which to keep; 24-70 or 24-105?

I now have a 5d3 and the iso help it gives makes the 105 my usual walk around, leave on camera setup. I don't really shoot with the 70 unless I know I wont need the extra reach or the 2.8...which is not that often.

So, I was wanting to try out some primes...again. If the 24-70 is gone, may buy another Canon 50 1.4 - don't see that big of a difference between 1.2 and 1.4 to swing the price difference. Never really shot with my 85mm 1.8 before I sold it and may see what I can do with it. Try and dedicate time and patience and use my feet a bit more to see what the magic of primes is about.


Check out gear list in signature and let me have some learned advice....

If you dont do weddings or events, then selling the 24-70 is a good option. If you do, well then its a no brainer to keep it.

pretty much, to make money on photography, I shoot cars, car shows, features, and the like....the other stuff, like events would be not for profit, but just bringing the camera. I may shoot my kids events at their schools, but the last two I shot I used my 70-200 anyways.

the 24-105 is an okay event lens, but that extra stop on the 24-70 is useful for balancing flash and available light when you need it.

man, I am so in need of practice with a flash, it is not funny......whole 'nother discussion.

The Brick is the better lens, hands down, and it had better be for the price they get. The question is; Which best fits your needs?

For me it is the 24-105L because it has more reach and less weight, besides I normally shoot at F/8 or smaller because I prefer increased dof in what I shoot.

Sell the 24-70mm and find a Sigma 24-60mm f2.8. I just got the Sigma a few days ago and it's decent for an older lens. It lacks HSM, so it might be frustrating after being used to the USM on the Canon. The reason I got it was I have/love the 24-105mm on my 5D II. If f4 isn't' fast enough on the 5D II, then flash is probably really needed anyways (I don't mind using ISO 3200 or 6400). But I just got an EOS 3 film body. So far I've been using Fuji Velvia 100F (ISO 100), and don't see buying anything faster than ISO 400 for it. Since I cannot just change the ISO between shots like you do with digital, I figured the Sigma was a low-cost option for an f2.8 zoom where the faster glass will compensate for the fixed ISO of the film.

So if you occasionally do use your 24-70mm but don't want to keep that much money tied up in a lens you don't use all the time, the Sigma is an inexpensive way to keep a fast zoom and free up money for other lenses too.

Yeah...that's the way I'm leaning guys. I figure the one stop I lose, I make up with the 5d3 ISO performance. The extra reach and IS is a plus, too.