also looking for a walk around lens

[Keith B]

I have owned both 24-105 and the 24-70 and I would definitely say the 24-105 is the better walk around lens. The 24-70 is bulky, kind of awkward and definitely needs a bigger body to balance it out. The 24-105's extra 35mm of reach is nice also.


The 24-70 is definitely a great lens, I just don't think walk around when some one mentions it.

[Backland Photography]

Hi Keith,


Thanks so much for your opinion. I have never used the 24-105 lens so I can not comment on it.


Would you tell me what body you used that lens on and what you mostly were shooting with it?


Thanx..


Chris...

[Dumien]

I own both, though I haven't had the 24-70 for long, and I used for more or less 5 months the 70-200 2.8 NON-IS as a walkaround. I, contrarily to what most people think, don't find it heavy: I can carry that lens for a whole day (I did many times during my trips) without stopping (more or less 8 hrs of walking through cities and such). I love the reach and everything. I bought the 24-70 mainly because it's wider and usually 70mm is enough for me (not always though, that's why I bought the 70-200 first).


I,too, own an XSi, and many people told me that 24mm is not that wide on APC-S, but I did some testing with my 18-55 and found out that I rarely went wider than 24, so I was good to go.


Finally, my suggestion is the 70-200, because you also mentioned sports and stuff (which i shoot too). If, walking around, yo find out you need a wider reach, get the 24-70, which is mind-blowingly good


hope this kinda helps


Andy

[Keith B]

Hi Chris


I shot everything with my 24-105. It was the most used lens I had. I used it exclusively on a 5D mkII. I shot portraits with it, product shots and landscapes. The landscape were a bit of a let down. At 24mm the lens displayed a considerable amount of CA on the outer 1/4 of the images. I also ran in to issues where I couldn't get as shallow of depth of field I wanted on scenic portraits, like in a smaller rooms.


I switched to the 24-70 mostly just for the 2.8 aperture. For landscape/architectural I use my 16-35 2.8 II so the wide angle CA was almost a non issue. I don't do much walking around photography. If I did I'd probably invest in another 24-105. I totally agree with Bryan that one doesn't replace the other.

[Backland Photography]

Thanx much...

[ksweets8]

thanks so much. I just rented the 24-105 f4 to test it out. I love that you can do before spending the money. I recently started doing weddings as well and i'm trying to figure out lens for that as well. thanks everyone for there opinons!





amy

[camrich22]

Hi Chris,


I use my 24-105mm on a Canon 40D....I love the combination, and I have taken some wonderful shots with this lens, it's a lot better than I am. Check it out if you would like, here is my flickr page, and I have shots with both the 24-105mm f4L IS, and the 70-200mm f4L IS... :





http://www.flickr.com/photos/newadventurefrombcam/

[lculpin]

I really love my 24-70, but if you're looking for a good travel/walkaround I'd probably also suggest the 24-105 (though I've never actually had the pleasure of using one). The 70-200 is pretty long (especially on a APS-C) for most "walkaround" type photography imho.

[Backland Photography]

Hey camrich22,


Good to hear from you.


I have never used the 24-105 but from what I read it's a GREAT lens. If our kit needed this lens I would really have a good look. It seems a lot of photographers like this lens.


I can relate how you like the 70-200, we use the 2.8 and find it is tack sharp and VERY versitile/robust. A lens we would NEVER give up.


Happy shooting and be safe..


Chris...

[Jon Ruyle]

Personally, I find the 70-200 too long for travel use (that is if, by travel, you mean vacation travel), and think the 24-70 would be perfect.


On the other hand, for portraits (especially of kids) 70-200 is by far my most used lens.