Scottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 12 Posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5177 times:
I'm thinking about selling my 17-40 f/4L and my 70-200 f/4L, and replacing those with a 24-105 L IS. Coupled with the 100-400, that looks like a pretty good purchase... especially to close the gap I have between 40-70.
Y'all have any experience with the 24-105? And also, what do you think I'd be able to get for the 17-40 and the 70-200?
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5169 times:
My line-up is 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400. Got everything covered.
The 24-105 is a great lens, not Canons best L-lens (f.e. my 17-40 is sharper, and the 24-105 shows a bit more CA), but the reach and excellent IS make it a perfect all-round lens. Also used it at a wedding last month, worked like a charm.
UA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5162 times:
I have the 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 and 100-400.
I would never get rid of the 17-40 and 70-200 and replace them with the 24-105, there is not enough overlap and I find 24 not wide enough on a 1.6 crop body although it is not bad on a 1.3 crop.
The 24-105 is a great lens though, great range and solidly built.
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, RR: 35 Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5156 times:
I have 10-22, 24-105, 35-350
The 10-22 shows a little CA but only in certain conditions. The 24-105L is a great walkabout lens and works very well with the Speedlite series. The 35-350 is awesome but no longer made.
Get your spare lens on Ebay, great for getting rid of surplus kit.
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
Javibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, RR: 46 Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5156 times:
Quoting Scottieprecord (Thread starter): I'm thinking about selling my 17-40 f/4L and my 70-200 f/4L, and replacing those with a 24-105 L IS
Those two lenses you own are better in optical terms than the 24-105, which is nevertheless a very fine and practical lens.
I think you should take this into account before making a decision.
Quoting UA935 (Reply 2): I find 24 not wide enough on a 1.6 crop body
I agree.
j
"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
Coninpa From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 233 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 5112 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Mike,
I have the 16-35 II, 70-200 2,8 IS, 100-400 IS and 24-105 IS
The 24-105 is a great lens. It shows nevertheless important vignetting on an EOS 5D. Don't know about the 70-200 f/4, but my 700-200 f/2,8 is quite sharper than the 100-400, so I would not get rid of it.
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 35 Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week ago) and read 5095 times:
Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 5): Really? My experience with the 70-200 f/4L hasn't been as good as the 24-105.
Surely you have a dodgy 70-200 copy? Or maybe you just have an above average 24-105, hehe. I haven't heard anything but great things about the 70-200 f/4, whereas opinions of the 24-105 tend to be somewhat less enthusiastic on average.
Either way, the 24-105 is a handy lens - good range, IS - and I too have been looking into it as a gap-filler for some time. I definitely wouldn't ditch a wideangle for it, though, as 24mm is just not wide enough.
Another lens to look into is the 24-70 f/2.8L, if your budget allows. It's supposed to be excellent...
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week ago) and read 5087 times:
I'd not get rid of the 70-200 f/4, just put the 70-200 f/4 into calibration and buy a 24-70 f/2.8.
The 24-70, is, as far as I know, optically, the best zoomlens that covers that range. The 24-70 is not as good all round lens as the 24-105.
I know that many people here on A.net have the 24-105, but I don't think many have the 24-70, but optically, the 24-70 is amazing. Tried one some time ago and the photos were amazing!
I don't own one. I tested one for a week before I ended up buying my 100-400mm. I didn't like the zoom range, didn't like the idea of using a converter and didn't have the money for the f/2.8L IS.
I agree that the 24-105 is not a great wide-angle lens but perhaps the best multi-purpose lens canon has on the market. If I were travelling and only had the ability to take one lens, that would be it.
On the other hand, I'd like to get my hands on a 17-40.
Scottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4995 times:
Well I definitely appreciate everyone's input. Y'all have pretty much convinced me to keep the 17-40 (that really is a damn sharp lens lol). I think I'll end up buying the 24-105 and then wait later to see if I think I could do without the 70-200.
Carlos From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 225 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4981 times:
Hi Mike,
I use the 24-105, the 70-200 and the 100-400. The EF 24-105 is a very good lens that I use very often.
In my eyes it makes not sense to replace the 70-200 with the 100-400 because the 100-400 is only good in fine light conditions.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4954 times:
Quoting UA935 (Reply 2): and I find 24 not wide enough on a 1.6 crop body
I will totally agree with this. I have a 17-40 (great lens!) and a 24-105. The latter is definitely not wide enough on my XTi for a lot of generaly purpose phorography I do (landscapes, sight-seeing, architecture, etc.). In most situations, I usually keep the 17-40 on my XTi more than the 24-105. Having said that, the 24-105 is great for low light work (e.g., museums).
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, 
From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 233 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 225 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
