Mid Zoom for FF with stabilization

i've swapped my crop cam and tamron 17-50 for an FF body, and i need an all around lens mostly for group shots. i have an UWA, but it's slow and non-stabilized.

usual suspects:

24-105 - i'm waiting for the mark 2 OR to buy it as a kit lens with the 5d3 whichever comes first

24-70 IS - this has been a rumor from the beginning of time

28-135 - quality is a bit low

tamron 28-300 vc - reviews absolutely panned this, even saying it doesn't work with some FF bodies

canon 28-300L - too expensive, too big, too white

did i miss anything with stabilization?
or you think i should buy a rebel with kit lens to act as my group shot cam/lens?

The 24-105 is a great lens on a FF camera.

24-105 seems like the sweet spot there, to me.

mike_d wrote in post #12654360
The 24-105 is a great lens on a FF camera.

Snydremark wrote in post #12654363
24-105 seems like the sweet spot there, to me.

it is. considering i went from 24-70L on FF to 17-50 2.8 VC on 7D and now back to FF

problem now is what to use until a mark 2 or 5d3 comes out.

you guys know of online sellers with white box 24-105's? (as a 5d2 kit lens, it's just 700-800 bucks)

I wasn't aware that there is a 24-105 mm ii in the pipeline. Are you sure? The current version isn't that old and I would think a 24-70 replacemenht is more likely - maybe that's what you mean? I wouldn't think waiting for a 5d mk ii makes much sense either - esp if you expect this to come with a 24-105 mm ii !

Personally, if you want a mid-range zoom with IS, I'd just go for the current 24-105. It's a great lens on FF.

paulkaye wrote in post #12654372
I wasn't aware that there is a 24-105 mm ii in the pipeline. Are you sure? The current version isn't that old and I would think a 24-70 replacemenht is more likely - maybe that's what you mean? I wouldn't think waiting for a 5d mk ii makes much sense either - esp if you expect this to come with a 24-105 mm ii !

Personally, if you want a mid-range zoom with IS, I'd just go for the current 24-105. It's a great lens on FF.

i'm iffy on buying the current 24-105 with it's IS motor issues (believe it or not, half the people i know who have this lens have had the motor repaired/replaced for 250-300 bucks)

no, there's no rumor of a mark 2 of the 24-105, but i would take it or a stabilized 24-70 as soon as they come out ... the 5d3 24-105 doesn't have to be the mark 2. it just has to be kit lens priced.

sigh. if canon had a non-L superzoom like nikon's 28-300 VR, i'd take it

I wasn't aware the 24-205 had IS motor issues. I've heard rumours about that problem with the 17-55 - maybe It's a similar design.

Nor was I. I know three other people who also own 24-105s of similar vintage (2007). None have reported problems of any sort. But that's just anecdotal. It seems from reading this forum that I have been exceptionally lucky with both Canon lenses and bodies - good copies and absolute reliability in every instance. * shrug *

i'm sure it's not of the same frequency as the 17-55 but i'm of the opposite luck. if it can happen, it usually happens to me

so i want to be ahead a bit in getting one so i can use the savings to have it fixed in the future.

hopefully a 5D3/3D is announced with a kit lens so i can get one with the new body.

(i was an ass, i should have gotten one with my 5D2 ... but that's money matters, at the time i didn't think i'd go this deep)

The 24-70 L with a 1Ds III is killer!

jdizzle wrote in post #12654684
The 24-70 L with a 1Ds III is killer!

Yea - I guess one whack around the head with a 1Ds III and a 24-70 would finish anyone off!

paulkaye wrote in post #12655342
Yea - I guess one whack around the head with a 1Ds III and a 24-70 would finish anyone off!

Hehe! It could happen!

24-105 man, can't go wrong.

In fact, this lens was one (small) reason I actually switched to Canon, as I don't think Nikon's 24-120 measures up (still!).

There's nothing so far about a 24-105 II, but there is a rumor about an update to the 28-135 IS, possibly with a slightly modified FL range. That'd be great news in my book, as I think that FF users really need a cheaper option than the 24-105L that isn't a 13-year-old design. Give me an updated 28-135 with variable aperture and significantly better IQ than the current model, and I'd be all over it (well probably not, I like my current zoom).

As for the 24-105...in my opinion, which is probably in the minority, it's not good enough to merit the price. Big distortion and vignetting at the wider FLs (correctible to a degree, sure, but that correction is not lossless), often (not always) messy bokeh, and not-particularly-impressive edge sharpness. It's certainly a good lens, but way overpriced. Honestly, after using both, if I had to choose between dropping ~$200 on a used 28-135 and ~$800 on a used 24-105, I'd take the 28-135 and put the other $600 into one or two primes at FLs where I'll need critical IQ.

Also, since you don't seem averse to a second camera for group shots...you should strongly consider one of the NEX cameras (NEX-3 is $350-$450 used) or even a Sigma DP1s (around $350 used but NOT stabilized). Any of those would be far, far cheaper than a 24-105 and, in fact, take up less room in your bag!

By the way, I did almost the exact same thing that you did...I went from a 40D+Tamron 17-50 combo to a 5D2. Mine was the non-VC though. Once I got the new camera I was obsessed with finding an equivalent for the 17-50 in terms of IQ...tried a Sigma 24-60/2.8, Sigma 24-70/2.8, 28-135 IS, 24-105L, and briefly a Tamron 28-75/2.8 (I would like to one day try that one again as it didn't get a fair shake). None of them could match the overall sharpness of the 17-50 (though several had significantly better bokeh and AF speed/noise). So I basically came to terms with the fact that a big ol' standard zoom was not going to be the way to go on the 5d2, and finally wound up with my Zeiss. I'm finally happy with the IQ...but sacrifices had to be made!

I had the same experience with my full-frame. No solid IQ options compared to the 17-5X on crop until I found my Zeiss.