Advice Please: 24-85 f3.5-4.5 or 28-105 f3.5-4.5 for 5D MkII

I have just bought a 5D MkII and have a 17-40 f4L and a 70-200 f4L IS to use on it (along with a 85 f1.8).

Two questions:

1) Will I find the "gap" between 40mm and 70mm troublesome enough to buy a "gap filler" or will my feet be enough to wipe out the gap?

2) Assuming I do need a gap filler, I would like to eventually pick up a 24-105 f4L, but for now, that is not financially feasible. Bearing this in mind, which of these two would you recommend:
A) 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM
B) 28-105 f3.5-f4.5 USM

I would probably only use the lens in and around the 40-70mm gap. Both are available used for about $170 in EX/EX+ condition from KEH with hoods an additional $10 or so. I have filters to fit the 24-85 and 28-105, so that factor does not come into play. I have a 17-55 f2.8 IS to use on my 50D, so neither would ever be miounted on it.

I have checkecd all the standard review sites ... not much to choose between them. Perhaps the consensus is the 24-85 has an edge at 50mm, while the 28-105 seems to be built better.

Thanks for sharing your experience and expertise!

Maxdave

use what you got and see for yourself if you have issues.

ive had a 35L to 85L with nothing in between and its been fine for me. filling the gap is only for convenience. you can fill that 40-70 gap yourself by taking a few steps closer. i know in some circumstances you cant do that... but thats is something youll have to figure out for yourself

How about the Tamron 28-75?

The Tamron is about $200 more in the same used condition at KEH, and since using it on the 5D MkII is a temporary situation (I will get a 24-105 f/4L IS in the future), I would prefer to spend as little as possible ... in addition, the test results I found with a full frame body, zoomed to 50mm, showed much worse IQ than the two Canon lens on the borders and corners, even stopped down to f/4 (the Canon lens were compared to it while they were wide open at f/4)

Thanks for your input, but I think I will stick with the Canons ....

Dave

Personally I'd save your money. I've got a mark 2 28-105 3.5-4.5 and whilst it's not a bad lens, it's soft wide open and not in the same league as your other glass.

Having said which, I guess if you got one just to bridge the gap pending a 24-105 [or ?24-70] purchase, you could probably move it on and not lose any money on it.

dont get a cheapo zoom for the gap, get a 50mm 1.4 prime. Much better solution imo.

Thanks to all readers who gave me their thoughts on the matter.

Because of three factors mainly (Change in perspective between the 40-70 focal lengths and my existing lenses, the belief that I can resell the gap filler quite easlily and the belief that I plan to get a 24-105 next year), I decided to go ahead and get the 24-85 as the gap filler.

When it arrives, I will shoot some comparison images using it, my 17-40 and 70-200 to see how much I loose with the "cheapo zoom" ...

Maxdave

I'd be interested to know what you think of it when you get it. I have a 5DII with a 24-105L (and a 17-40L), but I'm thinking of getting a small cheap mid-zoom purely for ease of carrying. I want something more convenient, for getting reasonable results when I'm traveling around - on the grounds that I'll get better photos with a more portable lens I have with me than with a top-quality L zoom that's left at home.

(And I have to say I was surprised when I came to Canon to find they don't do top-quality short zooms - I'd jump at, say, a small 35-70L)

Dave, I'm assuming you have already made a decision and purchased but in case you haven't, I have a very similar lineup right now on the short end (17-40/85/70-200) and think that a gap filler is completely unnecessary. The ONLY advantage I see is convenience in not having to swap glass. If that's really important, stop reading this now. If not so important, I'd run with what you have. I did a trip to Disney last year with the kids and let my son have my 17-40 for his 20D and I only had the 85 with me and I was surprised to find that I really didn't need anything else. Sure, there were a few shots here and there when I had to "borrow" my 17-40 back but not often. Certainly, there was no need for anything in between. I'd save your money and either add the 50 1.4 (as suggested) later or sell the 85 and buy the 24-105 later.

Maxdave wrote in post #10534801
1) Will I find the "gap" between 40mm and 70mm troublesome enough to buy a "gap filler" or will my feet be enough to wipe out the gap?

This is up to you. Personally, I don't have a problem with a gap in this focal range because the "normal" focal range is simply not very interesting to me. I prefer to shoot wide or telephoto and skip the 40-70mm range altogether. I currently have nothing between 40mm and 135mm and have no issues with versatility. Again, this depends on what you shoot.

Maxdave wrote in post #10534801
2) Assuming I do need a gap filler, I would like to eventually pick up a 24-105 f4L, but for now, that is not financially feasible. Bearing this in mind, which of these two would you recommend:
A) 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM
B) 28-105 f3.5-f4.5 USM

Having owned both of these and shot them on "full frame" (35mm film), I preferred the range of the 24-85. 24 vs 28 made a much bigger difference in versatility for me than the difference between 85 and 105 on the long end. I've since sold both lenses.

I had both on 1.6x bods and felt that the 24-85 has more barrel distortion than I liked...the 28-105 had less and kept that instead...also, on the 1.6x bods 24mm wasn't wide enough in any case...so I keep the 18-55IS kit for that.

Still...I'd be interested in OP's experience with the 24-85 on the FF bod...