Trading down to the 24-105 from 24-70???

[Jayson]

I am seriously considering trading my 24-70 f/2.8 v1 for a 24-105mm f/4 IS. Basically my reasons are, most of the time I am taking static shots anyway and if I need something for indoors I have a Tamron 17-50mm that I have used for about 5 years that is just as sharp, just missing the extra 20mm. I am considering this change to put a little money in the bank and to also get the benefit of IS plus the extra reach. Since our boys are bigger, we are traveling more than we did when I first bought the lens. Sometimes I wish I did have a little extra reach. I shoot with a 7D and someday would like to purchase either a used 5D mkii or the 6D.

For those of you who have either of these lenses care to chime in? Am I being dumb or would this be a logical choice. I have spoken to Adorama and have received a basic quote and am thinking about sending it for a full review. My lens is in Mint condition so I think I would get top dollar. It will still be about 75% of its sale value, but judging by the craigslist threats and fees I might have to pay on ebay, I would probably come out about even.

Thanks for any input anyone would have.

Jayson

[thekingb]

I don't have a point of comparison because I have never owned the 24-70. But I do have the 24-105 and have used it on the 7D and 6D.

I'm not sure I would make that trade while you still use the 7D because of the MAJOR difference in low light/high ISO ability between the 7D and the 6D. On the 6D, even a maximum f/4 aperture is adequate for many indoor needs, whereas it was essentially useless on my 7D indoors without a flash. In other words, you'd miss the one stop aperture loss far less on the a 6D than you would on a 7D.

On the other hand, I find the 24-105 focal length range to be very, very useful -- especially on a full frame body. I am willing to trade a little IQ and 1 stop for the focal range.

[conropl]

Jayson:

I know that the 24-105mm gets discouraged on a crop body, but I find that the range works good for me. I have a Sigma 10-20mm to go with it when I find the need to go wider, but that is not that often... and even then, I would rarely go below 17mm. So I think your Tamron 17-50 and the 24-105 would be a good combination. Of coarse this all depends on what you shoot, but it is a good range. Living in the midwest like you, I do not find a lot of need for going real wide because the landscape tends to be very flat, and there are not grand mountain vistas that require great width. The exception is when I go up to the U.P. where there are large rocky hills (we call mountains) and lakes that you can shoot from hill tops... then the wide comes in handy (but even then I rairly go below 14mm).

I would also find 70mm limiting. I go to 105mm to often to want to be limited at 70mm. If I was to go FF (which I hope to), then I may rather have the 24-70 and pair it with 70-200. But even then, I am not sure I would get the 24-70 unless it was version II ($$$).

As for the f/2.8 vs. f/4, I shoot on a tripod mostly... so not a big deal, and when I get inside the 24-105 is pretty useless, but that is what I bought a flash for. Besides, the 24mm can be a little limiting in small indoor rooms... so you have the Tamron for indoor, and you can always put a flash on to get more use out of the 24-105.

When hand held, the IS is really nice to have.

CA is kind of bad on my 24-105, but that goes away in post with a check of a box in Lightroom.

Just my two cents for what I shoot.

Pat

[nvitalephotography]

I owned the 24-70 for about a month and opted to switch to the 24-105. Of course this was before the version II of the 24-70 came out and I was able to put money in the bank when trading lenses and that influenced my decision. I personally find the extra reach very useful and for static objects the IS more than makes up for the loss of a stop. I'm also shooting full frame though so the extra reach was more important to me.

[Jayson]

Thanks Bryan, Pat, and Nick. Thank you very much for all of your input. Pat, I too have a wider lens with the Tokina 12-24 if I need to go wider than the 17mm. I rarely take it out due to the Nebraska flatness. The other reason I was considering giving up the 24-70 is I have some non-L primes that cover that range anyway and if that didn't work I had the Tamron. Another reason I thought I might be alright with the f/4 indoors is I have the 70-200 f/4 IS and use it all the time indoors. (I have three boys and am the kid paparazzi around here) I do have to bump the ISO on my 7D, but I have never had a problem with noise. My 7D must have been one of the good ones. I rarely print anything too big and Noise really doesn't bother me that much. Bryan and Nick, another reason I was thinking of jumping is the improved ISO on the full frame bodies and I know I would miss the perceptual reach I was getting with the 7D crop factor. That is a very good thinking point.

[peety3]

My wife and I both shoot. We have a 1D3, two 7D, and a 40D, and just added a 5D3 to her (our?) bag two weeks ago. We have the 24-70 v1 and the 24-105. I don't mind the weight, and I reach for the 24-70 EVERY SINGLE TIME. I could care less about the 24-105. The 24-70 has magic air inside or something...I love the results I get. I find the 24-105 to be good but never amazing. I frequently open up my bag (which usually has 10-22, 24-70, and 70-200/2.8IS I, along with 1D3, 7D, and two flashes), put the 24-70 on the 1D3, leave the flashes in the bag unless I'm fighting sunlight, zip up the bag, and save the rest for later if I need it. Keep in mind that the 24-105 was my starter lens, and the 24-70 didn't land in my bag for about three years though I'd rented it a time or two.