A new L for my lineup

I have decided to not wait for any revisions that may or may not be coming soon.
After going crazy reading so many reviews trying to decide between the 24-70 and the 24-105 I have come to the conclusion that I "may" be better off with the 70
I will be ordering one at some point time this week if I can just get myself convinced that I "will" be better off with it.
It will be my everyday lens that stays on the camera most of the time.
I have a 5 week old that will be getting most of my attention but at other times I will be walking around town and a little bit on the trails.
I do plan on upgrading to a full frame as soon as the new 5d3 or whatever it may be called is released so im not too worried about the wide end.

Are you buying brand new or refurbished?

http://shop.usa.canon.​com …uct_10051_10051​_282307_-1

Refurbished one still in-stock.

evoch3n wrote in post #12699462
Are you buying brand new or refurbished?

http://shop.usa.canon.​com …uct_10051_10051​_282307_-1

Refurbished one still in-stock.

Then pair it with a 3rd party warranty--those 90-day refurb warranties are too short

Thats a good price but I think I have to go new...

Good choice, it's faster and for a new one will work good.

It's a great lens, I've use it for more than a year and it does get the job done.
If you care about sharpness (used to be pixel-peeper), it is very sharp in the center WO and sharp enough for landscape or cityscape in the corner WO.

I'm not trying to talk you out of the lens because it is a very good one and I looked at both of those lenses as well. The reasons I went with the 24-105 were IS, extra reach, lighter weight, and slightly less expensive. While it's true the 24-70 is one stop faster, the IS on the 24-105 gives you three stops. If you are going for higher SS then that won't matter, but if not then you essentially end up with two more stops on the 24-105 when hand-holding. In it's favor, the 24-70 does a little better job of color rendition, can give a shallower DOF, and nicer background blur.

If you can buy local and test it out, try to find a 24-70 that doesnt blow. All the copies i've gotten to try were much less sharp than the 24-205. But i hear there are good copies abound, wish I could find one.

Both 24-70 and 24-105 are great lens. Had both and kept the 24-105, the only think I miss about the 24-70 is its sexy long hood.

This is truly one of the most difficult that I have faced so far...

24-70 is a brick, but faster. 24-105 is lighter but slower - however, has IS which makes up for that in a way.

Really it depends on if you're shooting in low light a lot, IMO. the extra reach can usually be had by moving your feet I would think.

I pulled the trigger on the 70. I just hope I dont regret not getting the IS...
I am now looking to part with my 50 1.8II

The 70 is Great. You'll love it on ff.

Silverstonev8 wrote in post #12703996
I pulled the trigger on the 70. I just hope I dont regret not getting the IS...
I am now looking to part with my 50 1.8II

I went through the same dilemma you did ... and likewise pulled the trigger on the 24-70 f/2.8L ...

When I first started taking some shots with my new 24-70, many of them were blurry, and I started to get upset. I was used to the "modern IS" of my (former) EF-S 15-85mm. Then, I remembered reading a tip from an old-school photographer on the lens, and he basically said ... Go back to basics, take your time, and (if possible) use a tripod. So I decided to slow down, I used good deliberate technique, and took my time with my shots. Ultimately, my 24-70 proved to be as sharp as my macro lenses in many respects ... delivering superb color rendition ... and achieved results that my (sold) 15-85 couldn't achieve. Heck, in many cases I now prefer using the 24-70 over my macro lenses, for photographing larger flowers and such.

Regarding Image Stabiliaztion, I think a lot of times IS "spoils" you ... in the truest sense of the word spoil ... in that it makes you take shortcuts & rush what you're doing, relying on the lens to be your "crutch" for bad technique. To be honest (except for my 100L), I no longer have any IS lenses ... and I am considering selling my 100mmL that does have it ... as the "non-IS" lenses I do have blow away what I can do with my IS lenses.

Maybe you need IS, and I know a lot of folks do need it for action-type photography ... and that's cool ... different needs require different tools. But if you take your time with your shots, you will get superb results with your 24-70.

In the same way, my outdated 180mmL macro and my MP-E 65mm macro may not be able to keep up with my "modern" 100mmL IS out in the field ... as the two outdated macros have neither IS nor super-fast AF ... but when I slow down, take my time, and put the elder lenses on a tripod ... the elder non-IS lenses achieve results that my newer 100mmL can't do

Cheers!

Jack

.

John Koerner wrote in post #12704174
I went through the same dilemma you did ... and likewise pulled the trigger on the 24-70 f/2.8L ...

When I first started taking some shots with my new 24-70, many of them were blurry, and I started to get upset. I was used to the "modern IS" of my (former) EF-S 15-85mm. Then, I remembered reading a tip from an old-school photographer on the lens, and he basically said ... Go back to basics, take your time, and (if possible) use a tripod. So I decided to slow down, I used good deliberate technique, and took my time with my shots. Ultimately, my 24-70 proved to be as sharp as my macro lenses in many respects ... delivering superb color rendition ... and achieved results that my (sold) 15-85 couldn't achieve. Heck, in many cases I now prefer using the 24-70 over my macro lenses, for photographing larger flowers and such.

Regarding Image Stabiliaztion, I think a lot of times IS "spoils" you ... in the truest sense of the word spoil ... in that it makes you take shortcuts & rush what you're doing, relying on the lens to be your "crutch" for bad technique. To be honest (except for my 100L), I no longer have any IS lenses ... and I am considering selling my 100mmL that does have it ... as the "non-IS" lenses I do have blow away what I can do with my IS lenses.

Maybe you need IS, and I know a lot of folks do need it for action-type photography ... and that's cool ... different needs require different tools. But if you take your time with your shots, you will get superb results with your 24-70.

In the same way, my outdated 180mmL macro and my MP-E 65mm macro may not be able to keep up with my "modern" 100mmL IS out in the field ... as the two outdated macros have neither IS nor super-fast AF ... but when I slow down, take my time, and put the elder lenses on a tripod ... the elder non-IS lenses achieve results that my newer 100mmL can't do

Cheers!

Jack

.

I think I am more likely to take my time and get the perfect shot. I am doing this as a hobby right now so going at things in a slower more deliberate way rather than a rush to shoot way is fine with me... I do have the tools to stabilize if I need them so Im covered in that respect.
Thanks for making me feel more at ease with my decision.