Bah my camera lens broke down :( (in Off-topic)

Sooo, I'll have to find a way to either have it repaired, or to sell it and buy a better lens...

Well, that's a shame, here's hoping you can repair it.

which lens?

Repairing it would cost me about 4 weeks of not having the lens and about 150 euro.

It's a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 iS USM Zoomlens which I have fondly been using on my Canon EOS 400D DSLR camera for little over a year.

I found a few people who were looking for broken lenses (for parts), one of whom is looking for exactly my lens. Perhaps it'll fetch me more money than repairing it and selling it as I already was thinking about upgrading. (perhaps it heard me thinking about upgrading and decided to break down :p)



Anyway, in case of upgrading, I would order the Canon EF 24-105mm L f/4.0 USM iS zoomlens.

It didn't decide to... It just did... It knew you were upgrading and you broke it's heart, and once the heart goes, the body follows.

the body is still in tact, it's just the heart which stopped :p :(

You can't go wrong with either the 24-105mm f/4L IS or the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

I prefer the 24-70mm for the wider aperture. Pair it with one of the 70-200mm and you have great coverage without any overlap.

The IS on the 24-105mm is nice but it only really helps at slower shutter speeds (and even then just reduces shake, it doesn't help freeze the action, which the extra stop on the 24-70mm does), which may not be a sizable amount of your shooting.

Just some food for thought. (=

True, the 24-105 or the 24-70 both are great lenses.

I also have the 70-300mm 4.0-5.6 iS USM of which I'm very happy.

I know that a 4.0 probably won't stop action but the lens I'm coming from was 4.0 at best also and with ISO of 200 or 400 you get the same effect. Shooting at 1/500th and faster shutter speeds will do the trick eventually.

The 24-105 is 800 euro, the other is 220 euro more expensive. It's only 25% yes, but I'm wondering how much I'd be using that wider aperture as opposed to the image stabilisation.



Tomorrow evening I will have another class of digital photography and image manipulation and will ask our mentor/instructor for some advice on which possibly to get.

The IS is definitely nice, but no settings can replicate the shallower depth of field of f/2.8. The IS isn't really going to make much of a difference until you go slower than about 1/200 or 1/125 anyway, and at that point you have to worry about blur introduced by whatever your photographing as well. IS is definitely helpful in still scenes (but so is a tripod).

The price difference between the two is big enough that if you don't have a compelling reason to go for the 24-70mm, price can be the determining factor.

Plus, the 70-105mm range of the 24-105mm will outperform that same range in your 70-300mm, so that's another thing going for that one. More focal length = potentially fewer lens changes. (Though you may decide to upgrade to a 70-200 at some point too -- upgrade path another thing to consider.)

You really can't go wrong with either of them, just throwing my 2 cents out there after spending a ton on camera gear over the years. I had the same debate a few years back and would still choose the 24-70mm f/2.8L every time. (=

In reality, it's a lose-lose situation -- you end up spending thousands, then get into the Strobist stuff (off camera lighting), then go upgrade crazy, spend a few more thousand... (=

But it's also fun as hell. ;)

(Definitely speaking from experience here.)

What to do with a compact camera that has a broken lens.

it's not a compact camera but a DSLR, thanks though for the fun!

Indeed, something to consider as well.