Keep the 24-105?

Right now, photography is just my hobby. I mainly shoot my kids and family and friend events. On location portraits are my passion, so I’m hoping to grow more in that area. Anyway, here’s my gear:

6D
Canon 70-300 – only comes out once a year during vacations.
40mm 2.8
50 1.8
Tamron 28-75 – my around the house/kids snapshots/walk around lens
135 2
85 1.8
24-105 4
430ex ii trigger and reflector

I was able fund the 6D by selling my 7D and efs lenses and knowing that I would sell the 24-105 that came with it. After trying out the 24-105, I’m torn as to whether to keep it and make the money back up selling some of my other lenses. At least $500 worth. I’m thinking the 28-75 and 70-300.

Do you think owning the 24-105 is worth giving up the 2.8 versatility of the Tamron AND the reach of the 70-300?

I would keep it, its an L, and its quality will always shine through. Also with IS F4 need not be a problem. Mine was my first L and is now my most used lens.

I'd sell it.

You've got 28-300 covered right now with the other two lenses... it doesn't make sense to me to give up the range and the 2.8 just to keep the red ring.

I sold my 28-75 and kept the 24-105. now years later I sorta regret it, it's a small and lightweight lens. But yes, no reason to keep both, you will have to make a choice

I'm currently pondering a similar question. I've owned and loved a Tamron 28-75 for several years, but keep hitting the limits of its slow focusing, especially for moving shots in the studio; it just doesn't lock on fast enough. So I've bought a 24-105. The new lens certainly eliminates the focusing problem, is wonderful in the studio, and it takes magnificent action pictures. But it isn't f2.8. I can't keep both; I can only afford to keep the 24-105 if I sell the Tamron.

It's not easy. I think, in the end, I'll probably keep the 24-105. Virtually all of what I shoot is moving (kids, animals, sports), so the fast focusing and added range seem to be trumping f2.8 at the moment.

But I understand your hesitation.

The 24-105 is a fantastic walkaround lens on a full frame camera. Its not a specialty lens and is not often the best option for a given job, but if you want to do a day hike it serves a lot of purposes really well. Its also a great studio lens. It just depends on how you are going to use it.

You're either a 2.8 sort of guy or f4 type, and you'll have to figure that out for yourself. I'm a 2.8 sort of guy because I like the separation that 2.8 gives, the 24-105 cant do that. Sure, I'm missing the 71-105, but I've got that covered with another lens and/or I can crop if I have only one lens.

Every time I think about selling my 24-105 I just can't bring myself to do it. It is just such a handy walkaround and travel lens. As a general purpose lens it is very hard to beat.

Charlie wrote in post #15736779
You're either a 2.8 sort of guy or f4 type, and you'll have to figure that out for yourself. I'm a 2.8 sort of guy because I like the separation that 2.8 gives, the 24-105 cant do that. Sure, I'm missing the 71-105, but I've got that covered with another lens and/or I can crop if I have only one lens.

Or you can be an F4 guy and a 1.8 guy. I find that 2.8 is often not enough so I have F4 zooms and fast primes.

For clarifcation; he's saying

28-75 f/2.8+ 70-300
or
24-105L

Me personally; I'd probably keep the 24-105L; and by the time you need the 70-300 again; you will probably have recouped enough to get another.

I recently sold my 600D+EF-S lenses to move to the 6D; and lost the reach of my 55-250 in the process. I have yet to miss it; though I will likely pick up a 70-300 some point over the summer. I will admit i'm a little tempted to pick up an old t2i or similar for a small second body when I do.

Ceece911 wrote in post #15736373
Anyway, here’s my gear:

6D
Canon 70-300 – only comes out once a year during vacations.
Do you think owning the 24-105 is worth giving up the 2.8 versatility of the Tamron AND the reach of the 70-300?

If it helps, I took my 24-105 out today on the type of photo-walk for which I'd normally have used my 70-200, just to see what it was like. I was actually very pleased with the types of shots I could get, and am thinking it will probably make a very nice one-lens solution for our annual vacation at the beach. I could not have got shots like this with my Tamron because of the slow focusing.

Slow focusing, that was the reason why I replaced the Tamron 28-75 with the 24-105L. Well, actually I traded the Tamron 28-75 for the Tamron 70-300 and then bought the 24-105L...now I have to sell the tamron 70-300 and buy the 70-300L for the same reason...

It's definitely the slower AF speed of the Tamron that's making me want to keep the 24-105. Glad to see I'm not the only one who has faced this decision.

Same decision... kept the 24-105...mainly because of the focusing. My f4 is quick, snappy, and sharp.

With the high ISO ability of your 6D, that alone narrows the 1 stop difference between f2.8 and f4 as far as shooting in low-light is concerned. However if your into the bokeh that the f2.8 can render, f4 just won't be the same.

To me, the versatility of the 24-105mm focal length range is the main reason I bought mine. If I'm out and about with the family, I don't expect the family to slow down or stop just so daddy can change a lens for one picture and then maybe switch back.

And the lack of use of my Sigma 70-200mm OS was the big reason I sold that one off. It was a very good lens. But I found I just didn't use it often enough to justify the money I had tied up in it. And on FF, I was finding that 200mm was just not long enough anyways. Now I'm torn in that the Canon 100-400 or Sigma 150-500mm might work better for me, but I still think about how often I might actually be in a situation to really use those focal lengths and whether it's a good investment for me or if I'd just be tying up money again on something I may not use much.

If you literally only use the 70-300mm once per year, maybe you could find a friend to borrow a longer lens from or even consider doing a lens rental of an L telephoto for that once per year (70-300 L or 100-400 L).