My 5D and 24-105 IS combo is great...

SimonBl wrote in post #2982442
Thanks calicokat and Tsmith for your comments on the photo's. kcp1377, I have the 24-70 too and love it for its low light results, but I haven't had them both on the 5D long enough to know if I will keep both or sell one

Tareq, I'll bear what you say in mind as I play over the Easter weekend. I am collecting my 70-200 f/4 IS off my 'courier' tomorrow, so I have heaps to do!

Simon....

Enjoy, Man!!!
I am waiting your shots with your combo

DANG, the more pictures i see of people from Austrailia, the more I think they dont have ugly people down there!

Tareq wrote in post #2984621
I am waiting your shots with your combo

I picked up the 70-200 f/4 IS today and lent out my 24-70 and 10-22, so it's the 70-200 and the 24-105 for the Easter weekend!

We'll see what we get.

Simon....

superdiver wrote in post #2985380
DANG, the more pictures i see of people from Austrailia, the more I think they dont have ugly people down there!

Haha! I don't know about that, just as well the lens is pointed in the other direction. I'll shoot more street scenes now that I know that's what people here like.

Simon....

SimonBl wrote in post #2988818
I picked up the 70-200 f/4 IS today and lent out my 24-70 and 10-22, so it's the 70-200 and the 24-105 for the Easter weekend!

We'll see what we get.

Simon....

ok, waiting anyway.

For anyone interested, I went wandering down to the ocean's edge at Mum's over the Easter weekend with my new 5D and 24-105 combo.

Here are some of the results.

The Cape Leeuwin Waterwheel:

I just went to Washington DC this weekend. Took my 24-105 and 70-200 f2.8...I took several hundred shots of which 2 were taken with the 70-200.

The 70-200 was good for something thought....breaking my back.

I thought I would use it so I was carrying it all day...oh the pain!!!

There were times when I thought I wanted to go long, however the urge wasn't enough to get me to switch lenses.

The 24-105 is one awesome walkaround, that's for sure.

It got a little tough inside the National Archives...it was so dark...even with the 5D and the IS on the 24-105 and ISO 1600/3200...I found myself wanting another stop!!!

nicksan wrote in post #3011042
The 70-200 was good for something thought....breaking my back.

I thought I would use it so I was carrying it all day...oh the pain!!!

Although I carried one around in South Africa, that's why I went with the f/4 IS model . Haven't played with it much yet, though.

Simon....

i am just about to buy this wonderfull combo, i already have the 17-40 and was wondering if it is worth selling it. i have herd that the 24-105 is very distorted at 24 but the 17-40 is very good as it is a dedicated wide lens, anythoughts.
sam

sam hofmna wrote in post #3164921
i am just about to buy this wonderfull combo, i already have the 17-40 and was wondering if it is worth selling it. i have herd that the 24-105 is very distorted at 24 but the 17-40 is very good as it is a dedicated wide lens, anythoughts.
sam

buy 5D and don't sell 17-40L, i saw many landscape wide shots taken by 5D+17-40L and they are just stunning fantastic, sometimes i feel if i should replace my 16-35L with 17-40L.

Tareq wrote in post #3164974
buy 5D and don't sell 17-40L, i saw many landscape wide shots taken by 5D+17-40L and they are just stunning fantastic, sometimes i feel if i should replace my 16-35L with 17-40L.

Why? The 16-35 is just as capable as the 17-40. Especially if you're shooting landscapes above f/11 or so. Then f/2.8 doesn't matter at all. Those two lenses are superb, and the 16-35 is a mighty fine lens.

AdamJL wrote in post #3164983
Why? The 16-35 is just as capable as the 17-40. Especially if you're shooting landscapes above f/11 or so. Then f/2.8 doesn't matter at all. Those two lenses are superb, and the 16-35 is a mighty fine lens.

I think that's the point. If he's not shooting at f/2.8, why pay the hefty price for a 16-35L

AdamJL wrote in post #3164983
Why? The 16-35 is just as capable as the 17-40. Especially if you're shooting landscapes above f/11 or so. Then f/2.8 doesn't matter at all. Those two lenses are superb, and the 16-35 is a mighty fine lens.

sure i will never sell 16-35L for 17-40L, just i see many great amazing from 17-40L on 5D so i thought that it is better [I know it is not 100% true, but i know they buy 17-40L as cheaper than16-35L i think]

I love 16-35L and it is amazing.

cdhender wrote in post #3165038
I think that's the point. If he's not shooting at f/2.8, why pay the hefty price for a 16-35L

I owned it so far and finish, hehe.
I love f2.8, not necesary for landscapes, but for something else [Indoors and low lights subjects that need wide lenses], am i wrong?

Tareq wrote in post #3165054
I owned it so far and finish, hehe.
I love f2.8, not necesary for landscapes, but for something else [Indoors and low lights subjects that need wide lenses], am i wrong?

No you're absolutely right. If you're shooting at f/28 then yes, the 16-35 is a must. I was just saying, at such a wide angle, if you're only shooting landscapes, I think the 17-40L is plenty good. You're probably going to be shooting at f/8 or lower anyway.