how is the 24-105 lens with this vs. the 24-70 lens?
1063281
David, have to explain that I do not own a 24-105L only a 24-70L, but I have seen the results that they produce and both are great, obviously the 24-105 gives you a little more reach. 24-70L with the 5D MKIII has worked really fine it is a great lens in a great body. If you are choosing one I would analyze my other lenses or what you will buy in the near future. Other than that both are excellent lenses. Hope this helps.
1063282
you need to be more specific there are three 24-70 lenses by Cannon and there are also several by tamron and sigma
1958589
I wouldn't buy the 24-105 mm lens. The 70D has a smaller APS-C sensor (compared to full frame) which translates into a 1.6x crop factor of the lens' focal length. Put simple, you will lose the wide angle capability of the lens and instead have the equivalent of a ca. 36-160 mm lens. The 24-105 has certainly better quality, but to fully appreciate it you should buy the EOS 6D body (ca. $1500) or another Canon body with a full frame sensor.
99413
No, the 24-105 will take a 77mm filter. I actually have a tiffen filter on my 24-105, it works fine, but you will get ghosting, or lens flare from time to time, just watch how closely you shoot to any lights and you will be fine.
1150475
I've basketball with a 24-70 before. It's a pretty good lens especially if you're right under the basket. The 50mm and the 70-200 are great lenses, but you can't get whole body shots if you're under the basket. The 2.8 is solid, and you'll get great shots with it. I shot these photos a few years ago with a 24-70 on a Rebel XT overseas (my primary camera broke while I was on the trip).http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtamazing/753022100/http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtamazing/753022072/http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtamazing/753021984/
1625584
The difference is 1mm wider on the wide end and doesn't have as wide of a zoom range (8mm less on the long end). In exchange for a very limited zoom range, you get 1 stop more light to your sensor.I have the 11-16mm and wouldn't trade it for the 12-24 unless I needed more overlap with my other lenses. As it is right now, I have nice coverage from 11-200 with only small gaps (16-17mm and 55-70mm) and a constant f/2.8 or better.
357723
I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it.... » Read More I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. « Show Less
2028038
No. I have had no problems with lens setting at 24mm or 105 mm. My friend who has a canon 24-105 thinks my sigma is much better than his lens.
824635
Yes, definitively! A little narrower angle of view doesn't really make that much difference! I have used this lens for over two years and never think of switching it to 24-70!
1850441
I used 28-135 for more than 8 years and was happy with it. Recently, I purchased 24-105 and I was very surprised. AF is fast, image is clear, IS is working very good. 24-105 is excellent lens and much better than 28-135.
1958585
The 24-105 lens is the lens that is on my camera about 80% of the time. For everyday, walk around use, I think it is a great lens.
824633
I find the 28 to 70 lens to be a really great lens, sharp, easy to use, fast focus but a bit heavy when used for an event such as weddings. I would recommend looking at 24 - 70mm lens by sigma.
532283
The 24mm prime is sharper than the 16-70 but I have enlarged several photographs taken with the 16-70 to 20 inches wide at 300 DPI and sharpness has not been an issue for me with the 16-70. I have both and, if I go out with only one, I choose based on the trade-off between max aperture and focal length flexibility rather than sharpness. I have have had better results with the 24 than the 16-70 but I attribute that result solely to the fact that for me the additional constraint of a prime forces me to be more creative and focused, resulting in better compositions. (The same effect could be achieved by taping the 16-70 at a fixed 24mm with electrical tape!.) I think the 24mm gives slightly richer/more contrasty results but this is a purely subjective evaluation. In summary, I like both and use them for different purposes.
1784423
The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a... » Read More The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. « Show Less
465321
Depends on your current and future needs. I have the 17-40 and am happy with it. I also have a full frame camera and that was why I brought this lens.The 17-40 will act as a 27-64 on the 70D while the 10-22 is a EF-S lens which will not work if you ever want to upgrade to full frame.
1252945
For the 24-105, you shouldn't have problems with vignetting if you've got a single filter (no stacking thereof) and are shooting with with your aperture closed down a bit. Good Luck!
523652
The 24-105 f/4L IS USM lens works great with the 7d, it's the lens I'm currently using as a 'walk around' lens on my own 7d. We also use that lens on my wife's 40D. Sometimes we argue over who gets to use that lens. Good choice!
848894
The 24-70 is generally $300-400 more than the 17-55. There is no IS in the 24-70, and it weighs 2.1 lbs almost a pound more than the 17-55. Construction build is way better w/ the 24-70 and has a wee bit longer zoom. Those are probably the only advantages it has over the 17-55. IQ look almost identical from both lenses. I would go with 17-55 mainly for the IS and lower price.