oklaiss wrote in post #15382991
For a better walk around consider the sigma 17-50 OS 2.8 or the canon 15-85. The reason for this is because the 24-105 is not very wide at all on crop. For more reach I'd take a 70-200 2.8L IS with a 1.4x teleconverter over the 70-300L
Humm..THe only thing that bothers me is that I get annoyed with my 18 - 55 because the range isn't great on it, so I don't think that would make a huger difference to me as I'll just get annoyed with that anyway, but thanks for the thought! And regarding the 200mm with a teleconverter...It's just too expensive for me to spend on one lens! But maybe in the future!
Scrumhalf wrote in post #15382995
In my experience (and yours may be different), I find myself going back and forth a lot in the 17-35 range. Having that range on the same lens would be very useful to me. The 15-85 is a fantastic lens and 15 is pretty wide. You may find that you can get most of your shooting done with it, with the 10-22 only coming out for special circumstances. With the 10-22 and the 24-105, I may be switching back and forth a lot more.
Yeah, for general use I find myself in or around about that range too, actually. How is the 85mm for landscapes? I know you says it's 'pretty wide', but is it wide enough I wonder? yeah coming to think of it I can't actually see myself using the 22mm THAT much now...I think I just got a bit wrapped up in getting a full range, when actually I probably don't need it!