A question that has been on my mind

[HDNitehawk]

Rick...thanks for the response, some very good thoughts. I think you highlight the difference between the two options well. Both are excellent, but there is a very slight trade off between level of excellence and convenience. Having just gone FF, I am slowly mulling what I eventually want my kit to look like. I am probably in the phase where I will obsess over everything that Sean was describing. Ultimately, I ended up with the 24-105 f/4 due to its good reputation, but also because it was a heckuva deal as a kit lens. Once I have sold my APS-C gear, I should have some funds to do something. That could be buy a prime lens, upgrade to the 24-70 II, maybe something in the 70-200 mm range, or I may just wait for a bit as I like to shoot until I identify a need.

Thanks again.
Brant

Edit---thanks also to the others for your posts, and iND, I missed your post while writing this response. Thanks all...

Brant,

I thought with all of your nice water fall pictures you would trend toward the primes rather than the zoom first. That would be my guess.

[Kayaker72]

Brant,

I thought with all of your nice water fall pictures you would trend toward the primes rather than the zoom first. That would be my guess.

I probably was/am, but then I kept reading about this zoom that was almost as good as primes


Also, I tend to shoot a lot of family functions and people, just rarely posting those here. Thus my interest in the 70-200 mm lenses. We'll see, I am only slowly posting my gear so it may be awhile before I get it all sold.