My 24-105 lives on my 5DII. I will switch when I need to, but the IQ is very nice, and I use a flash when needed for indoors stuff. In terms of value, I think it's a winner.
Used to have it attached all the time except when using other prime lens buy lately have had my 16-35 2.8 attached full time maybe the novelty of the new lens will wear off and i will go back to my old faithful 24-105 again
I wonder if Canon has ever thought about manufacturing a 24-105 f 2/8L IS USM that would be interesting! I'm on my second copy of the 24-105, after selling it, sometime down the road I realized how much use I was getting out of it and purchased another. A great walk about lens and relaitvely lightweight with reasonable IQ..
Always on my 5D MK III - have other lenses (90% L's), but this one is the one I use most as walk around. When I shoot protraits 85 1.2 and 70-200 come out.
I find the 24-105 a very versitile and genarally very good lens.
Yes; while I could afford it I cannot justify it. Especially in view of the Tamaron with vibration asssit. I know, the IQ may not be as good, but we are really pixel peeping in most cases. I thnk Canon is really pushing prices way high testing the market; seems like there is a lot of people with cash to burn.
I owned the Tamron 2.8 VR briefly and was not so happy with it. If the 24-70/4 IS is as weak as indicated, I may try another few copies of the Tamron for the times when IS is necessary.
EB-1 wrote:
The 24-70 II is now my favorite in the range.
EBH
Agreed. Rented that bad boy for a week of skiing, and it was well worth it. The 24-105 doesn't come close if you want razor sharp landscapes, and the massive barrel distortion on the wide end doesn't help. I've also found f/2.8 to be more important to me in this focal range than IS.
That said I'm not sure I'd buy the 24-70 II for regular use, as I prefer primes for most situations. I find I think more carefully about perspective with primes, too. After selling my beloved 24-70 mk I, my walk-around is the 50L.
I never liked lugging the 24-70 about so I got the 24-105 to replace it. I had it for 6 years and barely used it.
I'm a bit of a bokeh guy so I found myself taking out my 50L once I went FF. Then I got a 35L and 100L. I've found I get much better results for my needs with a prime. I don't mind taking a two lens combo out. The 24-105 just never did it for me and I really wanted to like it.
For landscape and cityscape use, my 24-105 is on about 50% of the time. The other 50% my 17-40 is mounted on the camera. Plus, I like the range it gives me since I never really shoot longer than 100mm so I have no need to get a telephoto lens.
I should note that since I bought the 24-105 with my 5D years ago, it has always stayed in my bag. Whereas my 17-40 and other lenses have come and go. So my 24-105 is the one constant in my bag.
