Originally Posted by bburns223
Fewer than I want... []
Yeah, the EF 35mm f/1.4L is on my short list, too...
Fewer than I want... [
Yeah, the EF 35mm f/1.4L is on my short list, too...
I currently do not use my 24-105 on a 1.6x body, but I did for several years--first on a Rebel XT and then on a 40D. I initially had a 28-135 for my Rebel but found the quality lacking (especially after renting a 70-200 f/2.8L IS), so I got the 24-105 before a trip to England. I was so glad I did. Its a great lens, and I thoroughly enjoyed using it on both of those crop bodies. Of course, after moving to FF, it's like I got a brand new lens--24 was really wide, the DoF I was accustomed to changed, etc, but they weren't aspects I'd missed on my XT/40D. Others have suggested renting, and I think that's a great idea. I've used a lens rental several times to help inform my opinion. Reviews and shared opinions are extremely valuable, but nothing beats personal experience. Best of luck with your decision!
Aaron
Brendan,
While I can not give you any information on the 24-105, I have to defend the 17-55. I have a 50D and my 17-55 is still my most used lens. I also have the 24-70 and when I really need a keeper from only a few shots, I take the 17-55. Granted most of what I do is indoors, I have had zero issues with dust and would dismiss that complaint as an issue. My reason for the 24-70 over the 24-105 was the 2.8 because it is a must for me. Today I took over 200 pictures in church, mostly of our children's choir and all but one were sharp. The one that was not was in a burst where I misjudged movement of the children as they did a dance, but shooting at high speed that is easily done sometimes.
If you shoot in inclement weather or dusty conditions, then sealing is an issue. Since my camera is not sealed on par with the L lenses, that is not a factor for me. If that is not in play for you, then it comes down to what you are doing. If you need to stop action in less that perfect light, as I often do, then you want the largest aperture. If you are shooting still or slow moving subjects in good light then go for the zoom range. With the right lens for the situation I think you would be pleased with results from any of the three. They are the top three recommendations of Bryan.
Good luck choosing. I have been there myself, even when I started asking opinions, I was leaning towards 24-70 and in the end that is what I purchased. For what I do, it has been the right choice. Now, I am debating an upgrade between a 7D and the new 1D Mark IV. Any opinions from your experience with your 7D would be greatly appreciated.
Chris
I had used my 24-105 on a Rebel XT for awhile. I was happy with it. It didn't go very wide, but I had a separate wide angle zoom... Before that I had a 28-135mm, and I'd have problems with group shots if I didn't have the space. Otherwise, at the time, I was heavily medium to telephoto-oriented, so it got me by.
When I finally put it on a full frame camera, my initial disappointment was seeing the vignetting at 24mm, butaccepting that fact, I'm happier with it on a full frame camera.
From a performance standpoint, if you're willing to give up the 'L' classification, I'd lean towards the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I bought the 24-105 in part becauseof future full-frame compatibility, and partly because I had purchased a 16-35 f/2.8L, which got me hooked on the feel of the L zooms. They're just fun to hold and twist.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote