I've just swapped my 24-70 for a 24-105. I think it depends what you want it for. The smaller, lighter lens with IS seemed more appropriate as a walk around lens for me. Also, a bit of overlap in lens ranges can be useful. I found myself wanting the 70 to be a bit longer a number of times.
That's my worry, about not having the reach on the 24-70 and having to chop and change between the 24-70 and the 70-200 more often than i'd really like.
I think it's going to be a case of trying to find somewhere that has both in for me to actually try them on a body and see how i feel afterwards.
I just keep being swayed by the 2.8 of the shorter lens, but I suppose everything ends up being a trade off at some point!
I swopped my 24-105 with Paul (Grumpybadger) for his 24-70 & find it much more suitable for my work but I like low light stuff, the IS & longer reach is not to be sneezed at but for my work the 24-70 was more suitable.
All depends on whether you like the range & need the extra stops over the IS imo
Personally as a user of both the L Series 2.8 70-200 and L Series 2.8 24-70 I would opt for the 24-70, this is not because I have one but purely for the reason that it fills the range the 70-200 is not cabable of. Ie I found that if the 70-200 is providing me with little le-way then the 24-70 is usually perfect for the job.
depends on what you like to shoot...the 17-55mm may not sell itself in the shop...it's only when you're in a real, and in this country, a common low light situation when you'd kill for IS and a fast lens.
I've got the 24-70 but will probably get the 24-105 at some stage as well. Reason? The 24-70's great for low light stuff but it's slightly too short for most of what I do. Different lenses, both very good in their own way.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.