0

I have a Canon EOS 70D. I have a basic 18-55mm kit lens. I am fully happy with this. Now I am interested in upgrading my lens to have higher image quality. I noticed that the Canon 24-105mm L lens can be used for multiple purposes like portrait, landscape, and some low level of macro. Also I have seen that this one is wider than my kit lens.

Is it good to move to this L lens or can I purchase a Canon 70-300mm IS STM lens which is of little lower price or Canon 70-200mm L lens (without IS which is bad for me). Which is a better upgrade for image quality and multipurpose use for this price range?

closed as off-topic by Itai, mattdm, Michael C, John Cavan Dec 28 '15 at 15:39

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions seeking specific product or service recommendations, where the answer is likely to be either entirely personal or short-lived as a result of changing markets, are off topic here. Please rephrase your question to describe the problem you're trying to solve or what you do not understand that prevents you from determining the answer yourself." – Itai, John Cavan
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    What does "Image Quality" mean to you? – mattdm Dec 9 '15 at 6:26
  • 1
    The 70-200 and 70-300 are not multipurpose (if there really exists something like that). The former is mainly a portrait lens, the latter (I guess you mean USM, not STM) may be a telephoto multi purpose lens, but not a general one. The 24-105 is not wider than your kit lens, 18 mm < 24 mm. All these lenses are designed for full frame bodies, so you have to consider that these are much heavier than your kit lens. So if you are happy, why upgrade at all? – Chris Dec 9 '15 at 9:09
2

I have a basic 18-55mm kit lens. I am fully happy with this.

If this is the case, then why "upgrade" at all? Why not use your 18-55 until it frustrates you. The frustrations will point to what you might want in your next lens, so long as you're sure your technique is good. A lot of folks like to blame the 18-55 when it's really bad technique that's at fault. (See: Why are my photos not crisp?)

Now I am interested in upgrading my lens to have higher image quality.

You must be more specific about what you mean by "higher image quality." If you mean less chromatic aberration, better sharpness, better contrast, less distortion, then maybe a lens upgrade can help you. If you just mean "prettier pictures" then you may need to have a solid rethink and consider whether this is really a gear issue, or a technique/knowledge issue. Owning a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer. It just makes you a dSLR owner.

I noticed that the Canon 24-105mm L lens can be used for multiple purposes like portrait, landscape, and some low level of macro.

Actually, not really any more than your 18-55 lens, and in the case of landscapes, possibly less. Both the 18-55 and 24-105 lenses are good as walkaround lenses, but are both possibly too slow for portrait work (maximum aperture of f/2.8 or wider is generally preferred for portraits), too short for sports or wildlife shooting, and as zooms may have more image quality compromises to accommodate the zoom range.

The 24-105L, actually, among full-frame folks, is seen as a "compromise" lens--it is the Canon full-frame kit lens. Its zoom factor is ~4x, and most folks prefer a factor of 3x or smaller for image quality performance and fewer compromises. It also has a maximum aperture of f/4 which is simply middling--not fast, not slow.

Also I have seen that this one is wider than my kit lens.

It's not wider. The smaller the focal length, the wider the lens. You have an 18mm lens. The 24-105 is, at its widest, 24mm--which is narrower. This is the main reason it's not recommended for a crop-body shooter. The 24-105 is wider on a full frame body than the 18-55 is on your 70D. But to get an equivalently wide field of view, on a 1.6x crop APS-C sensor, you need a 15mm lens, like the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM, which is often touted as the crop analog to the 24-105L.

dSLR lenses work better as special purpose tools than general-purpose ones. If you want a portrait lens, get a portrait lens (e.g., 50mm f/1.8 STM or 85mm f/1.8 USM). If you want a landscape lens, get a landscape lens (e.g., EF-S 10-18 STM). If you want a telephoto lens, get a telephoto lens (e.g., EF-S 55-250 IS, or EF 70-300 IS USM).

Is it good to move to this L lens or can I purchase a Canon 70-300mm IS STM lens which is of little lower price or Canon 70-200mm L lens (without IS which is bad for me). Which is a better upgrade for image quality and multipurpose use for this price range?

Nobody can tell you if this is a good move or "worth it" for you. Only you know what your budget is, and what and how you want to shoot. The answer you get will depend heavily on those factors. A walkaround zoom and a telephoto zoom are not interchangeable lenses that can do the job of the other. How you frame, what type of working distance you like, and what you're shooting will determine if a walkaround zoom or a telephoto zoom are "best" for you, but most of us would say they don't overlap, and if you need both, you should get both.

dSLR lenses are expensive. That's just the way it is. Attempting to save money by having "multipurpose" lenses is doable, but will inevitably involve some form of compromise, either in image quality or usability. There's kind of no way around this.

See also: Lens upgrade paths (sub $1000) for the EF-S 18-55mm IS kit lens for Canon APS-C cameras

0

The 24-105mm L lens is not wider than your kit lens. Most people do not recommend it as a general purpose lens for a crop camera like your 70D. It is a very good lens but is designed for full frame cameras like a 6D or 5D Mk III. Try shooting your kit lens at 24mm and you will quickly see 24mm is not good for wide landscapes or tight indoor scenes.

The 18-55mm STM already has great image quality. There really is no reason to upgrade it other than having the convenience of a longer zoom ratio. In that case I would recommend the 18-135mm STM.

For a longer zoom lens, the 55-250mm STM is also unbeatable in it's price range, but it is too long to use as a general purpose lens.

Save yourself a ton of money and stick with STM lenses.

Adding a 10-18mm STM and 55-250mm STM to your 18-55mm STM would be a combo that pretty had to beat at any price. You could add both those lenses for less than one "L" lens.

  • 1
    A constant f/4 aperture would be another reason to upgrade. SO would weather and dust resistance. So would the durability of the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. It's built like a tank. Mine has been run into by football players more times than I can count and has even been dropped onto concrete from a height of about five feet. (That did crack the hood). It just keeps taking pictures. – Michael C Dec 27 '15 at 7:15
0

I am interested in upgrading my lens to have higher Image Quality

The 18-55 kit lens is a very good lens in absolute terms. How exactly do you think it is holding you back.

Beginners often under-value the kit lens and/or have a mistaken belief that they need a "better" lens to take better photos.

Now if you feel you need more reach ( hard to tell from your post ), then a very good choice would be a 55-250mm, which is good optically and, again, not to be under-rated. It is also cheap, especially used. I would prefer it to a 70-300, BTW.

But if "image quality" is the problem ( and not the focal length or max aperture ) then your problem is not the lens, IMO.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.