Charlie wrote in post #17490914
I dont deny the utility of the lens, having a macro and standard zoom all wrapped up into one is super convenient. I own a 24-70f4 zeiss, and I do change lenses often due to the focal length issue, I find that 70 is quite short, and I also have a macro/portrait lens that I love, so I understand the utility of a super versatile lens, however I'de choose the extended range every time over the macro, and I suspect most people would as well. The 24-105 does .23 macro, so it's not bad, that and the extended range, it's a winning combo, really hard to ignore.
if both had equal optics, it would be a really easy decision on which to pick.
I dont deny the utility of the lens, having a macro and standard zoom all wrapped up into one is super convenient. I own a 24-70f4 zeiss, and I do change lenses often due to the focal length issue, I find that 70 is quite short, and I also have a macro/portrait lens that I love, so I understand the utility of a super versatile lens, however I'de choose the extended range every time over the macro, and I suspect most people would as well. The 24-105 does .23 macro, so it's not bad, that and the extended range, it's a winning combo, really hard to ignore.
if both had equal optics, it would be a really easy decision on which to pick.
I find the optics and IS are superior to the 24-105, and there is a pretty big difference with the macro from 0.23 to 0.7. For example, this avoids lens changes during a wedding day for detail or ring shots.
