which L lens should be the first to buy?

[135i]

I think the biggest difference between the two is the price, a $1,000 for the canon, as David mentioned, he didn't notice between the two, I'm not sure if he meant in IQ or the extra 2mm you get with the canon, both lenses use 77mm filters and have quick focus drives, I've never used the canon, but I'm very happy with the sigma, I've used it on fast moving objects and never had any problems with focusing issues.

has anyone used this site to buy lenses or gear?
As they are quite cheaper than the sites that were mentioned earlier in this thread from brisbane?

[OwenS]

I have the 24-105, its absolutely sucks on a cropped sensor camera. Its literally almost useless. It just sat in my room while i used my 50mm 1.8. Then i went full frame and it is brilliant. Never comes off.
My bro has the 17-40, its awesome on the cropped sensor and insane on the full frame. I think the 16-35 is overkill, its way more expensive than the 17-40 and would you ever need f2.8 on a landscape lens?. Plus with the 17-40 you can get on from b&h for less than $800 AUD Delivered to your door. Its a bargain. No stamp duty or tax. Do it

[dulvariprestige]

Which site are you talking about

[mikec]

I have the 24-105, its absolutely sucks on a cropped sensor camera. Its literally almost useless. It just sat in my room while i used my 50mm 1.8. Then i went full frame and it is brilliant. Never comes off.
My bro has the 17-40, its awesome on the cropped sensor and insane on the full frame. I think the 16-35 is overkill, its way more expensive than the 17-40 and would you ever need f2.8 on a landscape lens?. Plus with the 17-40 you can get on from b&h for less than $800 AUD Delivered to your door. Its a bargain. No stamp duty or tax. Do it

But who is to say it's only for landscape? I use mine a lot for action shots plus as someone else said that extra 1mm is a reasonable difference. Just because it's wide doesn't mean it's only a landscape lens.

I also found the 24-105 very good on a crop body, I guess it all depends on what we shoot at the end of the day.

[OwenS]

But who is to say it's only for landscape? I use mine a lot for action shots plus as someone else said that extra 1mm is a reasonable difference. Just because it's wide doesn't mean it's only a landscape lens.

I also found the 24-105 very good on a crop body, I guess it all depends on what we shoot at the end of the day.

Er the OP did. He said for holiday architecture and full body portraits. He has an 85mm and an 18-200mm. So why would he want a 24-105 as well? 24mm on a cropped body would be TERRIBLE for holiday architecture/street photography.

If the 1mm difference is worth hundreds of dollars then so be it. But i would think the 5mm on the other end that are lost may be even worse in terms of general usability.

[bigdazzler]

24mm on a cropped body would be TERRIBLE for holiday architecture/street photography.

.

Why would it ?? Architecture ok. But 36mm equiv. would be perfectly usable for holiday/street shots. I think youre exaggerating mate, but as always it depends on what you want to take pictures of.

[mikec]

Er the OP did. He said for holiday architecture and full body portraits. He has an 85mm and an 18-200mm. So why would he want a 24-105 as well? 24mm on a cropped body would be TERRIBLE for holiday architecture/street photography.

If the 1mm difference is worth hundreds of dollars then so be it. But i would think the 5mm on the other end that are lost may be even worse in terms of general usability.

I never said for him to buy the 24-105, I actually recommended he buy a WA for crop if you read further up. I'm just stating that the 24-105 isn't terrible on a crop body, which you did say and is an over exaggerated comment.

I would dare say that extra 1mm, f2.8 and better IQ is worth the money in my books and many others. I'd love to go buy a TS-E so I could really get into architectural photography but I can't afford to drop $2500 on a single purpose lens then another $1800 WA zoom for the rest of my photography. At least with the 16-35 I can do action work, landscape, architectural etc... with the most versatility and best IQ in the most cost effective package for those applications. That's why it is recommend, it's a very versatile lens, more so than the 17-40.

[JM Tran]

look I'll settle this debate for u kids

Buy the Canon 28-300 L!!!!!!

its got the zoom, the IS, its white and u can legally say u own an L lens!

OP didnt mention anything about wanting good IQ though, hehehehe

[bigdazzler]

its white and u can legally say u own an L lens!

cause of course thats all that matters in this game ...

See you teased me before and now you got me started ..

[mikec]

its got the zoom, the IS, its white and u can legally say u own an L lens!

I thought it was the red ring....

Don't want those sony or nikon guys with white lenses thinking they own a real lens

[Tricky]

I have the 24-105, its absolutely sucks on a cropped sensor camera. Its literally almost useless. It just sat in my room while i used my 50mm 1.8. Then i went full frame and it is brilliant. Never comes off.

The 24-105 is great on a cropped sensor.... provided you also own a 10-22 and don't mind swapping lenses every now and again (or own a second body). The 10-22/24-105 were made for each other...

[David]

The 24-105 is great on a cropped sensor.... provided you also own a 10-22 and don't mind swapping lenses every now and again (or own a second body). The 10-22/24-105 were made for each other...

Amen: I had that combo and it worked really well for me. still wondering why I sold the 10-20 and went with the Canon 10-22mm L ..not much difference from where I stand cept it cost more.. doh.

[acko]

When I bought the 40D some time back I agonised over what lens to put on. I still had the 20D with its standard grade 17-85mm, so in the end I went for the L 24-105mm. As K Rudd would say. 'you know something'...I have never regretted the decision.

[ravescar]

For a crop sensor, 17-40mm f4 L for me.
For a ff, 24-105 f4 L would be a good bet.

[OwenS]

For a crop sensor, 17-40mm f4 L for me.
For a ff, 24-105 f4 L would be a good bet.

Exactly. Couldn't agree more.

[wattsgallery]

Just spent 2 weeks testing a 24-105 on a 5d II and a 40D.

I found the IQ of the lens on the 40D nice and a noticable improvement to the non L lenses I had used (but not the L primes). I agree the focal length is restrictive at the wide end but I also had a 10-22 so that matched ok. To the OP I think the Canon 10-22 is the best bet to really open up your photographic opportunities in the short term on a crop camera. If buying Sigma make sure you have time to test it and replace in case you get a poor copy (I had to do that for 10-20 I bought years ago).

Interestingly I was surprised that I didn't love the lens on the FF. The range was good but for that sort of money I wasnt happy with the vignetting and distortion at the 24mm end and a soft area in the middle of the range (around 70mm). I also wasn't happy with the lens/barrel creep. I also found f4 a bit restrictive some times. Perhaps a bad sample (but it was on loan from Canon). Probably convinced me not buy one myself but given the IQ and versatility I can see why people do love it.

Good luck.

[ravescar]

Vignetting and barrel distortion are easily corrected using eg DPP.

[kwokask]

My first L lens was the 70-200 f/4L - had to have the white colour with red ring.

[alistair]

With the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L is it just a toss up between the longer focal range or the faster lens or is there noticeable difference between image quality etc...

[wattsgallery]

With the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L is it just a toss up between the longer focal range or the faster lens or is there noticeable difference between image quality etc...

In the limited use I have had of the 24-70 there is an IQ diff in its favour but in real life whether it is a dealbreaker is your call. Some other factors are weight and IS.