Yet another should I get this lens dillemma

[paulo_fonseca1]

Hi! I feel embarrassed about posting this question, but since I can't make up my mind about this, here it goes.

So, I have the opportunity of getting a mint 6months old Canon EF 24-105 L IS USM for about 2/3 of its price new.

Apparently a good deal, but here's the catch: I have a 7D and a EF-S 18-135 IS lens. So, not only the 24-105 is not wide on my body, but

it also covers less range than the lens I already have at approximately the same speed. However, I also have the adorable EF-S 10-22,

which is what I really grab when I want to go wide. Moreover, I plan to keep my 18-135 so I will always be able to use it if I want to carry just one lens. So, my question is really wheather I should seize this opportunity or not. I have read overall good reviews about the 24-105

but people do not recommend it for crop bodies. Very often, though, this is based on the assumption that this lens is going to be used as

a general-purpose walk around lens, whereas I am not thinking about this lens as a soloist, but rather as a team player to be

complemented by the 10-22. Since I got the 10-22 I almost always carry it along with the 18-135 anyway...

So, do you think this 24-105 is a worth addition? To be honest, I am OK with the IQ of the 18-135 though I always find myself stopping

down to at least f5.6. However, it'd be nice to have USM and constant max aperture and I assume the IQ will be at least a bit better.

Heck, it's not even the ideal time to spend lots of money but heck, I am a sucker for a deal and this seems to be a good one, one of those

that don't appear very often here where I live. It could be though, that all this is just about the fetiche of having my first L lens. Maybe it

won't make any difference in practice and I'd better spend my money elsewhere, e.g. on a macro lens. It's crazy how much irrational one

can get about those red rings... I once tried a 70-200F2.8L and I'll never forget.

So, sorry for this silly question, I know you can't decide for me, but I'd be glad to hear someone else's opinion and, more importantly, any

aspect I forgot to consider in this dillemma. Thanks

[JohnMWright]

<p>If you are going to keep the 18-135 and carry it most of the time, then the 24-105 is just a duplication. I'd only consider it if you need the extra stop. But you said you stop down to at least f/5.6... so save your money. I'd put the money towards a different focal length.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>I have no experience of the 18~35, but I do have a 7D and when I am using that standalone rather than with my 5DII, I use the 10~22 and the 24~105 (the latter is my 5DII standard lens) together. So I can't comment first hand on any improvement in image quality from using the 24~105 rather then the 18~135, although test sites such as PZ suggest there will be one. I can tell you that the 10~22 + 24~105 combination works well on the 7D in terms of uniformly good image quality throughout a 10.5 to 1 zoom range at constannt f/4 for the 24~105 and not far off that for the 10~22. The slight gap between the zoom ranges of the two lenses is totally insignificant. However, the changeover point is in some circumstances less than ideal – if you want to swap a lot between moderately wide and standard to medium-long you will be doing a lot of lens changing, and you would be better off with a suitable EF-S lens like your 18~135 (or, if – as may happen – the quality of the 24~105 starts to make you reluctant to use the superzoom, then a 17~55/2.8 or 15~85) for those occasions.</p>

<p>As far as priorities are concerend, only you can judge whether spending money on a 24~105 will give you greater rewards than possible alternatives. The deal does sound like quite a god one.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have the EF-S 17-85mm which I still use on my APS-C camera bodies, and when I bought an older 5D I got a 24-105mm for it. I use both all the time -- but if you are planning to stay with APS-C, the 24-105 will always be "too long on the short end", if you follow me, if you are used to using the 18mm end of the lens you have.<br>

For an upgrade in IQ, which doesn't sound like it's a major need for you, I'd go to the EF-S 15-85mm,</p>

<p>or save your money toward that EF 70-200mm L you crave.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Paulo, the usual advice on this forum is that the 24-105 isn't well suited for crop sensors. And given its odd effective focal length range of 38-168mm, which is neither very wide at the short end nor very long at the long end, it's hard to disagree. It certainly isn't a "standard" zoom when used on crop bodies.</p>

<p>I should add that the only "L" lenses that have underwhelmed me are the 24-105 and the 24-70. Consequently, the only EF zoom I now have is the 70-200/4 L IS; the rest of my lenses are primes.</p>

[vasilis1]

<p>First, "EF-S" lenses are not supposed to compare with the quality of "L" lenses. Second, the price seems right, (provided the lens condition is good). Yes, this is a walk-around lens, but I often miss some extra focal length. However, that is because I am usually too lazy to change to my 100-400mmm white monster I am carrying (or not carrying, because of its weight!) in my bag. I would recommend that you buy the glass, particularly if you plan to upgrade to full frame. One word of caution: Beware of the "pin cushion" distortion at the ends of the frame. (I have not been able to correct this one on Canon's DPP, apparently due to my lack of familiarity with the porgram...). Appart from this con it's a great lens.</p>

[paulo_fonseca1]

<p>Hi. Thank you all for the input.<br>

@John:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are going to keep the 18-135 and carry it most of the time, then the 24-105 is just a duplication</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't plan to carry both all the time. Given the low resale value of the 18-135, I'd rather keep it as a backup or, as I said, to use it when (i) I can bring only one lens and (ii) I know I will need the 18-24 range or 105-135 range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd only consider it if you need the extra stop. But you said you stop down to at least f/5.6...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe I didn't express myself well. What I meant is that in some situations, even if I would like a wider aperture, I still stop down because of the "softness" of the lens wide open, especially towards the wide end.<br>

@Robin:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, the changeover point is in some circumstances less than ideal – if you want to swap a lot between moderately wide and standard to medium-long you will be doing a lot of lens changing, and you would be better off with a suitable EF-S lens like your 18~135</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very true. I might want to check which percentage of the photos I took with my 18-135 are in the 18-24 range compared to the overall number of photos within this range (which includes the one taken with the 10-22).<br>

@JDM:</p>

<blockquote>

<p> but if you are planning to stay with APS-C, the 24-105 will always be "too long on the short end"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I indeed think about getting a FF body in the future. Maybe a 5DmkIII if I can afford, or even a used mkII if prices would drop with the arrival of the new model. However, since I don't have a clear idea or specific timeframe, I didn't mention that and I'd better not base my decision on a purely hypothetical scenario that may never come true. <br>

@Mark:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Consequently, the only EF zoom I now have is the 70-200/4 L IS; the rest of my lenses are primes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I also have a couple of primes, and as for the 70-200/4 L IS, it is indeed a fine lens which I might also get some day. But I realize I'm not much of a tele-shooter, so maybe it would make more sense to get a better quality standard zoom lens since, as it happens, the lens I use the most, which is exactly my 18-135, is my "worst quality" lens, which is not very reasonable.<br>

@Vasilis</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would recommend that you buy the glass, particularly if you plan to upgrade to full frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're the exception here :-) </p>

<p>So, thank you for the thoughtful bits of advice. The issues you raise are indeed pertinent. If I understand correctly, though, the more or less consensual lack of enthusiasm has less to do with the quality of the lens in absolute terms than with the inadequacy of its range on a crop body. It might be some wishful thinking, but I guess I could live well with the dual lens solution provided I'd have some improvement in the IQ department. I will try to go for a walk with my 18-135 and force myself into shooting only within the 24-105 range to see how much I would miss the extra range.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I think your last idea is a good one.</p>

<p>My daughter, unlike me, is perfectly happy with her older 28-135mm IS lens on her APS-C cameras. So it's not unheard of - and Canon has even sold the latter lens as a kit on occasion with APS-C bodies.</p>