New lens dilemma....

[toohuge]

Gents,

I’m planning on selling my Nikon 35-70 2.8 and I’ve got a very favorable quote from mpb.

I shoot both Nikon and canon - D7200 and 1d mark iii. I mainly shoot sports and portraits.

Lens wise:
Nikon 80-200 2.8
Nikon 50 1.8
Nikon 35 1.8
Canon 200 2.8

As I’m selling the 35-70 2.8 - I’m looking for another lens for the canon. I can’t stretch to the 70-200 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8 sadly, however on the used market, I’ve narrowed it down to:
Canon 24-105 f4l is
Canon 70-200 f4

I’m leaning towards the 24-105 for a wide option - as I don’t have anything for that just yet and my 80-200 2.8 is good for a fast zoom - plus I can crop in the body of the D7200 to make it the equivalent of 300+.

Question is: should I hold off for the 24-70 2.8 or would either of these suffice?

Has anyone used the 24-105f4?

Whilst the 1d mkiii is awesome - I don’t see the point in going for the slower 70-200 from canon, even though af will be faster.

[singlecoil]

The f4 70-200 will be fine for portraits, it's what Peter Hurley uses, although he would normally be using a plain background. So that lens and a portable background setup could do you nicely.

[Resolutionary]

I have both lenses, the 70-200 F4 is fine for my needs (largely portraits / wildlife / cars, outdoors in good conditions).

If you shoot lots of sports stuff you may find that the IS version is more useful when you don't have (or can't use) a tripod - in less than desirable situations I've found a handful of my images to be slightly blurry. However if you have a tripod during these sorts of events you will find it to be very capable and able to produce beautiful images with great subject isolation.

I literally picked up a 24-105 F4 IS yesterday - took it for a test run in a local common today and it's a really useful bit of kit - even after just an afternoon of play. It's everything you'd expect from an L lens and the focal range is very useful; I can totally see this being permenantly attached to my camera on a daily basis.

[DibblyDobbler]

I used to shoot Canon and I thought the 24-105 was superb (although it can get slightly mixed reviews) - the 70-200 F4 IS is really really good also so it's probably down to what focal length you need covered

[toohuge]

Thank you gents.

After much deliberation - I decided to bite the bullet and.... I have a 24-70 2.8 L on the way

It covers the wide angle aspect just fine for my needs, fast AF, fast aperture and good iq.

Chris

[Resolutionary]

toohuge said:

Thank you gents.

After much deliberation - I decided to bite the bullet and.... I have a 24-70 2.8 L on the way

It covers the wide angle aspect just fine for my needs, fast AF, fast aperture and good iq.

Chris

Nice! I was tempted to opt for the same but I thought the slightly longer focal range would help me during travels and such - however the back-to-back reviews suggest the 24-70 has a better edge-to-edge quality throughout where the F4 suffers a bit of softness.