iDomN8U

I'm about to sell my Canon 24-105 f4 IS and I'm looking for a 2.8.

I'm selling the lens for 750, so I can't spend more then that. IS is a nice feature since i'm holding the camera 90% of the time, but since it's 2.8 I can probably get away from it.

This is on a 1.6x APS-C body, so I was thinking the Tokina 16-50.

It's not like i'm unhappy with the lens, par with my speedflash it does a great job indoors, just intrested in trying something different.

Thanks!


P.S: The reason I bought the EF lens in the first place is because I believed I would move into a FF body, but I don't see this happening for another 2 years

iDomN8U

Anyone have this lens and care to comment?
Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM

S2KenC

I have no experience with the Sigma or Tokina lens that you listed but I did own the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS lens when I had my 50D. That lens was an absolute gem.

I've owned both the the 24-70 2.8L, 24-105 F4L and in my honest opninion, the 17-55 2.8 was better than both these L offerings from Canon. The only drawback of the 17-55 was that it was EF-S and the build quality left something to be desired. But as far as image quality, it was hard to beat with another mid range zoom lens. On the used market, they can be had for just right around $750. Not sure of the prices where you're at though.

zzziippyyy

The purist in me wants to recommend the Canon 28mm 1.8 giving you an effective FOV of 45mm on your crop body and the added bonus of learning how to zoom with your feet You said you want to try something different well there you go learning new technique with a non zoom lens.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/pro...p/ef_28_1_8_usm

s2kdriver80

For Canon crop, I'd say the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IS USM.

realmike15

If you can throw $150 at it, you could get the 17-55 IS (used) which is probably the best walk around lens for APS-C. If it's too much, the next one I'd consider is the Tamron equiv, great compromise if the price of the Canon puts you off.

hariku821

I have been looking heavily at both the tamron 17-50 and the sigma 17-70. The 17-70 gives the ability to shoot macro although not 1:1. Depending on what review you read one is better optically than the other...

dwight

If it's not 1:1, it's not macro.

But IMO, macro shots lend to more cropping and pixel-peeping, so I'd be leery of macro being a selling point for a zoom lens.

Reapur

Keep the 24-105, its a fantastic lens for the price, if you will be sticking with Canon and upgrading to a 5D mkII or more likely mk III in a few years then the EF lens can still be used. The reality is that Lenses are something you keep for many years, and you upgrade bodies to go with your glass investment. Don't invest money into EF-S glass when it is totally wasted on an EF body, the market for selling used EF-S lenses is small if you wanted to resell and then buy back into EF. In short, you will be wasting money and spending more in the end if you get rid of the 24-105mm.

Also why would you want to sell a lens with such a versatile focal range ? The goto lens for most professional photographers is the 24-70 f2.8 or the lens you already own. Keep it.

babowc

I use a 24 1.4 on my Nikon APSC d90/7000..
works great.. zooms are no fun!

I guess I should rephrase before I get flamed.
I use the 24 1.4 because I can walk to zoom and I shoot in available lighting 99% of time I shoot.