17-55 ef-s + 24-105, or 24-70 2.8?

[Kayaker72]

Ok, first we have to consider where you are going and where you have been. I've recently gone from 7D with the EFS 15-85, which is very similar in terms of sharpness to the 17-55. On a FF, I am seeing more detail with the 24-105. I haven't looked at the corners in painful detail yet, but in general, when I look at 1:1 ratio on the screen, there is a modest, but noticable, improvement. Please note, I still consider the 7D with the 15-85 to be excellent. Both are extremely capable. But I would expect you to see an improvement with the 24-105 on the 5DIII compared to the 17-55 on the 7D as well. So, coming from where you were, yes, I would expect an improvement.

However, as Busted notes, I've heard others comment that the corners are "soft" on the 24-105. Which to me just means that there is room for improvement on the 24-105 on a FF body. Unfortunately, if you are to follow TDP recommendations, there is only 1 zoom lens, the 24-70 f/2.8 II that is "overall" better than the 24-105. I've seen enough reviews to also think that the 24-70 f/4 IS is likely a little sharper, especially at the extremes (softer in the middle focal ranges), but it is also significantly more expensive.

....the next option is primes. So, you can enter the classic primes vs zooms debate.

Myself, I went with the 24-105 and am happy. Honestly, there are times when I miss the 15-85 mm. IS on the 15-85 is noticably better (4 stop IS on the 15-85 vs 3 stop on the 24-105) and I do notice the equivalent 31 mm lost on the long end. But the 24-105 on a 5DIII is still a great combo. But the best zoom, based on everything I've read, Bryan's recommendations, etc, for a Canon FF camera is the 24-70 f/2.8 II, if you can afford it.

[neuroanatomist]

I am toying with the idea of the 24-70 2.8 or perhaps going to primes - w/ the low light performance of the 5dIII it is an interesting question.

I find f/2.8 is often sufficient in 'low' light. I reach for a fast prime when I want thinner DoF.

[Busted Knuckles]

I find f/2.8 is often sufficient in 'low' light. I reach for a fast prime when I want thinner DoF.

Right tool for the right task - struggled w/ the post as the options are pretty expansive... and expensive. Canon has done a good job of providing options, layer in 3rd Party options and it gets confusing.

I had pre-ordered the 24-70 2.8 II and got tired of waiting & picked up the 24-105. Given the quality of the 2.8 I think I should have waited, maybe, sort of. I have the middle covered w/ the nifty fifty for speed, so the 24 end is missing the speed - yet $1750 seems a lot for that segment. Seems that for the step up in $$$ flexibility of the 24-70 and loss of 2 stops & IS might, again might be the right thing.

If I hadn't been just six lousy numbers off from the lottery this wouldn't be an issue

[Busted Knuckles]

The 24-105 remains a very good all-purpose lens and when I head out with 1 lens it is my travel companion. The barrel distortion on the wide end is something I notice more than the corners. The corner softness is usually only noticeable at wider apertures not when stopped down which leads me to think that you might benefit more from a wider aperture lens with a shorter zoom range or a selection of primes. Myself, I went for older MF primes as they work very well for what I am shooting on the wide end which is mostly landscapes. Benefits to me are that they are inexpensive, smaller, and lighter than current AF primes or zooms. May or may not work for your situation though zone focusing is still an option for action shots if you aren't comfortable with rapid fire MF adjustments.

If you mostly use the long end of the 24-105 for action then a 70-200 along with wide primes may prove to be a superior kit for you. It really comes down to how you use the different focal lengths available from the 24-105.

+1

[HDNitehawk]

I've read on a few forums that the f4 on the 5DMIII will be better or just as good in low light as the f2.8 on the crop sensor. Is this true? I'm pretty happy with the low light performance I've been getting with the 17-55/7D combo, so if I can get something close to that with the 24-100 without having to splurge for the 24-70 II (or the Tamron 24-70), I'd be satisfied with that.

Yes, close and it is your cheapest option.

Your best IQ will be from the L primes, if you know what length and only need one length it would be a cheaper option than the 24-70mm f/2.8 II. I was never happy with the IQ out of either the 24-105 or the 24-70 I so for years I covered the range with several primes. I now own the 24-70 F/2.8 L II and use it as my carry around lens. I still favor the L primes when I have specific tasks.

[gbc]

Thanks for the input. I'm already preparing myself mentally for having to rationalize buying the 24-70II. Just seems far and away to be better than any other options. Especially since low light capability is the biggest priority for me. Second on the priority list is convenience, and not having to switch between primes while in the middle of a shoot would be a great help.
Anyone have experience with the Tamron 24-70 with VC? I think that's my second option right now.

[Kayaker72]

I don't have any hands on experience with the Tamron....but as some people don't see the TDP's news:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...aspx?News=4569

Also, I've found this to be useful:

https://www.thecamerastore.com/blog/...70-vc-shootout

My take, if you can get a good copy, it is a very nice lens, more than most of us need. But I'd be pretty concerned about getting a good copy and have a detailed testing plan if I were to buy one.