Right before Christmas I bought a 24-105 mainly for the IS, slightly lighter and the extra reach. After a period of getting the feel for it, I felt confident the new lens would do just fine. Up to this point, I had taken my trusted 24-70mm as the main lens on many out-of-the-country travels and came back with great images. For local to semi-local shots where I can drive, I try to take and use only prime lenses. I just came back from a two-week trip and for the first time I took the 24-105mm. Granted the images are fine but somehow I felt it didn't give me the satisfaction that my trusted 24-70mm lens did many times before. The funny thing is, I couldn't say that it would have generated better pictures, even without the IS but somehow.... Is this more sentimental but why and I am not biased since I have both lenses. I am debatting which one to sell and at this point, I am leaning towards selling the 24-105mm.

Same debate, a friend let me use his 24-70, hice, fast but limited range and so for me I went the 24-105 as I travel a lot and don't want to carry a lot of equipment on business trips. I had the 28-135 IS and liked that very much, clean sharp images at very low shutter speeds were impressive.

My plan is to pick up a 35L for those times I just have to have a good indoors fast lens, plus I've always wanted one too

Good luck with your choice, I would also say to keep that 17-40L, if you have it already, it's a great lens and handy to have at times.
G2

Lots of good input for you Jason from the forum. My take would be if you're just shooting stationary objects indoors (museums, etc) you might want a lens with IS, but if moving objects are involved you want the fastest lens for available light shooting. To throw another lens into the mix, I'd take a look at the 17-85 IS rather than the 24-105 IS, if you're shooting the former (half the cost, decent lens, very useful range on the 20D). If you're shooting the latter (people indoors), the 24-70L, Tamron 28-75, or better yet fast primes are the ticket. If you want one zoom lens for the best quality and versatility, I like the 24-70L.

I just got a Canon 24-70L yesterday and I'm in love with it....nuff said

Had the 24-70. Love the lens but barely used it due to the weight and limited focal length. Let's face it, it's not even 3x and you can zoom with you feet in many situations. I found myself using my 50mm 1.4 far more frequently. And, since I already had the 50 1.4, it seemed logical to give the 24-105 a try. Not only do I also love the 24-105, it has also become one my most frequently used lenses. It's a PERFECT walk-around lens, particularly with a 1.3 crop-factor camera. Plus, it compliments the 17-40 and the 100-400 very nicely. I can now carry 4 lenses (50mm, 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400) along with the 1.4 TC and cover everything very nicely from 17mm all the way up to 560mm (100-400 with TC). The 50mm is in there for hand-held low light situations.

Mark

Main point I have to make is that it sounds like you are satisfied with the 17-40, and perhaps with the 70-200/4, though that's not as clear. If you're satisfied with these lenses and find them useful, I sure wouldn't sell them! I think you'd regret it later.

As for the 24-70 and 24-105, either choice you make will be wrong--But either choice you make will also be right. Both sound like they have excellent uses for you, which means that either one will be superior sometimes. You just have to choose which one you think will be superior more often. Have you looked at the photographs you actually USE (in church bulletin or whatever) so far, and seen how often you need f/2.8 or greater versus how often you need a long shutter speed on a static subject? That may help your decision.

From what you describe, if I were you I'd get a 24-105L and supplement it with one or two fast primes. The people making that recommendation are very wise, I think. In particular, the 50/1.8 is so small and cheap as to be a no-brainer purchase. You could add an 85/1.8 or a 35/2.0 to that, depending on whether you prefer wide or telephoto in your wide-open shots. All these would actually be better than the 24-70/2.8 in terms of shooting speed!

My uses are different than yours, I shoot more landscapes and nature, but for what it is worth, I have a 28-70/2.8L now, and have decided to replace it with the 24-105L when I have the money.

Hmm, very well put Mike. I AM happy with both lenses. I have decided to keep the 70-200 f4 for now. I actually found out YESTERDAY that I will be going to Europe this summer! I'm planning on selling the 17-40L and getting the 10-22 and 24-70. That would cover me from 10-200mm! Sounds promising to me, but I have not done much research in the ultra-ultra wide angle lenses. Would that not be a good kit to take to Europe? My understanding is inside the churches and buildings, the lighting would be pretty dark. I'm planning on taking both a tripod and monopod, but I heard that some places do not allow tripods. Either way, thats a whole new topic matter, but it should play a part in my decision process.

Just to throw my two cents in...

I had the 17-40L and the 28-135mm IS. While I was happy with the 17-40L, the 28-135mm was a dissappointment. The only drawback on the 17-40L was the 40mm end. I could have found a decent replacement for the 28-135mm in Canon's 24-85mm or the Tamron 24-135mm.

However, I've grown lazy in my old age and the less I have to change out lenses, the better it is. I use the 80-125mm range more than I use the 17-40mm range. My fear was that the 17-40L would stay in my bag and essentially be wasted. I decided if I returned the 28-135mm, I'd return the 17-40L as well.

Options included getting the 24-70 f2.8L, Tamron's 24-135mm, or the 24-105 f4L IS. I had saved for this purchase and wanted something nice. I may have put all my eggs in one basket but I choose the 24-105 f4 L IS. The 24-70mm just didn't have the reach and while I've read a lot of positives about the Tamron, the L IS are advantages I couldn't ignore.

My lens is on the loading dock at KEH and should be with me middle of the week. Hopefully, my decision was a good one. I'll keep my Sigma 18-125mm in the back just in case I need a wider angle. The wider angle range of this lense is more consistent and better than the telephoto end.

The only alternative, if I made the wrong choice, would be to give Tamron a try.

I agree that you should keep the 70-200 f4L. I've been impressed with mine since the day I took it out of the box. It's a strong foundation for any camera bag. If the 24-105 works out for me, I'll look at the 70-300mm IS, Sigma's 135-400mm or a fast prime for my next lens.

Good luck with the 24-70. Everything I've read about it gives this lens high marks. It should serve you well.

I do plan on keeping the 70-200 f4 for now (up until I replace it with the 70-200IS). As mentioned before, I'm planning a trip to Europe this summer, so this will also effect my decision between the 24-70 and 24-105IS. I'm leaning towards the 24-70 and a 10-22 EF-S lens for now, but I'll have to do a bit more research now!

The research I have come up with on wide-angle lenses is...

10-22 EF-S is a magnificent lens for your ultra wide angle needs (On a Canon 20D or XT). Sharp, and just about everything is controlled as far as Pincushion distortion, CA, Vignetting... The only thing it is not... is fast (meaning f/3.5-4.5), but f/3.5-4.5 isn't that bad, just probably not good for very low light places where you cannot use a flash.

If you wanted anything for very low light work, you will have to pay more for a 16-35mm f/2.8L (And you don't get as wide as the 10-22... "Duh"). But that is the widest f/2.8 I have seen (25.6-56mm on 20D... not so wide anymore), zoom wise.

You can get the Sigma 10-20mm or 12-24mm, but they are even slower at f/4-5.6 and f/4.5-5.6 and said to be not as good as the Canon 10-22 version...

There may be other (Better) options out there, but I have not seen them.

If I were voting for best ultra wide-angle lens for the money (For the 20D), I would get the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 EF-S. If I had the 5D or even the Mark II's, I would get the 16-35mm f/2.8L (Mark II would be around 20mm and the 5D would be 16mm on the wide side).

If you get this, you can always use your 50mm f/1.4 for the very low light stuff.

Thanks Michael. I will have to do more research on the ultra wides!

I have just received my new 24-105f4L IS (& I have a 70-200 f2.8L IS is on the way). I hope to try it out this weekend but I just wanted to throw in my penny's worth regards other options.

I have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and it's a darn fine lens. Sharp all the way and fast. Also VERY cheap compared to the 24-70L. I wanted the benefit of IS and the longer reach of the 24-105 so that is why I ecided to buy this. I agree with a lot of what's been said above regards it's all about what kind of images you take. I suppose I'm like a lot of you in that I take a variety of shots in a variety of situations.

I will keep my Tamron for the extra speed but I have a couple of primes that should be able to help if I need the extra speed for a particular shot. I don't see the Tamron being used too often now.

The Tammy is reasonably well built, is light and although it zooms the opposite way to Canon you get used to this very quickly.

As a backup to the 24-105 I can't think of anything better for the money..