Unsure if i should get the 24-105mm L for my EOS 60D?

Pilotguy - I have the Tokina 12-24 and recently bought the 24-105. Great combo and will cover most of my needs. I have a 7D and taking this setup to Europe this summer.

Agreed on looking at your exit data....I found that when I want wide I go W-I-D-E....so I use my 12-24. The 24-105 serves me well the rest of the time.

I can't say it would be my choice for a 1.6 crop camera. I like it on my 1.3 crop 1D2 and look forward to using it on full frame when I get a 5D3, but I think the wide end would be too lacking for it to be as versatile for me on a 1.6.

If you tend to do more tele shooting though it could work, otherwise I'd say get the 17-55 2.8 Is or something.

I own both the 17-55 and 24-105. I prefer the 17-55/2.8 IS over the 24-105 on an APS-C sensor.

On a crop sensor, 24mm is not wide enough and I'd hate to swap back and fourth to go wider. If you are the kind that doesn't shoot wide that often, OK, I can see the 24-105. It would never work for me --- I borrowed a 24-105 for a while before deciding the 17-55 made a lot more sense. I would actually go 15-85 over a 24-105.

For a first L glass, I'd go with a 70-200/4L IS. Others would argue in favor of the 70-300L.

I shoot on all three DSLR formats, and find the 24-105 is least used on my 1.6 cropper. But I have the 17-40 to fall back on, just as you have the Tokina. Focal range apart, I think you'll be delighted with the results from the 24-105. There is some barrel distortion at the wide end, but nothing that can't be corrected in PP. Otherwise, a cracking lens.

And don't worry about ƒ4. There are some here who have an antipathy to that number, and I am sure they can quote in extremis examples where it's just not enough. But, given the cleanliness of high ISO on modern cameras, going up from 400 to 800 - or even 1600 - is no handicap. Higher than that, and you want to be considering flash. Flash is banned? OK, one of those extreme circumstances. And, assuming no subject motion, the IS will handle 1/15 just as well as 1/30.

If you're talking a hyperactive black cat in an unlit coal cellar, well, you're screwed. But so you would be with any 2.8.

I’d never get a 24-105 for a crop. Not wide enough.
I used to have a Nikon D300s (crop DX) and I thought an 24-85mm would be an awesome mid-range for me. It lasted a week and I returned it.
After that, I bought a 17-55G and loved up to a point when I decided to switch to Canon.

marcosv wrote in post #14402583
I own both the 17-55 and 24-105. I prefer the 17-55/2.8 IS over the 24-105 on an APS-C sensor.

On a crop sensor, 24mm is not wide enough and I'd hate to swap back and fourth to go wider. If you are the kind that doesn't shoot wide that often, OK, I can see the 24-105. It would never work for me --- I borrowed a 24-105 for a while before deciding the 17-55 made a lot more sense. I would actually go 15-85 over a 24-105.

For a first L glass, I'd go with a 70-200/4L IS. Others would argue in favor of the 70-300L.

Agree. For me 24mm was not wide enough. If it had been, I would have gotten a 24-105mm in a heartbeat. For the way I shoot the 15-85 was a better choice. I appreciate and use the much wider angle. I would have really liked the longer focal length of the 24-105, but in the end you have to base your decision on what best meets your needs.

xhack wrote in post #14403722
I shoot on all three DSLR formats, and find the 24-105 is least used on my 1.6 cropper. But I have the 17-40 to fall back on, just as you have the Tokina. Focal range apart, I think you'll be delighted with the results from the 24-105. There is some barrel distortion at the wide end, but nothing that can't be corrected in PP. Otherwise, a cracking lens.

And don't worry about ƒ4. There are some here who have an antipathy to that number, and I am sure they can quote in extremis examples where it's just not enough. But, given the cleanliness of high ISO on modern cameras, going up from 400 to 800 - or even 1600 - is no handicap. Higher than that, and you want to be considering flash. Flash is banned? OK, one of those extreme circumstances. And, assuming no subject motion, the IS will handle 1/15 just as well as 1/30.

If you're talking a hyperactive black cat in an unlit coal cellar, well, you're screwed. But so you would be with any 2.8.

at the hyperactive black cat in an unlit coal cellar.

I had the same set-up when I had a 60D. The 24mm on the wide end wasn't a problem for me, it was wide enough for my taste in terms of a general walk-around. I kept my 18-55mm kit lens as a back up in my bag whenever I wanted to go wider but I have never mounted the lens. I bought a 70-200mm f/4L to take care of my tele shots but again, I had no use for it considering I can easily crop images at 105mm.

I've never been really concerned with the wide end, so a 24-105 worked well for me on my 30D and now on my 5DII. Its a pretty nice lens.

madjack wrote in post #14405284
I've never been really concerned with the wide end, so a 24-105 worked well for me on my 30D and now on my 5DII. Its a pretty nice lens.

Of course on your 5D that lens goes a whole lot wider than it did on the 30D. Before purchasing my 15-85mm, for a week I tried not to take any pictures with a focal length wider than 24mm. I found that restriction way too limiting and had to sadly eliminate the 24-105mm from my shortlist.

As an alternative, you might want to take a look at the Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. Will save you some $$$ and is an 82 mm wide lens as compared to the 77mm L 24-105. My assumption is because it is 82 mm wide lens compared to the L series 77MM it may add just a bit of width. Having the 60 D, this lens is a good walking around lens for @ $399 white box at B&H compared to $1,059 white box for the 24-105L.

Take a look at some the pics and decide if there is a $700 difference in quality. I also want the 24-105 but can't see the cost to benefit for me. It's all a matter of preference as I also have the 17-40L to fall back on.

Good luck.

BufordFZ1 wrote in post #14405484
As an alternative, you might want to take a look at the Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. Will save you some $$$ and is an 82 mm wide lens as compared to the 77mm L 24-105. My assumption is because it is 82 mm wide lens compared to the L series 77MM it may add just a bit of width. Having the 60 D, this lens is a good walking around lens for @ $399 white box at B&H compared to $1,059 white box for the 24-105L.

Take a look at some the pics and decide if there is a $700 difference in quality. I also want the 24-105 but can't see the cost to benefit for me. It's all a matter of preference as I also have the 17-40L to fall back on.

Good luck.

The EF 28-135mm IS lens has a 72mm filter size, while the 24-105mm L has a 77mm filter size. I do not know where you came up with an 82mm filter size for the 28-135mm lens. That filter size has nothing to do with the field of view of the lens -- 24mm focal length will always be wider than 28mm, regardless of the filter size.

For those repeating the mantra "Not wide enough on a crop". Do you think the 11-16 may cover that area?

hollis_f wrote in post #14405566
For those repeating the mantra "Not wide enough on a crop". Do you think the 11-16 may cover that area?

Seeing how you have both 11-16 and 24-105 as well as the 10-22, do you find yourself switching from the 11-16 to the 10-22 for that missing 17-22mm? I ask because a would like to add an UWA sometime

hollis_f wrote in post #14405566
For those repeating the mantra "Not wide enough on a crop". Do you think the 11-16 may cover that area?

Of course, but if you want flexibility in a walk around lens without having to change lenses when you're out and about I don't see how an UWA lens helps.

Given you have the superb 11-16 for wide shots already the 24-105 should be a great option for you. I wouldn't recommend it to someone without a wider lens available, but to someone with one.... Go for it.