I am trying to decide between this and the canon 17-40mm f/4L. I need a good carry around lens for my 70D. I do macro, portrait and landscape mostly
2011959
There was no question to answer. 17-40 is smaller and lighter but less range. Buy what YOU need.
2011960
I have owned the 17-40L. It's a good lens. Its advantage over the 24-105 is only in the FL 17-24mm. For folks whose main interest is wide angle landscape images, the 17-40 has that advantage. In all other respects, I think the 24-105 wind, hands down. Its sharpness and detail is at least the equal of the 17-40, and of course it has the typical Canon L lens colors and contrast (all good). I really like the reach, out to 105mm, of the 24-105. Its weight, length, and balance are excellent for a lens of this focal length. It has become my favorite lens for the Canon 70D.
2011961
I hvae had my Canon 24-105mm f/4 L lens for about three years now, and it's the best and most versatile lens I have ever owned. it was recommended to me independently by two photographer friends, one in the UK, the other in the USA. I have travelled extensively with it to Eastern & Wetsren Europe, using it as my only lens (leaving my 70-300mm and 10-22mm Canon lenses behind to save on weight). Using a high ISO and high shutter speed, the lens is so good that I don't really need a telephoto lens, as cropping considerably to blow up a photo still gives great clarity. The macro part of the lens is excellent. A 17-40mm lens would be very restricting as a general walkabout lens, and I've always reckoned 105mm as being a good focal length for portraits. I do a lot of street people shots where speed is of the essence, and it's a very fast & responsive lens. The zoom is very smooth and responsive. It's not cheap, but to me it's been worth every penny. I use it on my Canon 7D.
357725
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range. But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too. Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
354492
I personally love this lens. But then, I am not trying to photograph bugs with it. My photos are perfect and have caught some great photos of hummingbirds I was shooting recently. I have a Canon T3. It does Macro.
1398788
It is a great lens for portraits. That's what I primarily use it for. Another good option is an 85mm.
1974695
This lens is a little noisy compared to Canon USM lenses, although not as much as an older Tamrom 17-50 I use with a 40D. If any doubts, you can always go a camera store nearby and try a display Tokina 16-28.
108984
The contempporary version of sigma 17-70 has an upgraded array of optics, and is lighter compared to the initial version of Sigma´s 17-70, and more compatible with newer camera models ie canon60D. This is the reason beneath the price difference. I am quite happy with my choice. Lens performance is great, image sharpness is outstanding!
591604
I have that exact combo and absolutely love it. Unfortunately, I can't compare it to the Olympus 17mm, but I can tell you it is a fantastic lens!
220608
The extra stop is amazing... 70mm frames a head and shoulders from 10 feet or so... Works great with my lighting set up and excels in low light... If you want tighter shots from longer distances, the 105 would be the pick! Most portrait photographers prefer 85mm to 105mm- the f/4 just may not give you the background blur you may want... the 70mm-200M f/2.8 L IS II is another awesome choice...
1190460
I have a D7000 and use this lens a lot. Good overall lens-sharp good with landscapes.
204307
85mm f/1.8 EF USM is a good choice for portraiture and standard photography, especially if you're shoot'n low light conditions using natural light with the wider aperture. 60mm macro would be fun..May I suggest the Canon EFS 17-85mm f/3-5.5 USM Ultra wide...it has a wide focal range, still wide aperture and GREAT for all photography ($750)...my Canon is always wearing it until I put on a larger 90-300mm lens :)
264636
I have the Canon 50 f1.4, the Canon 100 f2.0, the Canon 135 f2.0L, and this lens. I recently sold my 24-105 f4L. I use primarily the sigma 35 art or the 135L, it depends on what I am shooting. I do love this lens though. It is sharp and fast.
1864574
I own this lens, and it has become my favorite "carry around"! If you order, just make sure it is a Canon mount, as I shoot a Nikon D7000
1609775
PD thank you for the great review. What do you guys think about the new Tamron 70-200mm ?
578411
What camera bodies do you currently own and for what type of shooting?? For portrait, people love the 85, some even say they prefer the 100mm. I own the 50L, the only thing I can say is that shooting at f1.2 takes practice, and the auto focus is a bit slower than most other modern day lens with AF.
1337629
Image quality between the 24-70 and 28-75 is leaps and bounds. The 24-70 is just as sharp as Canons 24-70 version. Not to mention having VC. Definitely worth it if you have the money. I owned the 28-75 and it was a great lens for what is was but the 24-70 is such a step up in my opinion. Cheers
1746183
This is a tough question. My 70-300 f/4-5.6L is my main outdoor walkabout lens for my 5D. The lens is super smooth. I like the twist to zoom much better than push-pull. I like being able to reframe a picture *right now* without needing to carry and swap lenses. I appreciate the quality of the image at the extremes of the zoom. I'm careful about dust and moisture, but I know the seals on my L are the best you can get. If the lens will be *once in a while* lens and super image quality is not crucial, Canon makes very nice non-L lenses. For me, when I stepped up to the 5D, I figured it and my work deserved better lenses and I now only use L lenses. If you need super-telephoto, then primes (and maybe a EF Extender) and some kind of tripod or monopod are the way to go with as many high-quality pixels as you can afford. Then you can use cropping to reframe. Without more information about what you are trying to do, it is hard to be more specific.
608749
I've owned both. For the obvious, the 17-70 has a more useful FL, while the 17-50 has the constant f/2.8 throughout its range. Physically, the 17-70 takes 72mm filter vs 77mm filters, the weight is lighter by 20% (470g vs 565g) and its a smaller lens which may balance on your APS-C camera better (79mm x 82mm vs 84mm x 92mm). The 17-70 will give you also a psuedo-macro capability at a 1:2.9, which is rather useful. Personally, another point to note (and I've substantiated this myself after coming across it in a few Google blurbs) is that 17mm on the 17-50 is REALLY not 17mm, but 18mm when looked at closely. May not be a deal breaker, but to some it is and the lens really is, in practice, an 18-50 lens. I found the color rendition of the two lenses to be similar (lovely, in fact) and I find the 17-70 to be sharper across the frame at 50mm than the 17-50 is, which is not surprising as that's the farthest reach of the 17-50's FL and it's expected to suffer a tad there. If you haven personally used the new Sigma Contemporary and Art series lenses, I suggest you give them a try. Excellent materials, tight tolerances, well made. I ended up keeping the 17-70f/2.8-4 C and selling the 17-50 f/2.8. I have f/1.8primes to cover the need for low light shooting should it arise, and the extra FL is more important to me