Scottieprecord From UK - England, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 9 Posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7659 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, 2239 posts, RR: 41
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7651 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.
Coninpa From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 253 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7594 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
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: 22
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7577 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...
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 UK - England, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7477 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, 235 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7463 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
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, 3254 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7436 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).
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.