New lens from Canon

[belippy]

Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS.

 

price is $1650+tax abit pricey. but very light 600g!!

[BillM]

That's a lot of $$$$ for that lens seeing that it's f4. The 24-70 f2.8 L is still the way to go in that price range (used of course)..

 

I think I'm going to pick up a EF-S 17-55mm for my 60D.. So many lenses, so many decisions! LOL

[Gerritt]

what do all these crazy numbers mean? I am in the market for a telephoto and am wanting to figure it out before I spend the $$

 

thanks guys

 

G

 

edit to add.... this is the Lens I am looking at... http://www.canonlenses.ca/Get-close-from-a-distance/EF-70-300mm-f-4-56-IS-USM for my Canon Rebel XS

Edited December 4, 2012 by Gerritt

[ctranter]

It's light because it's only an f4. A lot less glass is needed to correct the focus of light within the lens because the lens is letting much less light into the sensor than a faster lens. If weight is more important than having a very fast lens, and you prefer to buy new, then go for it.

 

For me, I would keep my eye on kijiji until I found a very slightly used (indistinguishable from a new lens) 24-70 f2.8 L for a good price, and then buy that instead... but then again weight is one of the last things that I worry about when shopping for a new lens.

 

If you are shooting mostly outdoors or in well-lit indoors, f4 should be fine, but I love very shallow depth-of-field shots that can be taken with a lens with a fast aperture.

[BillM]

what do all these crazy numbers mean? I am in the market for a telephoto and am wanting to figure it out before I spend the $$

 

thanks guys

 

G

 

edit to add.... this is the Lens I am looking at... http://www.canonlenses.ca/Get-close-from-a-distance/EF-70-300mm-f-4-56-IS-USM for my Canon Rebel XS

 

That's not a bad lens, but the best bang for the buck telephoto Canon offers is the EF 70-200mm f4 L... I've got one, it's absolutely outstanding for the price.

 

http://www.canonlenses.ca/Get-close-from-a-distance/EF_70-200mm_f4L_USM

Edited December 4, 2012 by BillM

[Gerritt]

Not sure of the difference Bill..., other then Zoom factor.... what would the difference be between a 200mm and a 300mm in terms of an object lets say 20' away?

 

I am at a complete loss here... as to what all these numbers mean...but I do know my 18-55mm is not cutting the job by a long shot...

 

what makes one lens better then another?

 

G

[belippy]

It's light because it's only an f4. A lot less glass is needed to correct the focus of light within the lens because the lens is letting much less light into the sensor than a faster lens. If weight is more important than having a very fast lens, and you prefer to buy new, then go for it.

 

For me, I would keep my eye on kijiji until I found a very slightly used (indistinguishable from a new lens) 24-70 f2.8 L for a good price, and then buy that instead... but then again weight is one of the last things that I worry about when shopping for a new lens.

 

If you are shooting mostly outdoors or in well-lit indoors, f4 should be fine, but I love very shallow depth-of-field shots that can be taken with a lens with a fast aperture.

 

 

Almost all my lenses are prime lens 14mm 2.8 II, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 II, 100mm 2.8 IS, 135mm f/2 and just bought a 70-200 2.8mm IS II and this thing is heavy. That is one reason why I want a light weight zoom lens.

 

I need to find a walk arround lens for my (coming up) caribbean trips. Mostly outdoor, so f/4 should be good enough? I think. 24-70mm 2.8 II is my second choice, but gosh $2500... the first generation 24-70mm 2.8 is like 970g, almost double the weight of the 24-70 f/4 and has no IS. $1650 should be reasonable.

[BillM]

Are you shooting FF or a crop body? Might want to look into the EF-S 17-55mm if on a crop body. The 24-70mm f2.8 ver1 doesn't need IS.. I only find it useful on really long telephotos (100-400mm for example). No need for it on my 70-200 f4L 95% of the time.

[musky_hunter]

I agree with bill.

[ctranter]

Almost all my lenses are prime lens 14mm 2.8 II, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 II, 100mm 2.8 IS, 135mm f/2 and just bought a 70-200 2.8mm IS II and this thing is heavy. That is one reason why I want a light weight zoom lens.

 

I need to find a walk arround lens for my (coming up) caribbean trips. Mostly outdoor, so f/4 should be good enough? I think. 24-70mm 2.8 II is my second choice, but gosh $2500... the first generation 24-70mm 2.8 is like 970g, almost double the weight of the 24-70 f/4 and has no IS. $1650 should be reasonable.

 

Looks like we have a lot of the same gear. I have a 50 1.2 and 70-200 2.8 II as well. The 14mm 2.8 II gets me salivating, though! You could probably find a 24-70 f2.8 II, used, on kijiji for around 1600... as long as you have faith in your own ability to judge that the lens is optically perfect. That would be my first choice as I hate being limited by gear, down the road.

 

For a general vacation lens, many people choose to look into the 24-105 f4 IS. Bill is right in that the IS can be somewhat wasted on non-telephoto lenses, but as far as I'm know it allows you to stop the camera down a bit. You can buy a brand new one online for less than 1000, it's light, and makes a great walk around lens.

 

Bill makes a good point about the full frame vs crop sensor bodies and the difference it can make on lens choice. What body are you shooting on? (the 24-70 2.8 II is still the best choice. period. if you can afford it)

[BillM]

I'd love to go into Henrys and drop the $2500 on the new 24-70mm, lol! But my camera rarely if ever makes me $$$, can't justify a lens like that.

[belippy]

I have a FF 5dmk2 I had 24-105 before traded it for the 70-200 2.8 IS II

 

I love the 24-70 II but $1000 for 2.8 I rather try the new 24-70 f/4.

[BillM]

Just a thought, but why not get a used 24-70mm f2.8 ver 1? That's one of the best lenses Canon has ever made.. Usually pick them up used in the $1300 price range.

Edited December 9, 2012 by BillM

[belippy]

I found a few on kijiji, $1350 met a few guys...lenses are all beaten up and 970g is a bit heavy for travel 24-105's weight us perfect (I don't have it anymore)

 

24-70 2.8 II is my frist choice but $2300

 

and saw this coming soon lens 24-70 IS 4/f for $1650 (might be a very good travel lens)

Edited December 9, 2012 by belippy

[BillM]

Yeah, the 24-70mm is a pig for sure. I think that's about it's only downfall.

[bullybass]

what do all these crazy numbers mean? I am in the market for a telephoto and am wanting to figure it out before I spend the $

 

thanks guys

 

G

 

edit to add.... this is the Lens I am looking at... http://www.canonlens...m-f-4-56-IS-USM for my Canon Rebel XS

I think that lens is on sale right now at futureshop for $250 off. I am thinking about it for my XSi

 

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/product/canon-canon-ef-70-300mm-f-4-0-5-6is-usm-lens-0345b002/10079240.aspx?path=0591c25b2c233e353db97c2525334380en02