Edit: please ignore all of the below, I somehow misread the OP's question and thought it was about the 24-105 f/4L.
But, on the subject of the 24-105 f/2.8 Z, I own this lens and actually think it is an exception to my "compromise" statement below. Not only does it offer a fantastic focal length range, but superb rendering and contrast. The images I have captured with this lens almost jump off the screen.
The only downside is its size and weight. Which is of course what several other commenters have mentioned.
------------------
Well, you could replace both of them with a 24-105 f/2.8 IS Z. Or, alternatively, with a 28-70 f/2.8 IS STM (for the other extreme), haha.
Kidding aside, I think for general travel, landscape, scenics, etc., an f/4.0 zoom is ideal, and it gives you the more useful range without having to also carry a longer lens.
For when you need something faster, you could always pack a 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 prime. Both are small and light enough to carry mostly anywhere. The primes will always deliver a more "prime like" look than an f/2.8 zoom, if that is what you are after.
F/2.8 standard zooms have their place for photojournalism or event work, but they are a compromise, really.
Well, you could replace both of them with a 24-105 f/2.8 IS Z. Or, alternatively, with a 28-70 f/2.8 IS STM (for the other extreme), haha.
Kidding aside, I think for general travel, landscape, scenics, etc., an f/4.0 zoom is ideal, and it gives you the more useful range without having to also carry a longer lens.
For when you need something faster, you could always pack a 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 prime. Both are small and light enough to carry mostly anywhere. The primes will always deliver a more "prime like" look than an f/2.8 zoom, if that is what you are after.
F/2.8 standard zooms have their place for photojournalism or event work, but they are a compromise, really.
May 23, 2026 at 03:51 PM
Previous versions of garyvot's message #17043771 « Keep both? »
