Canon zoom questions

[adina]

Right now I have a el cheapo 28-80, which came with my Rebel 2k kit oh so many years ago. I hardly use it because, well, it is a piece of junk.

I'm looking at replacing it, but right now $1100 for the 24-70 f/2.8 L is a little daunting. Is there something in the middle? Or do I just suck it up and pay the $1100 now, instead of buying something else and being unhappy with it and having to replace it eventually anyways.

Right now I use the 50mm f/1.8 for most everything, I'd like something that is going to give me similar results.

thanks

adina

[SmartWombat]

I can't help really, I splashed out £580 (more than your price in $) and went for the 24-70
My logic was exactly yours, I didn't want to buy the lens I really wanted later after buying a Sigma or something

Then I've dropped it out of my photovest pocket in the pit lane at Silverstone.
I've unbent the zoom ring (it landed on the hood) and it still seems to work !
But after the World Touring Car Championship this weekend, and a Karting race in Frnce next weekend ... it'll be a while before my kit goes in to Canon for checking.

[Lionheart]

Right now I have a el cheapo 28-80, which came with my Rebel 2k kit oh so many years ago. I hardly use it because, well, it is a piece of junk.

I'm looking at replacing it, but right now $1100 for the 24-70 f/2.8 L is a little daunting. Is there something in the middle? Or do I just suck it up and pay the $1100 now, instead of buying something else and being unhappy with it and having to replace it eventually anyways.

Right now I use the 50mm f/1.8 for most everything, I'd like something that is going to give me similar results.

thanks

adina

Adina:
SPLURGE. At the level that you practice your art, you need to invest in an "L" lens. You will not regret it. I've lost count of the money I've spent on lesser lenses that I wasted because in the end, I finally came to my senses and got what I needed in the first place. $1100 is cheap for a zoom with the build and image quality of the 24-70 f2.8L USM or its older predecessor, the 28-70 f2.8L USM (which I use relatively often, though not nearly as much as I use it's longer sibling, the 70-200 f2.8L IS). Just my two coppers of course, but I don't think you will regret spending the money on this lens. If you like the 50mm f1.8 (which I have-the older one, with the metal body and mount), then any other zoom will fail to deliver compared to the 24-70. I use the 50 f1.8 for a lot of my photography these days, still my favorite prime after 16 years of photography If you really feel like you can't spend the money just now, then save and wait, and use the 50mm and let your feet do the zooming, that's what I do a lot lately with my 50mm

[Liz]

You may or may not be interested in. The Canon 17-40mm/f4L lens. It's one of Canon's least expensive L lenses, but it is truly awesome. Ever since I got that lens, it's been my favorite. It's very difficult not to get all "L" lenses now. The zoom isn't as long, but I have the 50mm and the 85 to supplement. This lens is about $650. It is so sharp - and the color is awesome.

Specifications
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=279582&is=USA

Reviews here
http://www.photographyreview.com/35m...8_3128crx.aspx

Portrait in Gallery here shot with this lens

http://gallery.photographyreview.com...3961Katie2.jpg


Liz

Right now I have a el cheapo 28-80, which came with my Rebel 2k kit oh so many years ago. I hardly use it because, well, it is a piece of junk.

I'm looking at replacing it, but right now $1100 for the 24-70 f/2.8 L is a little daunting. Is there something in the middle? Or do I just suck it up and pay the $1100 now, instead of buying something else and being unhappy with it and having to replace it eventually anyways.

Right now I use the 50mm f/1.8 for most everything, I'd like something that is going to give me similar results.

thanks

adina

[opus]

If you go to a middle-ground lens, you will give up the 2.8, which is probably the biggest thing I regret not having. My middle-ground 75-300 is plenty sharp enough (and I can post process where I need to), but not having the availability of the 2.8 in low light situations makes certain shots impossible to get.

Granted, I'll have to start selling some of what I've already got before I can justify the better lens, but I don't think I'd buy another middle-ground lens now that I've discovered what I really, truly need in a lens.

[adina]

Hmmm...

Thanks Liz, for the recommendation, going to look into that one. I have the 70-200 f/4L if I need longer, so maybe something wider would work well.

Don't really want to give up the 2.8, so I guess I'd be forking over the $$.

Going to think about it over the next few days...

thanks

adina

[Mig]

You may want to look at the Tokina 24-70 or 28-70 - they're both 2.8 and I think Paul(nj) has one of them and loves it. Unless you want to stick to Canon. Good luck - I hate these decisions!

Danielle