Which standard zoom, and why?

[august23]

Not me guys! Instead, what I'm hoping to get out of this thread is information for new people trying to decide on a standard zoom. Please post which of the zooms you chose, why you did, and why you picked them over the the others. These are for HIGHER PRICED STANDARD ZOOMS ONLY, SO PRICE SHOULD NOT BE A HUGE FACTOR.:D

[Pasukun]

24-70 for the FF..
17-55 IS for the crop..

[Stan43]

I chose the 24-105L because of the reach and IS over the 24-70. Didn't consider the 17-55 because it's EF-S and I need lenses that work with FF as well as crop.I like the size of the 24-105 over the 24-70 as well. I have speed in primes if I need low light. The 24-105 is a really good walk around on a 5D.

[coreypolis]

really depends on what you shoot. I couldn't stand the dim viewfinder of the 24-105, and I can't use ef-s, so the 24-70 is the only choice of those for me.

[Wilt]

24-70 for the FF for wedding coverage, 24-105 for the FF for walkaround (since the 24-70 is so beastly heavy to lug around all day when you are not being paid to do so!)...
17-55 IS for the crop.

[narlus]

24-70 for the FF..
17-55 IS for the crop..

^^

a 7mm difference at the wide end is much different than a 15mm difference at the long end. IS is a nice bonus.

[griftnet]

24-70 for the FF..
17-55 IS for the crop..

I agree with Pasukun

[Poindexter]

I don't look at EF-S lenses because I keep a non-EF-S body in the arsenal.

I chose the 24-105mm over the 24-70mm for two reasons:

1. Image Stabilization: I don't care what people say - it is a very useful tool! In this focal range there is nothing I shoot that requires a wide aperture so IS was a big factor in my decision.

2. Weight and focal length: Yeah, I put these two together. I'm mobile, and this lens goes with me everywhere. Less weight and more zoom - speaks for itself!

Would I like to have a 24-70mm in my arsenal, sure! Is it on any of my wishlists? - no. Since I picked up the 24-105mm there are more lenses I'd prefer to have before buying a 24-70mm.

I will say that it was quite a debate choosing between those two lenses though. I completely understand why so many threads pop up about this debate.

[D.C.]

I picked the 24-105 because I was always at the top end of my kit lens. Very seldom used the WA end. Got it at xmas and will let you know if I made the right choice in a few months. The 17-55 was the other best choice for me.

[Billginthekeys]

i chose the 24-105 for range and versitilty as a walkaround.

[Pasukun]

^^

a 7mm difference at the wide end is much different than a 15mm difference at the long end. IS is a nice bonus.

That is why 24-70 for the 1:1 Full Frame and 17-55 for the 1:1.6 crop. :)

[SYS]

24-70 for lots and lots of my kids' indoor school events...

[ed rader]

really depends on what you shoot. I couldn't stand the dim viewfinder of the 24-105, and I can't use ef-s, so the 24-70 is the only choice of those for me.

that's funny because i've used both lenses extensively as well as many other f4 lenses and i can't tell a difference in viewfinder brightness. i probably could in a side by side comparison but in the real world this just isn't a factor for me when choosing a lens.

ed rader

[nicksan]

17-55IS on a cropper.
24-105IS on a FF.

[rosselliot]

I got the 24-105 and really like it. I'd definitely recommend it. I wouldn't get the 17-? IS, the reviews say it has a buge dust problem, and if I'm paying over $1000 for lens, I want it to be perfect.

- RE

[buddy4344]

24-105 is SHARP and IS to boot. Already won 2 photo contests since getting it at Christmas (prior to that I won 2 over 2 years - is it the lens?).

[steved110]

I choose the 24-105 for the best focal range. And for the IS. I really and truly could care less about the f/4 thing.

Next choice would be the 17-55 - for the f/2.8 and the IS - but it is not an L lens, in spite of how expensive it is - I'd prefer something a bit more solid than this - and I'm biased against EF-S - irrationally but there you go. I'm irrational. Deal with it.

the 24-70 f/2.8 is potentially a superb lens, but too big and heavy for my tastes as a walk about, and it isn't long enough for me either.

[jesusdelallata]

I sold my 17-40L and my 50mm f1.4 to fund the 17-55 EF-S. I couldn't be happier. At first I was hesitant because I was getting rid of n L lens, but the 17-55 f2.8 is even better. I never thought I would say this, but I don't miss the two lenses it replaced. The 17-55 is simply awesome. Sharp, sharp, sharp...even wide open. I got a great deal in january and got the lens for $925. Well worth the money.

I don't shoot in extreme conditions/weather, and I don't fight off wild animals with it. The build quality is good enough for me. It's actually better than I expected.

[unafaxer]

17-55...FOV for my Crop Camera....Great all around lens.

[SkipD]

The 24-70 f/2.8L is on my 20D about 50% of the time. It is not the only lens I use, though. I also use the 16-35 f/2.8L and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (plus occasionally the 70-200 with a 1.4x extender). This package will, of course, work on all the other EOS bodies which is one of the many reasons why I went with the combination.