24-105 (On a full frame).
17-55 (On a crop).
24-105 (On a full frame).
17-55 (On a crop).
24-70 2.8
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
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.
Bob
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.... []
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?