24-105 (On a full frame).
17-55 (On a crop).
Printable View
24-105 (On a full frame).
17-55 (On a crop).
24-70 2.8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
I think so too... the 24-105 beats out the 24-70 in terms of IS and reach, and I think it has better control of CA outside of the focal plane, and I really like the 24-105, and don't want to give it up if I can keep it, but... the 24-70, even if it is a clunky bastard with less zoom range, just makes me happy in ways the 24-105 doesn't (as much). To be honest, I wouldn't bitch about having either.
24-105 f4 IS USM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Yes I am, because getting closer doesn't cost $12,000!
Man, tough question! Debating between my Canon 100mm f/2.8 L IS macro and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I guess if I had to choose I'd go with the 17-55mm!
Denise
Since most of what I do is outside---It's the 100-400L for me-----otherwise the 24-105, regardless of crop or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Well, for birds that may be true. But for shooting carnivorous animals in the wilds of Africa, 'getting closer' may well result in far more than $12K in medical bills.... [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Meh. I could buy a closetfull of Ak47s for maybe $3k. Just Kidding.
I'm curious to your compelling reasons for preferring a 17-55 over the24-70mm on a crop body?