Indoor Photograhy - Which Lens?? We have the 24-105, 70-200 4IS and the 17-40 are very happy. We are now considering the 24-70 or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens to have a 2.8 lens. If we purchased the 16-35, we would sell our 17-40, but hold onto our 24-105. We would use the 2.8 lens for low light and indoor. We do a lot of landscape work. Any ideas which lens we would get the most out of - we have a 50D . Appreciated, John M. Indoor Photograhy - Which Lens?? We have the 24-105, 70-200 4IS and the 17-40 are very happy. We are now considering the 24-70 or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens to have a 2.8 lens. If we... » Read More Indoor Photograhy - Which Lens?? We have the 24-105, 70-200 4IS and the 17-40 are very happy. We are now considering the 24-70 or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens to have a 2.8 lens. If we purchased the 16-35, we would sell our 17-40, but hold onto our 24-105. We would use the 2.8 lens for low light and indoor. We do a lot of landscape work. Any ideas which lens we would get the most out of - we have a 50D . Appreciated, John M. « Show Less
2023167
We purchased the 5D Mk2 and the new 100L IS Macro 2.8. - the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens creates a very high quality foreground/background blur: bokeh is excellent OOF (Out of Focus) highlights are rendered very smoothly. 100mm on a full frame body is a great lens. It is on our 5D most of the time. We use the 24-105 as a travel lens and have tested it against the 24-70 - the IS, size and reach of the 24-105 outway the 2.8 on the 24-70?? Thanks for your response.
2023168
Honestly, I don't understand why you didn't list a tilt-shift lens in your list of possible purchases. The 24mm tilt-shift is the specialty lens DESIGNED solely for landscape and interior work. It gets results no other lens can achieve for that purpose. That being said, you aren't going to shoot landscape or architecture photographs below f/8 - so you aren't getting an advantage by having the large aperture of the 16-35 f/2.8. I recommend that you add one of the wide angle tilt-shift lenses to your possible purchase list and reevaluate the necessity of the other options you're listing here.
2023169
They are both great lenses. Most landscapes are taken at the sharpest point of the lens which is generally f11 so the f2.8 is more of a luxury feature if that is all you are doing with it. If you are using it for some portraiture as well then it makes more sense. From the lenses you have I think you would benefit most from an upgrade of the camera body itself to full frame. It will cost you the same for a 6d body as the 24-70 lens. You will notice more of a difference in image quality and gain much more out of a wide angle lens than changing lenses at this point.
2023170
What type of landscape work do you do? Sometimes, the extra reach of the 24-70 would suit you fine. The 16-35 will give you the wide side if you like to do sweeping landscapes. The 24-70 seems sharper when using higher apertures (2.8-3.5). I think the 24-70 is more of a multi-purpose lens. You might be able to sell the 24-105 because you will have the focal lengths of 24-200 covered in two lenses. The 24-105 is just over-lapping.
1787339
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full... » Read More Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. « Show Less
496027
I understand your situation, but for shooting indoor sports the wider aperture is the way to go. Save up for the 200mm telephoto. It's a great lens and considerably less expensive than something like a 70-200 IS ii.
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.
1858499
Yeah buying a zoom lens for indoor low light shooting is where photography starts to become expensive. Canon's 70-200 f2.8L is over a thousand dollars, so depending on how far away from the subject you are, I'd suggest a prime lens at any one of several focal lengths offered at apertures of f1.4, f1.8, or f2.8. I've personally had great success using the 50mm f1.8, but since you're asking about telephoto zoom lenses, it seems you might need a little more reach. The Canon 200mm f2.8L lists for $750, and the 100mm f2 is about $400, and that's about the same price as the 85mm f1.8. So it depends on your needs pretty much.
2059968
It is an excellent lens for close ups and distances when there is good light environment, but not for low light situations, unless you have a flash. For indoors would be better a f/2.8 lens or less (f/1.2 or 1.4).
1241571
Its a great all around lense. It produces very sharp images. Portrait shots will definatelly come out crisp but keep in kind that its a 70-300 lense, therefore; distance may be an issue when trying to shoot indoors.
1873699
I had the EF 75-300 mm lens before, and there is no way you can take pictures indoor with it. Even at 75 mm, it is way too zoomed in. This is a more versatile lens that can do both telephoto and wide-angle without the hassle of changing lenses each time. Also, this lens has Image Stabilization, which the 75-300 does not have.
2000653
You'll probably want a lense with a wider aperture to let in more light. Something lower than F/5.6. You can get away with it if you set your ISO high enough, but if you're trying to snag indoors and zoomed, an F/2.8 lens is really going to make for much better pictures. I've used the 100-400M F5.6 indoors and it works, but you have to be willing to use the ISO set high and accept slower shutter speeds. The dream lens that is the absolute best IMHO is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. The F2.8 is great for indoors, it features image stabilization so you can free hand it really well and the focus and clarity is amazing. It's expensive, but it's amazing what it can do. You'll probably want a lense with a wider aperture to let in more light. Something lower than F/5.6. You can get away with it if you set your ISO high enough, but if you're trying to snag indoors and zoomed, an F/2.8 lens is really going to make for much better pictures. I've used the 100-400M F5.6 indoors and it works, but you have to be willing to use the ISO set high and accept slower shutter speeds. The dream lens that is the absolute best IMHO is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. The F2.8 is great for indoors, it features image stabilization so you can free hand it really well and the... » Read More You'll probably want a lense with a wider aperture to let in more light. Something lower than F/5.6. You can get away with it if you set your ISO high enough, but if you're trying to snag indoors and zoomed, an F/2.8 lens is really going to make for much better pictures. I've used the 100-400M F5.6 indoors and it works, but you have to be willing to use the ISO set high and accept slower shutter speeds. The dream lens that is the absolute best IMHO is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. The F2.8 is great for indoors, it features image stabilization so you can free hand it really well and the focus and clarity is amazing. It's expensive, but it's amazing what it can do. « Show Less
1630105
So, I'm looking to upgrade from the Canon EF-S 55-250 ISII lens that I currently shoot my daughter's soccer and outdoor nature scenes. I know this is an entry level L, still the price is hard to complain about. How much of a difference from my current lens (on a 70D) will this make, and will I still be able to shoot fairly clean/crisp images @ 200mm without IS? I can use a monopod, so I'm sure that would help. Thoughts?
1871180
Wow, this is a tough question without knowing a lot of the particulars. However, I wouldn't even consider it with anything higher than f/2.8 or less than 200mm.Philip is correct, make sure you aren't breaking any laws, and Kenneth has a great suggestion with the 70-200, but I would go with the "L". I think they ring in at around $2100 for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. But, you would have to be pretty close to get really good shots like from guitar to top of head. I don't think this particular lens (EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM) would work well. You would have to bump up ISO to 1600 or higher, then you would have noise to deal with. I've tried to use this lens indoors, and it is terrible, even in well lit venues. Wow, this is a tough question without knowing a lot of the particulars. However, I wouldn't even consider it with anything higher than f/2.8 or less than 200mm.Philip is correct, make sure you aren't breaking any laws, and Kenneth has a great suggestion with the 70-200, but I would go with the "L". I think they ring in at around $2100 for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. But, you would have to be pretty close to get really good shots like from guitar to top of head. I don't think this particular lens (EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM) would work well. You would have to bump up ISO to... » Read More Wow, this is a tough question without knowing a lot of the particulars. However, I wouldn't even consider it with anything higher than f/2.8 or less than 200mm.Philip is correct, make sure you aren't breaking any laws, and Kenneth has a great suggestion with the 70-200, but I would go with the "L". I think they ring in at around $2100 for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. But, you would have to be pretty close to get really good shots like from guitar to top of head. I don't think this particular lens (EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM) would work well. You would have to bump up ISO to 1600 or higher, then you would have noise to deal with. I've tried to use this lens indoors, and it is terrible, even in well lit venues. « Show Less
1864064
The 24-105mm will absolutely kill anything you can get out of the 28-135. It's not just about sharpness - which will improve in the 24-105. It's also the contrast and the colour rendition. Believe me its chalk and cheese. Having said that, the 24-105 L IS is still not in the same class as either of Canon's L 70 - 200's either f4 or 2.8. But longer those longer lenses are easier to build. At the long end (200+) Canon rules.
2174721
I have a 20D. The answer is, it depends on what you want to do. The EF 24-70 and the 70-200 both have the "red stripe" and are top-of-the-line, awesome lenses. They rely on big optics with the 77mm objective lens to produce their images. They are great at all times, especiallhy in low light. They are also very heavy and quite expensive. Get them if you are going for absolute, uncompromising photos. Get a tripod or monopod, too, unless you do arm curls in your spare time! If you want excellent photos with less weight and expense, I recommend you get the EF 17-85 IS as your base lens for light weight and convenience. (If you get the "base" 18-55, you will find you quit using it the day you get a newer lens. We have a Digital Rebel that came with that lens, and we never use it. Never. Did I say "Never?" Buy a body or a kit with the 17-85 unless you are going the 24-70 route. The 18-55 only adds about $50 to the camera price, which isn't much compared to the price of the camera bodies, but why waste $50?) For telephoto zoom, the 70-300 IS is an excellent lens, about the same weight and size as the 24-70 but of course much more versatile. Then you will need a wide-angle, and again you have two ways you can go. I have a 10-22 lens that was less costly than Canon's red-stripe wide angles, and I am well-pleased. You get some parallax below a focal length of 12-14, but it's kind of a neat effect if you like it. I hope this helps.
8522
Hardy,Thanks for the info about getting better lenses. I just "bit the bullet" and bought the 24-105mm L lens. I have heard this same wise advice from other photographers, and I am looking forward to getting sharper photos with the new lens, and I will try to get only L lenses from now on. In the end, you truly get what you pay for.
220609
Hi John,If light is an issue, you would definitely need a lens with f2.8 or less. and with 24-105 you can at best get f4.0 so I believe you will have to choose between quality and range.If you want quality in low light conditions then go for the 24-70 mm. If range is a greater priority then you can go for the 24-105 f/4.0 L IS
2278160
In my experience, the lens is a mixed bag for interior shots. The great part is 28mm (equiv) can capture a lot of interior space but I have to increase the ISO to capture a shot depending on lighting conditions. The 20mm is a great lens (which I totally regret selling). The drawback is that you capture less interior space because of the 40mm (equiv) focal length. But it works great in low light. Try to get a Gen 1 20mm as DXOMark says its sharper than the 2nd gen model. I had the 1 gen. model and it was tack sharp.
736775
The 70-200 f4 IS can used in lowlight situations if you have the right camera. Indoor situations with this lens require high ISOs in the range of 800-3200 to get decent fast enough shutter speeds to prevent subject blur. Camera shake blur is handled pretty well by the lens image stabilization when handheld but care must be taken to keep camera as still as possible when zoomed in. This lens has worked well for me in concert band situations with low light even using the Rebel XSi cameras max ISO of 1600. This lens begins to fall down if you try and use it for indoor sports action.