If you were me, which lens would you buy? (24-105 vs. 70-200 f/4 IS)

[scalesusa]

Since you have the 18-55MM IS, get the 70-200mm f/4 IS. Then when you are ready, replace the 18-55 with a 17-55mm IS. The tiny gap in coverage will not be missed, but you could upgrade the 18-55mm IS with the sigma 17-70 OS and have complete coverage.


I have had all these lenses on my 40d, and the 24-105mm is wonderful on a crop, but you are missing more by not having the 70-200. Than you would by adding a 24-105 which duplicates or even triplicates the ranges you already have.


In any event, you will certainly love either lens.

[edfrometown]

Hi Matt,


I have both lenses that you're looking at (24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS) and as everyone has said, both are just great lenses. However, I got the 24-105 first because of Bryan's recommendation of a great walk around lens. When I have to travel light, I always take the 24-105 because of it's versatility. Sure I miss some shots that I could have had with the 70-200, but that's when you have to get creative For portraits and family gatherings, the 24-105 on a crop might be a tad too long on the short end i.e. getting group photos in a tight area is challenging, but then getting the candid shot from across the room is a lot easier.


I just posted a pic of the Sydney opera house that I took with the 24-105 under the "Assignment: Leading Lines" discussion. I have to say that, although I had my 70-200 with me on that trip, the 24-105 shot the majority of the "memories" like city scapes, portrait, food etc. The only time I used the 70-200 was when I had to shoot wildlife.


Hope this helps.