24-XXX -> Question

<p>Been a bad week for equipment. My nifty 50 broke almost in two (LITERALLY); but considering I bought this lens in '94 (or so); I am not complaining.<br>

Next, my 24-105/4 has been cropping up with good ol' err 01 lately. On one level - I have had this lens for probably since about '06; and I have dragged it EVERYWHERE. What did I think would happen? I think the groovy live view AF of the 70D is wearing it out?On another level -> This is a might expensive lens to replace for a guy who isn't really a photographer.<br>

Lately, I pair the 24-105/4 with a 10-22/EF-S on a 70D; and this is my walkabout kit. I occasionally toss the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 in the bag as well if I am feeling artsy and not travelling light. Yes -> I do have flashes and a longer lenses; but the long guns are ALWAYS too big for my day kit.<br>

So I am thinking that I might need to do something about the 24-105. Part of me says "send it in for service right now"; Part says "wait till it breaks real good". Another part of me says "Hey -> Any interesting lenses out there?" <br>

SO: Here is the question: Should I buy a 24-70/4L-IS. The 24-70/2.8 is simply too expensive for me to justify at $2K. The 24-70/4L, however, is currently well under $1K.<br>

Is the 24-70/4L BETTER than the 24-105/4L or is it a step backwards? I would sure miss having the 70-105 range. Should I pair a 24-70/4L with a 100/F2 (not the 2.8 macros) and call it a day? (I am not afraid of primes). Is the 100/F2 a worthy lens for the bag?</p>

<p>Note that I shoot cropped bodies.<br>

Opinions welcome. Help me spend money :)</p>

If it were me I'd just have my 24-105 worked on and think about a differnet prime. U have the 85 1.8 which I own as well

and a lot of what I read and hear ,the 100 f2 and the 85 1.8 is not enough change to bother ,I myself wanted the 24-70 but

as you say wow it's like ridiculously high for us that aren't making a,living with the lens , I went to the Camera store a

while back and the Sales person said there are 2 lens that is sought after and that is the canon version and the Tamron, it

has a 6 year warranty and he has the 5d markii and he uses the Tamron himself he also said that he thought the Tanorn

was a better build and he also said there was no noticeable difference in the two ,the one lens he said he'd neve part with

is the 24-105 so I thnk beings he made commission and selling the Tamron at 1300 versus 2 k for the other he was being

honest ,so I took the dem lens out and shot a few pics and they were just as good as the Canon , I'm sold on some canon

items and some can be just as good as , I don't have a big budget for more lens at least not soon , so I comprimised and

bought the 17-50 Tamron from the grey market for 285 dollars and it's great indoors the 2.8 works pretty good ,I'd rather

had the 24-70 but that's a lot.money to spend when your not out making money with the lens.

<p>Fix the 24-105 and buy another nifty fifty.</p>

The least costly option is getting the 24-105 serviced and repaired and I would probably go with that (because that is what

I've done). But having tried out the 24-70/4 at a trade show, it's a real beauty and one that I'd quite like to own.

You could repair and sell to offset the price of the new lens.

 

To replace the 50/1.8 look at the Sigma 50/1.4. The Mk 1 is excellent and has just been replaced by an upgraded version,

so that one will be quite something.

 

Given the time of year, a Christmas present to yourself?

<blockquote>

<p>Is the 24-70/4L <a id="itxthook2" href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00d0m3" rel="nofollow">BETTER<img id="itxthook2icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> than the 24-105/4L or is it a step backwards?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, solely from an IQ perspective, it is better performing than the 24-105/4L, but so are many lenses (Not saying that the 24-105 isn't a good lens, and very good at many things). However...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> I would sure miss having the 70-105 range. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which gives you your answer. Fix the 24-105. It'll be best for your budget. Since a 50/1.8 is ~$100, no reason not to replace that as well. </p>

<p>Jim L, I agree with other posters that you should at least investigate having the 24~105 fixed. But here's some information for you.</p>

<p>I use a dual-format kit with my main general-purpose camera being a 5DIII. Sometimes I want to be able to use my 7D on its own, but not often enough to buy an ideal combination of lenses for that purpose. So at the cost of a less-than-ideal changeover point, I use the 10~22 and 24~105 as a carry-round kit, and that works pretty well.</p>

<p>Twelve months ago I added a 24~70/4 to my kit, for FF use when I am carrying a 70~200 (so am not bothered about the 70~105 range – the 70~200/4IS is better over that range than the 24~105 anyhow) and when I may want to take a few close-ups but not enough to carry my 100/2.8L as well, The 24~70/4 is a very neat lens and is optically as good as or (mostly) somewhat better than the 24~105 throughout its more limited range. It has a genuine close-up capability, but is not ideal for use at the extreme end of its close-up range because working distance is small enough to cause real lighting problems. Also, it has some focus shift at 70mm at the MFD end of its normal focus range. But it does what I bought it for, and I usually carry it in preference to the 24~105 with my FF kit. That said, I do really see it as a FF lens and would not be particularly keen on it for crop-factor use.</p>

<p>Yup -> Looking for a gift for myself. I get tired of socks.</p>

<p>Yup -> Getting the 24-105/4 fixed seems like the smart money. I have a 70-200/4L (NON-IS); which would pair nicely with a 24-70/4L. However, what I have found is that with the 24-105/4L I don't often actually need to bring the 70-200/4 along. . .. and from a weight/carrying perspective; that is a good thing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jamie +1<br>

although for APS-C shooting, I'd give a thought to the excellent APS-C equivalent, the EF-S 15-85mm. I have its older parent, the 17-85mm and it stays on one of my APS-C bodies pretty much all the time, just as the 24-105 is on a 35mm sensor body. Fantastic all in one lenses for those times when you don't want the full burden.</p>

<p>My answer on the 'fantastic' is at the other thread you started on this topic.</p>

<p>Remind me not to get too close to you, perhaps you are going through some kind of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Btfsplk">Joe Btfsplk</a>" period.</p>

<p>Jamie +2</p>

<p>If I were you, I would definitely get my 24-105 fixed and pick up another 50mm, such as the Sigma 50/1.4 ART. The 24-70/4 L IS is pretty underwhelming, from all I've read and heard, so if you can't afford 24-70/2.8 L II (which is a stellar lens, by the way), you might as well stick with the standard zoom already you have, and augment it with a stellar fast prime.</p>

<p>LOL - Joe Btfsplk period - I like it. Well.. . . .that probably means that I am going to have a "third" thing break in the near future. . .crup. :(</p>

<p>The issue with the 24-105 is definitely intermittent -> first cropped up about 600 frames ago; then reared its head for a bunch of frames over the weekend. I was then able to get about 20+ shots off at a family gathering over the weekend. Hmmm. Yeah -> Will look into fixing over the holiday. I have a long business trip coming up which would be the perfect time to send it in for work. </p>

<p>oh. . .and I am going to pick up another nifty fifty. Just deciding what kind of Mic to buy with it :) (want to upgrade something!). The Sigma ART is a bit more money than I want to spend on a non-canon prime at the moment.</p>

<p> </p>

I would suggest, from experience, the canon 35mm 2.0 IS. Sharp, fast, great focus, color and the IS is for real. Paired

with the 85 prime, you have a great combo. I've had mine for 3 months and would say it's on the camera 90% of the time.

I shot a wedding rehearsal dinner with nothing but this lens.

<p>. . .and the third thing was a home theater receiver. Sparks and smoke! Awesome!</p>