I need replacement for my 24-105

My most used lens, the 24-105, had a hard encounter with my tiled floor and is now a paperweight.

I am debating the following:

Buy a new one (alternatively the Sigma 24-105 which is about 200 $ cheaper than the Canon in my country)

Buy a 24-70 (probably the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD)
and a Canon 70-200 F/4 IS and sell my Sigma 100-300 which I don't use much because of the weight.

I really like IS on my zoom lenses and I don't like carrying around a lot of weight.

And by the way, my 6D is the camera I use almost exclusivly.

Yes Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.
I started with 24-105, 24-70 I, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.

I sold the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC as I bought a Sigma 35 1.4 Art, but i'm going to re-buy it so that I have the 24-70/70-200 flexible zoomkit back, just in case
It was very sharp, the backward zoomring was a bit awkward but best price/quality, almost as sharp as the 24-70 2.8L II at half the price.

I've never actually touched a 24-105. Please keep that in mind. You already own a 35 2, 50 1.4 and 100 2.8L. The 24-70 VC costs you a lot of money and offers what, exactly? All I see is a slower aperture and an empty wallet.

celter wrote in post #17073140
My most used lens, the 24-105, had a hard encounter with my tiled floor and is now a paperweight.

I am debating the following:

Buy a new one (alternatively the Sigma 24-105 which is about 200 $ cheaper than the Canon in my country)

Buy a 24-70 (probably the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD)
and a Canon 70-200 F/4 IS and sell my Sigma 100-300 which I don't use much because of the weight.

I really like IS on my zoom lenses and I don't like carrying around a lot of weight.

And by the way, my 6D is the camera I use almost exclusivly.

The Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS meets the two above requirements better than the 24-105L, Tamorn 24-70 f/2.8 VC or Sigma 24-105 (which is heavier than the Canon version).

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17073270
I've never actually touched a 24-105. Please keep that in mind. You already own a 35 2, 50 1.4 and 100 2.8L. The 24-70 VC costs you a lot of money and offers what, exactly? All I see is a slower aperture and an empty wallet.

Good point, however I don't have anything between 35mm and 100 mm, except the 50 1.4. You think that's OK? 35-100 is after all the most useful focal lenght.

Only you know if that's OK. I see 35, 50, 100. For me that would cover 35-100 just fine. The 24-whatever zooms give you 24, and convenience. Are you a prime photog, or a zoom? You don't have to be pidgin-holed into one or the other. The best advice is too fill whatever you think you're lacking.

after the initial shock, every lens breakage becomes a new opportunity

I use a 35 f/2 IS and a 100 f/2 on full frame. I have a Tamron 28-75, but it is getting used much less as I acclimate to shooting primes. Most times when the Tamron is mounted, I am at 28 and it isn't wide enough, or I am at 75 and could have taken a step or two back and used the 100. I do have a 17-40 for wider stuff, and 70-200 2.8 for appropriate occasions.

why not a canon 24-70/4 and keep it in the family! any way thats what i would do.

blanex1@netzero.com wrote in post #17075835
why not a canon 24-70/4 and keep it in the family! any way thats what i would do.

I don't see any reason to buy a Canon lens just because it's Canon. I already have lenses from Sigma and Zeiss, so my "family" is kind of mixed anyway.

I feel that I need a normal zoom lens. When on vacation I don't want to drag around a lot of primes. I usually bring 2 lenses and I think that the 16-35 and 24-105 would fit the bill when I'm travelling.

Currently I'm leaning towards the Sigma 24-105. It's a bit heavier than the Canon but well balanced on my 6D. I would probably miss the extra reach if I went for a 24-70.

If in the end you're looking mainly for a travelling lens with a longer reach, the Sigma 24-105 seems to be the one currently, or a second hand Canon.

I agree, you would miss the extra reach of the 105mm vs the 70mm, especially for travel if you are trying to keep things light. Also, you said that it is your most used lens, so I would recommend that you stay with the same focal length. Sigma or Canon, is a toss-up; personally, I would go with the tried and true Canon.

Heya,

If you're mainly worried about travel, I wouldn't even take a 6D and big zoom. I'd take a smaller, compact camera so that I can walk around and not worry about it, and not get attention, and just enjoy the trip.

When not traveling, do you really need the focal length options between 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm? I look at zooms like that. And I find myself mostly at one end or the other on a zoom lens, and rarely in the middle. But then again, I often use a zoom like it's a fixed focal length anyways because I just use fixed focal length primarily. Is F4 really ok for what you're doing? Is 105mm really that different for what you do from 70mm, compared to having F2.8 instead of F4?

I'd get the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and a Canon EF 70-200 F4L IS. And a separate travel camera that is smaller, compact, etc. EOS-M for example.

Very best,

Ultimately I wouldn't go for less than 105 on the long end since that's what you're used to. If you went shorter, I agree with the above, you'll miss it.