24-105 on a 1DmkIII

Anyone using this combo? I usually stay away from f4's as I shoot a lot of low light stuff, but I have some really great fast primes to cover that. I typically have been happy with my 24-70's over the 24-105's.....But, with such great High ISO noise controls on this body I'm thinking the extra FL and IS might be a pretty good fit for my 1DmkIII. I'm not too worried about the bokeh (I tend to think the bokeh is a bit better with the 24-70) I have some primes I can use if I want bokeh....I don't use zooms much...but...Just thinking it might make for a great party, picnic, family gathering/ travel lens. Then again, don't want to buy one then just end up selling it.....The last 24-105 I had pretty much matched the IQ of the 24-70's I've owned...
Thoughts?

24-105 on a MK III make a great pair. Kinda does depend on what you shoot and what other lenses you have, of course.

Thanks, yeah, well......you see my gear list there.....so, I have my low light, high aperture covered pretty well, I'm also thinking of getting the 70-200 2.8IS to cover some Telephoto. But for party, picnic, family gathering/ travel type lens I'm thinking it might just fit the bill.
Seems like the usable High ISO's of the 1DmkIII is making the 105 look a little more apealing

Sigma 100-300/4 is a good match ot the 24-105, if you don't mind some weight and no IS.

I'd stay with wide open lenses for my needs and if you need that focal length just changel lenses. I'd go 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8 IS. I've used this combo on my MK III and the IQ blows me away. If you really need the 24-105 for the FL and not wanting to change lenses that often than go for it. I'm sure the 24-105 is a great walk around lens.

24-105 and MIII make a great pair. The IS is very handy and the range is a perfect walk around.

I like the 24-105 on the Mark III as a walk-around, but I'm really starting to like the 17-40 f/4L a lot. I just wish that it had IS.

jdizzle wrote in post #4493828
I'd stay with wide open lenses for my needs and if you need that focal length just changel lenses. I'd go 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8 IS. I've used this combo on my MK III and the IQ blows me away. If you really need the 24-105 for the FL and not wanting to change lenses that often than go for it. I'm sure the 24-105 is a great walk around lens.

Yes, this was my initial thought, (Man, I change lenses so much...don't seem to notice it anymore, so, not a factor)those two have been my two favorite zoom lenses on the 1DmkII, 5D and 30D (well, with the latter the 17-55 was tops) But I couldn't help but look at the f4"s....I could get a 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200/4IS for about the same $.
I suppose I'd just end up wanting the 2.8's....It's just there when you need it....and I like to take advantage of it....
So, thanks for the input everyone, looks like I might just stick with the 2.8's and grab a 16-35 when I can afford it.

Side note: Was just doing some pp on some pics shot with the mkIII and the 50L from this last weekend. It's amazing how much you can crop and still have great IQ....Can't really tell the difference from cropping the mkIII vs. the 5D. Both handle crops very well. Thought I'd notice more of a difference. With all the talk of the mkIII lately.....man, sure am glad I decided to bite.

I've had the 24-105 since before my 1D3 arrived. I was very happy with it on my Rebel XTi (and had the kit lens for an extra 6mm of width if needed). I was very happy with it on my 1D3 when the 1D3 arrived. I rented the 16-35, 70-200, and 100-400 for a trip (also with my girlfriend and her 40D/28-135). The 70-200 was the hardest to let go. Two weeks ago I bought the 70-200 2.8 IS. Now that it's here, f/4 is a challenge, for background blur and for subject blur. I'm seeing the 24-70 move up the list slowly but surely...

pjtemplin wrote in post #4495052
I'm seeing the 24-70 move up the list slowly but surely...

This is the reason I went for the 24-70 2.8 over the 24-105. Even though the 24-70 doesn't have IS, I still went for the extra stop of light.

I use a 24-105L on my MkIII and it's just right for a walkabout lens.

pjtemplin wrote in post #4495052
Now that it's here, f/4 is a challenge, for background blur and for subject blur. I'm seeing the 24-70 move up the list slowly but surely...

The 24-70 isn't going to give you *much* more background blur than the 24-105. Yes the 24-70 is 1 stop faster, but the 24-105 is 35mm longer, which will give you more compression, so depending on the scene its a close match.

I don't have a 1D3, but I prefer the 24-105 over the 24-70 for a walk-around lens. The IS is very useful for when I want more DOF in a scene, and I didn't bring a tripod (or a lot of light). Its a great lens for hiking as well, if thats your thing (its really what made me sell my 24-70 for a 24-105, and haven't regretted it yet).

thatkatmat wrote in post #4491688
Anyone using this combo? I usually stay away from f4's as I shoot a lot of low light stuff, but I have some really great fast primes to cover that. I typically have been happy with my 24-70's over the 24-105's.....But, with such great High ISO noise controls on this body I'm thinking the extra FL and IS might be a pretty good fit for my 1DmkIII. I'm not too worried about the bokeh (I tend to think the bokeh is a bit better with the 24-70) I have some primes I can use if I want bokeh....I don't use zooms much...but...Just thinking it might make for a great party, picnic, family gathering/ travel lens. Then again, don't want to buy one then just end up selling it.....The last 24-105 I had pretty much matched the IQ of the 24-70's I've owned...
Thoughts?

HEH yes it is a good pair, and gives reason to get the 16-35mmL
The IS is also very good on this lens.
Another good reason to get this lens, you can pick them up pretty cheap as a lot get split from a 5D box set, and sold off even retailers sell them cheap, new