1. Replace the 24-70 with the Tamron 28-75/2.8. This is an excellent alternative to the 24-70 and can be had for under $500 new.
2. If not the 28-75, then the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (either with VC or without), which will give you a bit more on the wider end. Even the VC version can be had for a good bit less than the 17-55./2.8 IS.
I've also got the 40D and have both the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) and 24-105. I've had the 24-105 for a while and I know I love it; I just got the Tamron week before last and I'm growing to love it, too.
I have a 5D and a 7D. I had both lenses for while but sold the 24-70 and don't miss it, BUT I also have a large stable of primes when low light situations occur. I am thinking of selling the 70-200 2.8 IS and getting the F4 version as well as changing out the 16-35 for a 17-40. Then my 3 main zooms would be lighter/smaller at F4 and I have the primes for low light.
I attempted to trade my 24-70 for a 105 with someone local on craigslist but he changes his mind at the last minute before looking at the lense (cold feet), no biggie. Then I put an add on FM and attempted to trade it again for a 105. After I packed up my lense and got the Fedex tracking for my 24-70, almost 24 hours went by..not a word from the other trader..so I'm back here again. I think I'm destine to be with this lense, I have a hard time letting it go especially with my bad experience trading with a complete stranger. I think I'm just going to keep my 24-70. It is one heck of a lense.
I must say that I really really value ALL of your inputs to this thread. It helps me a great deal. Today, I picked up a 50 f/1.4 and an 85 f/1.8 to add to my kit. I might just take the 24-70 on the trip with me or buy a 24-105 or a 15-85, not sure what yet. But again, thank you everyone!
I'm going to buck the chorus of "keep them both" voices, and argue that keeping two thousand dollar lenses with so substantial a focal length overlap makes no financial or ergonomic sense. You simply don't need both. It's a waste of money, though I can hardly argue with those who have such money to waste. Further, I don't think it really adds to your walkaround convenience; sure the 24-105 weighs a little less, has a little more reach, and has IS, but I hardly think it's comfortable to walk around with that lens or its faster f/2.8 incarnation.
I decided to hold on to my 24-70, and spend the nearly $1100 that could be spent on purchasing a 24-105 on photo trips, and a truly comfortable Micro-4/3 system camera as a walkaround.
Arka,
Thanks and I appreciate your input. That's why I started this thread because I didnt know if I should keep the 24-70 if I get the 24-105. I didnt want to sell or trade my 24-70 and then decide to buy it back after realizing that I should have kept it. I'm no pro by any means, just a serious hobbyist that passionate about outstanding quality pictures. I've tried many other 'light weight lenses' than 24-105 but the IQ just aren't up there with the 24-105. I know that the 105 isn't that much lighter than the 70 but 10 ounces is still 10 ounces and 35mm extra reach is still 35mm. I travel all over the world and would love to have awesome quality photos to remember tham by. I just don't feel that a point and shoot camera or a 28-135IS lense would do Thai temples or Mayan ruins justice. I lugged around the 24-70 all over Ireland and boy...hiking up to the Blarney Stone was no fun. I really appreciate your input and thanks again!
Had the same debate myself a while ago. I eventually settled on a 24-105L & 35L combo. The 24-70L with hood was just too large and heavy to carry around all the time. Now I've pretty much always got my 24-105L mounted on my 50D and the 35L sitting in the bag ready to go when the sun goes down.
I challenge any person advising you to keep both lenses to do any or all of the following with their own collections;
(1) log the number of hours each lens spends on their cameras;
(2) Count the number of life altering or (if you're a pro) money-making shots captured on each lens;
(3) Consider whether any particular life-altering or profitable shot could have been captured just as precisely and/or conveniently using a cheaper/lighter lens.
These are things I've started doing with my own lens and equipment collections; the process has led to significant streamlining of equipment, and a substantial increase in funds for traveling to places where great images can be captured. Ultimately. a thousand dollars spent on a trip to Ireland will be more personally satisfying than the same money sunk into a lens.
A note about equipment priorities, and a suggestion.
It's obviously important to think about what systems will "do your subjects justice." When carrying your equipment on your back, however, a substantial reduction in your camera weight ensures that you'll have more energy to shoot once you arrive at your chosen site. Modern alternative to "Canikon" allow that kind of reduction without costing you much in terms if IQ, particularly if you're shooting landscapes.
I recently added a micro-4/3 kit to my entourage. My Olympus EP-1 with a 20mm f/1.7, 7-14 f/4, and an Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 with adapter, weighs less than my EOS-1 with a 50mm lens attached. Add my Gitzo 0541 and an RRS ballhead, and the whole thing comes in at under 7lbs. if I want to go really light, I can take the 14-54 out, and rely on my wide and standard focal lengths (this is my favorite city/urban setup). The optics are the equal of any L-glass, and the setup is unbeleivably capable (most prefer the GF1 to the EP-1, but from an IQ standpoint the two cameras are virtually indistinguishable). What you lose is an OVF, really shallow DoF, and usable ISO 3200. However, if your interest is shooting Mayan Ruins of the Blarney Stone in ideal daylight, thse considerations aren't particularly important.
The only limiting factors I see using a micro-4/3 landscape camera are
(1) Less resolution than market leaders like the 5DII/1DsII, D3s, or Alpha 850/900;
(2) More inconvenient to do really long bulb exposures at night (dark-frame subtraction for controlling noise over long exposures doubles image capture time, and eats up battery life);
(3) They aren't weather sealed.
I don't mean to turn this into a sales pitch for buynig more stuff, but I think your considerations about weight reduction (70g in this case) need to be taken in perspective given the competent options out there for doing some pretty amazing photography with lightweight, excellent kit.
I had both for years (I bought one of the first 24-105L lenses)
In that time I had only used the 24-70 for maybe 3 or 4 events. And I remember one of those times *really* regretting the choice. So I traded it a few months ago for something I would use. No regrets so far.
Grant808, I've made my decision based on so many great inputs from everyone on here. I guess it really comes down to ones style of shooting. I'm just a hobbyist and I shoot mainly motocross, people, places. I was using my 24-70 as a 'general purpose' lense but I would like to give the 24-105 a try. I've played around with the 24-105 at a local store and I think it fits my need better than the 24-70. I decided not to keep my 24-70, I hope I'm not going to regret that decision I have a 70-200 f/2.8 for motocross and since I got rid of the 24-70, I picked up a 50 f1.4 and an 85 f1.8 for portrait. Yay to expensive hobby!
Although I agree it is important to think very carefully about the need to buy any piece of expensive (photographic) gear, as there are indeed many alternative ways to spend your hard earned cash, I try to respect the choice of others even if I may disagree.
So even if I agree with you when it comes to the big picture, it is in the detail where I fundamentally disagree, as I can see many ways for these lenses to coexist, IF you can afford them. Of course being sort of middle range in terms of price that is just a matter of choice for many of us with just an "average" income.
In the end we all make our own choices and rationalize them, but that is a subjective proces that you don't have to defend on FM.
Ruy
PS. Nothing in photography has ever come close to the few life altering experiences I've had in life, like the birth of my sons, so either I have the wrong hobby or have put it on a different scale than you.
Although I agree it is important to think very carefully about the need to buy any piece of expensive (photographic) gear, as there are indeed many alternative ways to spend your hard earned cash, I try to respect the choice of others even if I may disagree.
I'm not sure what you mean. How would I demonstrate my "respect" for other views? Softening my language? Equivocating? Qualifying my opinions with mealy-mouthed language like "I think..," "YMMV...," or "IMHO...?"
I think that's redundant, since just about everything I wrote was a clear and obvious statement of opinion. You either agree with the opinion, disagree openly and explain why, or disagree silently. I don't really care if the view is respected, since I fully recognize that reasonable (and even unreasonable) minds can differ.
That said, insofar as personal choices go, I have discovered that the purchase and retention of physical goods does not bring long-term satisfaction. I'll remember the wonders I experience on my photo trips for the rest of my life. I'll remember the excitement of opening a new B&H package for about a day or two after it arrives.
So even if I agree with you when it comes to the big picture, it is in the detail where I fundamentally disagree, as I can see many ways for these lenses to coexist, IF you can afford them. Of course being sort of middle range in terms of price that is just a matter of choice for many of us with just an "average" income.
We are welcome to disagree of course, but I stand by my position. Having both lenses in your stable is a waste of money; whether you have such money to waste is a separate issue. The benefits of the 24-105 (weight, range, IS) are not enough to justify an existence alongside a slightly heavier f/2.8 zoom that covers most of that range, and costs the same or more. Better to take that thousand dollars and capture amazing images in some exotic locale.
In the end we all make our own choices and rationalize them, but that is a subjective proces that you don't have to defend on FM.
In the context of the OP's inquiry, I totally disagree. He is asking for advice as to whether it is a good idea to keep these two lenses in a kit. Suggesting a framework by which the OP (or other contributors) can justify keeping both is germane to that inquiry.
I agree that the situation would be different if the OP were simply here to brag about owning every lens in the EF system... in that case, I would simply say "good for you," and move on.
PS. Nothing in photography has ever come close to the few life altering experiences I've had in life, like the birth of my sons, so either I have the wrong hobby or have put it on a different scale than you.
I've definitely had my share of life altering moments that relate to photography, though none of them involved the receipt or retention of new gear. I can imagine, though, that the bringing new life into the world would be more impactful.
