First L purchase... Am torn

Think I'll have the funds to pick up a lens in a couple weeks and am trying to figure out what to go for. (currently have a T3i and use the 18-55 kit lens) I have been wanting the 24-70 but the price seems a bit high. I've also started looking at the 24-105 as the price is very reasonable. I'm trying to figure out the reasoning behind either going with or not going with either lens.

24-105
Lighter
More reach
IS
$800 or less (tons of these available because of 5D kit purchases)

24-70
f2.8


Most 24-70s (used) I have been looking at are all in the $1,300 range. I'm having trouble deciding if that stop is worth the $500 premium. I don't have a flash yet and am really thinking that the $500 saved on a 24-105 could be spent on a 430EX and still have 2-300 left over.

I already have an 85 1.8 and plan on getting a 50 1.4 eventually. (after a 70-200) So having those primes (and a flash or two) available, is there really any reason to pay extra for the 24-70?

I have the 24-105L and can highly recommend it. Unless you want the f2.8 lens for professional use, I can't see spending the extra money and getting the extra weight with the f2.8. I'd get the longer zoom and a shorter fast prime for your T2i. I tend to use the 35f2 indoors at night, but the 24-105L works fine indoors when lighting is good.
With the T3i, it is going to feel like the tail wagging the dog. The 24-70 is a very heavy lens, and heavier than I'd like. But this is just a personal view - others may share it. I'd try one out before going for the brick.
You can pick up the 24-105L and a fast, short prime for less than the cost of the 24-70L. I got a white box version from Adorama that ran me $829. You can't always get this good a price, but if you wait and look around, you can get a better deal on the 24-105L.

Personally I'd rather go 24-70 - for me (my shooting and opinion). But If I had what you have, I would not go for the 24-70. I would go the 24-105 and a flash. The 24-105 is a great lens, and I think a flash is more important than an f/2.8 (my opinion).

Subscribing on this thread, I also have this question right now. Hope we don't see the '17-55 and 15-85 coz it's crop' guys. To show some opinion, I personally like the 24-70 you will never know when you will need that extra stop. Cheers.

I was at this cross road once, and ended up buying the 24-105 because my main purpose and objective for were: a light weight, walk around/hiking/sight seeing/travel light lens.

The 24-105 fits this bill perfectly with its bigger zoom range, IS, and much lighter than the 24-70.

On your T3i, I think it will feel very unbalanced if you got the 24-70 compared to the 24-105.

Biggest advantage of DSLR compare to P&S is in accurate and fast AF with lenses supporting large apertures. DSLR pictures taken at large apertures makes main difference from P&S.
24-70 has large aperture. 24-105 has convenience, even more compare to P&S.
It is up to you what to choose.

I know you dont want to here from us 'guys'. But the 24-xmm will be to narrow at the wide end imo for a walkabout lens, its the equivalent of 40-168mm.

The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a much better focal range for a walkabout lens 27-88mm equivalent, constant 1 stop faster aperture, smaller and cheaper. I would go for that over a 24-105mm 4.0L unless you dont wanna use it as a walkabout lens.

^ that's what I'm afraid of. Guys, please limit to the TS specified lenses. I think, he will highlight "other
Lenses" if he want's to. But stating 2 specific lenses means he want us to pin point which of the two. Hope I don't create a fuss here. Just stating what's been thought in school if you where given answers to choose from a to d. Don't give me an e.

dannybres wrote in post #14794777
I know you dont want to here from us 'guys'. But the 24-xmm will be to narrow at the wide end imo for a walkabout lens, its the equivalent of 40-168mm.

The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a much better focal range for a walkabout lens 27-88mm equivalent, constant 1 stop faster aperture, smaller and cheaper. I would go for that over a 24-105mm 4.0L unless you dont wanna use it as a walkabout lens.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I already have an 18-55 and honestly rarely use it at 18. Most of the time is is zoomed at least a little and more often around 35 and 55mm. I don't think the 10mm difference in appearance is going to be that big a deal as I normally have the capability to take one step back. Also, and I didn't include this in my original thread, but i do eventually want to go FF and I would rather not buy something now and need to sell it off.

mikeinctown wrote in post #14794808
I understand what you are trying to say, but I already have an 18-55 and honestly rarely use it at 18. Most of the time is is zoomed at least a little and more often around 35 and 55mm. I don't think the 10mm difference in appearance is going to be that big a deal as I normally have the capability to take one step back. Also, and I didn't include this in my original thread, but i do eventually want to go FF and I would rather not buy something now and need to sell it off.

That's what I'm talking about. I too have the same dilemma and in the same shoes right now.

It's going to depend a bit on what you shot mostly. If its always low light then maybe the 24-70, but with such decent high ISO noise on the t3i and even better when you go full frame running a slower lens may not be an issue. If your shot lighting varies I'd say save the money and go for the 24-105 and the flash. Unless your keen on only natural light shots the external flash will open up more avenues. Also your bigger cameras dont have a pop-up flash AFAIK

Unless you "KNOW" that you need the f/2.8 go with the 24-105L; you never stated what your primary intended use was.

Reitrating my food for thought, you will never know when you will need that extra stop. From freezing motion to having that natural light perspective.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #14794877
Unless you "KNOW" that you need the f/2.8 go with the 24-105L; you never stated what your primary intended use was.

I pretty much take pictures of my kids and my GF and her kid. Family functions and really anything else that catches my eye as I walk around. I'm still learning the manual functions and getting tons of practice. Pretty much everything I have done is outside or inside where it is well lit. I rarely even use my flash, so I'm guessing that if I had one and if it was poorly lit inside, that I could easily create enough light with the purchased flash. I do want to start doing portrait type shots, and this is why I picked up the 85 1.8 and plan on getting the 50 down the road. (maybe a 35 instead of the 50, who knows. The 70-200 I plan on getting will be the 2.8 v2 with IS)

mikeinctown wrote in post #14794939
I pretty much take pictures of my kids and my GF and her kid. Family functions and really anything else that catches my eye as I walk around. I'm still learning the manual functions and getting tons of practice. Pretty much everything I have done is outside or inside where it is well lit. I rarely even use my flash, so I'm guessing that if I had one and if it was poorly lit inside, that I could easily create enough light with the purchased flash. I do want to start doing portrait type shots, and this is why I picked up the 85 1.8 and plan on getting the 50 down the road. (maybe a 35 instead of the 50, who knows. The 70-200 I plan on getting will be the 2.8 v2 with IS)

I still stand by my thought above, but!

How about a new scenario. Since you are not sure with these two, keep your current lens. IMO first get the flash! Then save and get the 70-200MKII, since you know you want that lens. Update the normal range zoom after the tele-zoom. That gives you a LOT more time to decide.