Replacement for my 24-105 f/4L IS

I recently fell and my all-round lens on my 5DIII took the brunt of the fall and completely split the lens from the mount (mount remained attached to the camera body). Thankfully it was only the lens that was broken...not even a sore spot on my body (or a scratch on the camera body). The lens was insured and I expect a check from the insurance company for replacement cost.

Now I need to decide on a suitable replacement:
24-105 f/4L IS II - least expensive option with the best reach (and an improvement over my broken lens) including IS
24-70 f/2.8L II - fastest lens, but most expensive and lacks IS
24-70 f/2.8 Sigma (don't recall the specific name), includes IS and much less cost than the Canon 2.8L option

The salesman was really pushing the Sigma and indicated that Sigma has come a long way in the last year or two to come close if not matching Canon quality for a far less price. Somehow i have a hard time getting over the stigma of nothing other than Canon lenses for me.

Side note to others...the value of adding the rider to my homeowners policy is well worth the cost. I had a previous repair covered by insurance as well and I've saved more than the cost of insuring my products. It's a much less costly option than buying brand product warranty protection.

Your thoughts are welcome. FWIW I primarily shoot sports, landscape and family pictures. My other lens is a Canon 100-400 L II...love that lens.

The 24-70 2.8L II would be the best compliment to your 100-400. It is relatively expensive and doesn't have IS, but it has great color and contrast rendition. Sigma and Tamron make nice sharp lenses, but when I've compared them, I've found a difference in color that makes me still prefer Canon (and being native Canon, has a faster AF).

Just go look at talleys post with the sigma 24-70

I dont care what the salesman said. he doesnt know what he is talking about

Sigma is not there yet with the short zooms

If I wanted another 24-105 Then I would get the version 2

If I had a current 24-105 V1 and it could not be repaired I would opt to buy another one or I would buy the 24-70L F/2.8

I would not upgrade from a version 1 to a version 2 just for performance. They are too close in performance. But, If I broke one and I did not need F/2.8, Then I would probably buy the version 2 with the insurance $$

I would not under any circumstances Buy the sigma. Too many I know have sent back after testing and stepped up to the 24-70L. IS is not all that important with this focal length for a short zoom. The 24-70L F/2.8 has excellent optics and color rendering. I would buy another in a heartbeat if i had to.

I would buy a 24-105L V1 used.

Cheaper and a great, very versatile lens. And there are plenty of them out there.

Thanks you for the well stated replies. Within the last few hours and contemplating the options, I was leaning towards the Canon 24-70 2.8 before reading any of your responses. I didn't realize that version 2 of the 24-105 wasn't that much of an upgrade (which makes sense given the minimal 10% cost difference). Your opinions helped me greatly and verified that the Canon 2.8 is the best and worth the cost differential. Although expensive, I was fearful of bypassing this opportunity and settling for 2nd best. Getting full cost out of my old lens and paying an additional $600 makes it a worthwhile investment...and an early Christmas present to me. Can't wait to try it out at my granddaughter's basketball games.

umphotography wrote in post #18516883
If I had a current 24-105 V1 and it could not be repaired I would opt to buy another one . . .

Yeah, that is what I would do if my 24-105 got irreparably damaged.

As you say, the version 2 isn't much better at all, yet it is so damn expensive. . A really nice used version 1 can be had for, like, $350 or even less. . Kinda seems foolish to even think about buying a new copy of either the v1 or the v2 when you can get a perfect used v1 for so little money.

The 70-105mm part of the range is so important that I cannot imagine replacing a 24-105 with a 24-70. . They are just completely different lenses with completely different uses. . A zoom is all about the range, and a 3x zoom simply cannot replace a 4x zoom. . I mean, if the 24-70 is enough range for the OP, then why did he ever get a 24-105 in the first place?


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18517173
Yeah, that is what I would do if my 24-105 got irreparably damaged.

As you say, the version 2 isn't much better at all, yet it is so damn expensive. . A really nice used version 1 can be had for, like, $350 or even less. . Kinda seems foolish to even think about buying a new copy of either the v1 or the v2 when you can get a perfect used v1 for so little money.

The 70-105mm part of the range is so important that I cannot imagine replacing a 24-105 with a 24-70. . They are just completely different lenses with completely different uses. . A zoom is all about the range, and a 3x zoom simply cannot replace a 4x zoom. . I mean, if the 24-70 is enough range for the OP, then why did he ever get a 24-105 in the first place?

.

I hear lots of complaints about the 24-105 v1... lack of sharpness, color contrast, etc., etc. Maybe I don't expect much from it and that's why I'm happy with mine. The Lightroom profile seems to correct things pretty well. I only use it for casual photographs. If I'm taking serious landscape photographs, I use the 16-35 f/4 IS.

For its intended use, I think it's more than fine. I'm not a wedding photographer so perhaps that's why the 24-70 f/2.8 L ll isn't on my bucket list. Or...... you don't know what you're missing until you try one. Who knows?

After reading reviews, when I needed a 24-105 this past summer, I realized that a brand new v.I in a white box cost only $600, while a v.II would set me back for practically twice as much and not that much improvement.

Like the above, 70mm at the long end is not nearly enough for me. The 24-105 is my ideal travel lens, and I usually carry only one lens and one camera for travel. A 24-70 of any variety is too short, and on top of that the f/2.8 version is too heavy.

As other posters have said the 24-105 lenses offer the best versatility. All I would say is just try out a Canon 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2.

I did and bought one almost immediately! Pity they are so expensive

The 24-105L v1 was my first L lens. In anticipation of the v2, I sold my v1 and regretted selling it after the not so great reviews of the v2. I have the 24-70 II and decided that getting the 24-105 II didn't make much sense.

My recommendation is to save a little more and get the 24-70 II. The lack of IS on the 24-70 makes no difference IMHO. I'm not convinced that Sigma has "come a long way" to quote your sales guy. You won't regret getting the 24-70L II.

I own both the 24-105 v.1 and the 24-70 f/2.8 v.2. The 24-105 doesn't see much action these days. The 24-70 is that good.
I'm an event photog and need the low-light performance, and the 24-70 delivers. It's nice and sharp throughout its range, even wide open, and its rendition of color seems better to me, also. The price gave me pause, but I got mine from Canon refurbished so saved a little, and it's flawless.
I do still like the 24-105 for walking around (it's lighter) in daylight and when I think the extra reach will be handy.

When I micro adjusted my 24-105 v1 and 24-70 f/2.8L II, I was surprised at how little difference there was between them.

From the many posts I have seen the 24-105 v1 does not get much love. I think it may be due to a drastic copy to copy variation.

I hope mine lasts me a long time, as it is a great travel/one lens only set up.

A 24-70mm lens does not do 71-105mm.

The 24-105 f/4L IS does not get much love because it is a 'kit lens'. That's the entire long and short of it. It doesn't mean that there is anything at all actually wrong with the lens. It's a good general purpose lens that will deliver good general purpose images.

But a really good photographer will be able to work miracles with it.

Have you considered the 24-70 f4. It has good reviews.