip and feel.
+ Shorter than the 70-200mm brothers, which means, more portability and easier packing.
+ Not as common in 2nd hand market, which means you don't face the problem of "oversupply" and having to lower price to stay competitive, if one day you intend to sell
- Can be heavy
- The zoom ring is at the front while the focus ring is closer to the body, kind of "reversed" from the usual lens. Due to it's short design, you may find yourself "accidentally" touching the focus ring while zooming. Not a problem for me. If you are not someone who will accidentally hit your mode dial and changed shooting modes, you shouldn't find this an "issue"
- Aperture changes while zooming
- Extending barrel while zooming

Hope the above input will be useful

Thanks Bro avsq.....

As I thinking of FF one day, I need to have more range, that is up to 300mm... though... it is not a commonly used range....

I do like the compactness of the 70-300mm L... and I found that I do dislike the 70-300mm micro USM quite a bit.... a non-L lens is a non-L lens... and too hooked to Ls.... I like the 70-300mm L is also weather sealed.... and using 67mm... so same as the 70-200mm F4 filter... so I do not need to buy one...

I think I will not be missing 70-200 f4 too much as I think the IS will be pretty handy, and for telephoto, I really feel IS is crucial.....

Just wonder if I can handle the 1kg weight... as I tend to have challenge on lens handling with heavy weights ones............. I would need to test this one out... no point buying and unable to handle it.... maybe will rent it first....

 

[hammie]

70-200 f4L IS is darn sharp... got a shock at my first time using it

 

[avsquare]

Thanks Bro avsq.....

As I thinking of FF one day, I need to have more range, that is up to 300mm... though... it is not a commonly used range....

I do like the compactness of the 70-300mm L... and I found that I do dislike the 70-300mm micro USM quite a bit.... a non-L lens is a non-L lens... and too hooked to Ls.... I like the 70-300mm L is also weather sealed.... and using 67mm... so same as the 70-200mm F4 filter... so I do not need to buy one...

I think I will not be missing 70-200 f4 too much as I think the IS will be pretty handy, and for telephoto, I really feel IS is crucial.....

Just wonder if I can handle the 1kg weight... as I tend to have challenge on lens handling with heavy weights ones............. I would need to test this one out... no point buying and unable to handle it.... maybe will rent it first....

No problem

IDK, although it's about the same weight as 24-70L, somehow I feel the weight from 24-70L but not really from 70-300L. It's just.. nice to handle, compact, good grip. The weight is like.. magically disappears :bsmilie:

300mm though not commonly used but I find it really handy. When I try to shoot people at Orchard Road, the 300mm really gives me the discreetness. In any case, it's extra 100mm in a compact barrel body. What's better than that?

 

[Halfmoon]

No problem

IDK, although it's about the same weight as 24-70L, somehow I feel the weight from 24-70L but not really from 70-300L. It's just.. nice to handle, compact, good grip. The weight is like.. magically disappears :bsmilie:

300mm though not commonly used but I find it really handy. When I try to shoot people at Orchard Road, the 300mm really gives me the discreetness. In any case, it's extra 100mm in a compact barrel body. What's better than that?

Magically disappear??? This is interesting... mmm.... :think:

Well, you never know when you need the range, and having all in the lens, it is pretty convenient. Just wonder how you find the distortion and pin cushioning on this lens???

30mm.... I see, part time paparazzi???? lol... if 300m on APS-C, it is 480mm!!! Can shoot further paparazzi style!!! haha...

 

[yrh0413]

not really magically disappear... the weight is still there but due to its compactness and effective IS we tend to get more keepers compare to the 24-70L.

For 24-70L you really need to die-die hold the camera steaaaaady. :bsmilie:

 

[avsquare]

Magically disappear??? This is interesting... mmm....

Well, you never know when you need the range, and having all in the lens, it is pretty convenient. Just wonder how you find the distortion and pin cushioning on this lens???

30mm.... I see, part time paparazzi???? lol... if 300m on APS-C, it is 480mm!!! Can shoot further paparazzi style!!! haha...

not really magically disappear... the weight is still there but due to its compactness and effective IS we tend to get more keepers compare to the 24-70L.

For 24-70L you really need to die-die hold the camera steaaaaady.

Yes.. I think Daniel bro nailed a good point!

24-70L really must die die hold still.. and it's a heavy chunk of glass! And I think somehow 24-70L is fatter than 70-300L. Another thing I like about 70-300L is it's lens hood - really hard and durable plastic that is resistant to scratches and absorbs shocks well (you know, those accidental bumps. try flicking hard at the lens hood with your fingers while it's mounted on your lens, and immediately touch it to feel how well it absorbs vibrations from your flick!)

As for distortion, I don't really find a problem. Show you some of my n00b shots without distortion correct.. cos at that point of time, I don't even know how to correct it!


_MG_0367_CROP by infinite.rui, on Flickr


_MG_0371_CROP by infinite.rui, on Flickr

 

[Halfmoon]

not really magically disappear... the weight is still there but due to its compactness and effective IS we tend to get more keepers compare to the 24-70L.

For 24-70L you really need to die-die hold the camera steaaaaady. :bsmilie:

I think the weight is evenly distributed, as in the compact size of the lens, part of the weight is held by the right hand and lesser weight on the left hand due to the centre point of the body & lens I think..........

The 24-70mm L II is 150g lighter, and that is a strong selling point.... but just disappointed that it is not yet available.....

 

[avsquare]

I think the weight is evenly distributed, as in the compact size of the lens, part of the weight is held by the right hand and lesser weight on the left hand due to the centre point of the body & lens I think..........

The 24-70mm L II is 150g lighter, and that is a strong selling point.... but just disappointed that it is not yet available.....

Maybe you want to wait until the Tamron's 24-70 VC is out and compare the two

 

[KY1977]

I checked the specs for EF S 15-85mm vs EF S17-85mm. It seems that the EF S 17-85mm is a ring-type USM, but the 15-85mm is micro-USM

thus I had not considered 15-85mm

15-85 has ring type usm.

http://www.canon.com.sg/mobile/personal/products/lenses/ef-s15-85mm-f-3-5-5-6-is-usm?languageCode=EN

 

[wahseng]

Ring USM & ring type USM
What's the difference?

 

[wahseng]

Ring USM & ring type USM
What's the difference?

Anyone knows?

 

[yrh0413]

Ring USM & ring type USM
What's the difference?

aren't they the same? For autofocus EF lenses, they are either USM or non-USM. For USM lenses they are either ring-USM or micro-USM.

So far only 50 f/1.4 and 18-55 USM has micro-USM.

 

[wahseng]

aren't they the same? For autofocus EF lenses, they are either USM or non-USM. For USM lenses they are either ring-USM or micro-USM.

So far only 50 f/1.4 and 18-55 USM has micro-USM.

But why on the canon product comparison site, it indicate ring type USM for the 17-85, ring USM for the 15-85mm

 

[yrh0413]

But why on the canon product comparison site, it indicate ring type USM for the 17-85, ring USM for the 15-85mm

they are refering to the same ring USM. you may also check here: Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens Specifications and Measurements

 

[Halfmoon]

Maybe you want to wait until the Tamron's 24-70 VC is out and compare the two

No.... im buying canon only.... cos i heard when u own the entire ef lens there is a special bonus of some sort, so now, plan to do so.... lol.....

Had bad experience with third party.....