Ready to buy but want to say "Wow!"

So I was just about ready to buy a 24-105L to replace my 18-135 for my 60d but the more I read, the more I get the impression that the 24-105L is just ok. If I'm going to move to a L lens, I want it to be SHARP! I also intend to move to full-frame one day so I'd like to buy with that in mind. Or am I nuts to be buying lenses for a future full-frame when I don't know how far in the future that is?

My intention was to start with the 24-105 and then see how I liked the f4 to decide between the 70-200 f4 is and the 70-200 f2.8 is ver 1. But if the 24-105 won't knock my socks off, so to speak, maybe I should just get the 70-200...leaning toward f4 because of reviews/etc. There was a time that I wanted the 2.8 for indoor sports, but the kids have outgrown that stage. So now I just want reach and to be able to take nice portraits.

As you can tell, I am all over the place on what to get. Gah! I just want a higher quality, faster focusing, versatile, sharper lens. I'm no pro and make no claims to be.

Thoughts on how to narrow down my search criteria or what I should be focusing on? Thanks.

Hmm, 2 completely different lenses. Maybe you first need to decide just what range you want, closer or telephoto. Both are good. No, the 24-105 is not a “world beater” but it is still an excellent lens for what it is. It is sharp, versatile and gives OK bokeh. The IS is also handy. It focuses pretty quickly, but not as fast as the 70-200 F4 IS. That lens is so quick it’ll tear your socks off. It is also deadly accurate and gives great IQ. Personally, I would not be without either, but for straight IQ the 70-200 F4 IS wins the day and is great for kids playing.

The 24-105 isn't the sharpest L out there, but I've got to believe it will be sharper than the 18-135. In either case, if you are looking for both sharpness and the ability to put more "wow" in your shots then I would recommend looking into the 70-200/2.8's, 135/2, 100L, or even 85/1.8.

L.J.G. wrote in post #16003452
Hmm, 2 completely different lenses. Maybe you first need to decide just what range you want, closer or telephoto. Both are good. No, the 24-105 is not a “world beater” but it is still an excellent lens for what it is. It is sharp, versatile and gives OK bokeh. The IS is also handy. It focuses pretty quickly, but not as fast as the 70-200 F4 IS. That lens is so quick it’ll tear your socks off. It is also deadly accurate and gives great IQ. Personally, I would not be without either, but for straight IQ the 70-200 F4 IS wins the day and is great for kids playing.

Yeah, I know two different lenses. :/ I figured I would end up with a good range between the two. I eventually want to get rid of both my 18-135 and my OLD Tamron 75-300. Maybe I can start with the 70-200 and ponder my options for the other end of my range for a bit longer.

timbop wrote in post #16003453
The 24-105 isn't the sharpest L out there, but I've got to believe it will be sharper than the 18-135. In either case, if you are looking for both sharpness and the ability to put more "wow" in your shots then I would recommend looking into the 70-200/2.8's, 135/2, 100L, or even 85/1.8.

When I compare the 24-105 to the 18-135 on this site: http://www.dxomark.com …and3)/Canon/(ca​mera3)/272 on a 50d (they don't have 60d as an option) There isn't much of a difference to, in my mind, to justify the expense. I have considered the 85/1.8 before. Do you have thoughts on the 70-200/2.8 IS ver 1. I read that the 70-200/4 IS is sharper. I can't justify the ver 2 of the 2.8 because this is just a hobby at this point.

I was looking at options in this range also and I landed on the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. I love it for the Image stabilization, good zoom range, and constant 2.8 aperture through the whole range.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

Comparison of 70-200 f4 IS to f2.8 IS MkI

They are similar at f4. f2.8 is soft...

reed052 wrote in post #16003510
I was looking at options in this range also and I landed on the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. I love it for the Image stabilization, good zoom range, and constant 2.8 aperture through the whole range.

Thanks for the input. I will check it out.

MakisM1 wrote in post #16003527
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

Comparison of 70-200 f4 IS to f2.8 IS MkI

They are similar at f4. f2.8 is soft...

Thanks. I have used that tool so much that I forgot about the results. I'm kinda of the mindset that if the 2.8 is soft, I might as well go with the f4. At least until I read another post with a strong opinion...:P

NewCreation wrote in post #16003498
Yeah, I know two different lenses. :/ I figured I would end up with a good range between the two. I eventually want to get rid of both my 18-135 and my OLD Tamron 75-300. Maybe I can start with the 70-200 and ponder my options for the other end of my range for a bit longer.

When I compare the 24-105 to the 18-135 on this site: http://www.dxomark.com …and3)/Canon/(ca​mera3)/272 on a 50d (they don't have 60d as an option) There isn't much of a difference to, in my mind, to justify the expense. I have considered the 85/1.8 before. Do you have thoughts on the 70-200/2.8 IS ver 1. I read that the 70-200/4 IS is sharper. I can't justify the ver 2 of the 2.8 because this is just a hobby at this point.

Looks like a pretty huge difference to me:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Lots of CA on the kit lens and it's far less sharp. Those are both on the 60D, f/4, 24mm.

^^I looked at that, too. It does show an improvement. I was ready to buy it then I read several threads that the theme ended up that the lens was just "meh" for an L lens. I think I could be on info overload but I have purchased items in the past for my hobby that were a waste. It's not so bad for $50-$100 purchase but when we're talking L lenses, I want to be more sure.

There's more to an L lens than sharpness - that's just one attribute. Constant maximum aperture, build quality, weather sealing, improved colour and contrast, faster autofocus, improved chromatic aberration... the list of "small improvements" over the 18-135 is extensive.

Even L lenses have to obey the laws of physics. The 24-105 might not be the sharpest L lens, but it's a fantastic lens.

Good points. And good things for me to consider.

NewCreation wrote in post #16003581
^^I looked at that, too. It does show an improvement. I was ready to buy it then I read several threads that the theme ended up that the lens was just "meh" for an L lens. I think I could be on info overload but I have purchased items in the past for my hobby that were a waste. It's not so bad for $50-$100 purchase but when we're talking L lenses, I want to be more sure.

It's a good lens. Is it awesome? No.

If you want a wow/pop factor, then you will want something like 135L, 24-70 Mk II, 70-200 Mk II, 85L, 50L - something like that. The 135L is the cheapest of the bunch. It can be had around the price of a 24-105L.

I have the 18-135, 24-105L, and the 70-200 F4L IS. I use these on a T3i and a 6D interchangeably and the two L lenses get 90% of my total use. The 18-135 has served me well as a general walkaround on the T3i, but it hardly ever gets used since getting the 24-105. If I already had the 18-135, which I did, I would get the 70-200 first, which I also did. I have no complaints with the 18-135 other than some creep. The 70-200 F4 is a fantastic lens and I wish I had bought it sooner. I got the 24-105 with my 6D because the 18-135 will not fit the full frame.

I don't look at the charts and testing very much, just what I see from photographs I take myself. Get the 70-200 first and live with the 18-135 until it can be replaced. Just my opinion.

Does the 24-105 offer any significant reasons to upgrade over the 15-85 lens that I already have?

NewCreation wrote in post #16003581
^^I looked at that, too. It does show an improvement. I was ready to buy it then I read several threads that the theme ended up that the lens was just "meh" for an L lens. I think I could be on info overload but I have purchased items in the past for my hobby that were a waste. It's not so bad for $50-$100 purchase but when we're talking L lenses, I want to be more sure.

The level of sharpness to be expected should be comparable to your 50/1.8 if you have a sharp copy of that. You mention reach and portraits, what about the 135/2 L. It has the attributes you say you want, and is an awesome bang for buck lens.