# 24-105mm f/4 L IS on a crop camera



## !Xabbu (Apr 22, 2012)

I finally upgraded from my trustworthy 450D to a 60D. Now my wife suggested that she would use my 450D going forward. I guess we will have quite a few situations where we both will want a general purpose lens on our camera.

I still have the 450D 18-55mm kit lens, but don't really want to give that to my wife (IQ is just too bad). So, I was thinking about getting a second general purpose lens (I currently use Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 non-IS). 

It seems like the 24-105mm f/4 L IS would be a significant step up from my Tamron in IQ. Does anyone use it on a crop sensor camera as walk around lens and can tell me what their experience with it is? Did anyone own both the Tamron 17-50mm and the 24-105mm and can confirm that the difference in IQ is worth the "high" price of the 24-105mm?
I was going out today with my Tamron and was only shooting 24mm and longer and wasn't feeling like this restricted me a lot. I would still have my Tokina 11-16mm for super-wide angle shots and the 70-200mm to complement on the long end.


----------



## FlowerPhotog (Apr 22, 2012)

I just upgraded from a t2i to a 5D Mark III with the 24-105 Kit Lens. On my t2i I have been using the EF-S 15-85, as my main walk around lens. I've been very happy with it, it has good IQ and very good 4 stop IS. It's also a solidly built lens, a vast improvement over the 18-55 kit than comes with the Rebels. Since getting the 5D Mark III I've been doing a bunch of lens comparison tests, including putting the 24-105 on the t2i and comparing the same scenes with both it and the 15-85 set to the same focal length and aperture (tripod mount, self timer etc). I don't see much if any differences. At the longer focal lengths, if anything the 15-85 is a smidgen sharper at the edges. At the widest focal lengths the 24-105 might edge out the 15-85 on the margins, but overall it's a wash. If you don't have any plans to upgrade to a FF in the future, might consider the 15-85 over the Tamron, as it will give you a wider focal length range in one lens. I think the list price of the 15-85 is about $350 to $400 less than the 24-105.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2012)

For similar cost, I'd recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS over the 24-105L for general use on a crop body, mostly for the faster aperture. If you are shooting mostly outdoors in good light, consider the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - both that and the 17-55mm deliver optical quality equivalent to the 24-105L (actually, very slightly better) and give you a wide angle of view on APS-C. 

Side note - I wouldn't buy a new 24-105mm separately at retail, they cost over $300 less as a kit lens. You can get them new as 'white box' versions.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Apr 22, 2012)

I was using the 25-105 on my 60D for almost a year and it was a great walkabout lens…walkabout meaning you don't need wide lenses for landscapes etc..I too had a Tokina 11-16 for that which i use all the time if i needed to take landscapes.
The 24-105 was purely a walkabout lens for me.
In the event you go FF in the future, you will know that the 24-105 will also work great on it..
In fact, the 24-105 actually "transforms" into a different lens for me when i switched to the 5D3…it because an even better walkabout lens with a wide capability…although losing out on the tele range, it will depend on how often you need a tele range.
So for me, the 24-105 works well on both my 60 and 5D and i still constantly use it on both my cameras… the moment the 24-105 is NOT on my 5D, it will be on my 60D...


----------



## RC (Apr 22, 2012)

I think the 24-105 in conjunction with your 11-16 (or a 10-22) is a very good combination for a crop body. I'm assuming your wife will have the 17-50 on the 450D leaving you with the 60D. Adding a 24-105 seems like your best option base on your comments--and that is probably exactly what I would do.

Although it is not my most used lens, I do have a 24-105 for my 7D. Never shot with a 17-50 (or 17-55), but I did have a 15-85. My walk around combination is 16-35 and 24-105. 

The 24-105 has excellent IQ, nice balance and handling, and seems to be one of the best value L lens. Maybe rent one for a day and if you and your wife end up fighting over the 17-50, pick up a 17-55 or 15-85.


----------



## elflord (Apr 22, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> It seems like the 24-105mm f/4 L IS would be a significant step up from my Tamron in IQ. Does anyone use it on a crop sensor camera as walk around lens and can tell me what their experience with it is? Did anyone own both the Tamron 17-50mm and the 24-105mm and can confirm that the difference in IQ is worth the "high" price of the 24-105mm?


The photozone reviews appear to disconfirm it -- 

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/188-canon-ef-24-105mm-f4-usm-l-is-lab-test-report--review?start=1

The tamron has less much less distortion at 24mm, consistently stellar performance at f/4, and an extra stop. The only reason to get the 24-105 would be for the extra telephoto reach and/or weather sealing (but the latter is not of much use unless the bodies are also weather sealed)

For a wider zoom range, I'd recommend the 15-85 over the 24-105 because the extra range at the wide end is very useful for this kind of lens.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 22, 2012)

I use the 24-105 on my 7D.

I am not into wa for a walkabout lens but find the extra reach very useful.


----------



## pwp (Apr 23, 2012)

If you never plan to go to FF, then why go past the stellar EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ? 
If you see a FF future, the 24-105 f/4is will not disappoint on any body.

But I'm a believer in getting glass to suit the camera you have now. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a very satisfying lens.

Paul Wright


----------



## D.Sim (Apr 23, 2012)

I use the 24-105 as a main lens on my 50D, and I love it. 
If you wish to go FF in the future, its definitely a great investment. If you're going to stay on the crop body though, like the others have pointed out, there are several made-for-crop lenses that are cheaper.


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 23, 2012)

I use it on a 60D. It is definitely a great lens but I would make sure you have a 50mm f/1.4 first. The 24-105 is great but at f/4 it is a bit slow. The 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens to go with this because it is so small it can basically fit in your pocket and if you are in low light to blur the background more, it works way better than the 24-105. The 50mm at f/2.8 is also sharper than the 24-105 at f/4! I love having the range and the IS of the 24-105, and with the 50mm in my pocket as well, I am ready for every situation.


----------



## cliffwang (Apr 23, 2012)

Do you need 17-24 range? If 17-24mm is important for you, you consider Tamron 17-50mm, Canon 17-55mm, or Canon 15-85mm. I don't have 24-105mm. However, I love my 17-55mm more than my 24-70mm on APS-C.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 25, 2012)

I have a 60D, 24-105, and 50mm f/1.4 in my arsenal at present. I've had the 24-105 since Christmas and I like it... but I haven't fallen in love with it yet. I've taken some incredibly sharp photos with the camera and lens tripod mounted and I've taken some nice shots while walking around with the IS engaged. But I'm not astonished with it yet which is disappointing. Maybe I have a less than perfect copy of it, but I'm not quite willing to admit that is the case. 

Granted, it has been a very gray winter and spring... so I will be taking more photos here in the near future of flowers, and softball, and I am guessing that since my subject will be more interesting, so will my photos.


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 25, 2012)

Thanks for all the good advice. 

I will definitely have a look at the 15-85mm. I just have two concerns about it. I'm seeing myself possibly with a FF camera down the road and then the 15-85mm would be useless. The other thing is that f/5.6 is really slow. Do I still get a nice OOF blur at 85mm?
However, the IS and the very good price are enticing.

The 17-55mm is not an option, because that would really just be the same lens as my Tamron (maybe with slightly better IQ).


----------



## elflord (Apr 29, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> Thanks for all the good advice.
> 
> I will definitely have a look at the 15-85mm. I just have two concerns about it. I'm seeing myself possibly with a FF camera down the road and then the 15-85mm would be useless. The other thing is that f/5.6 is really slow. Do I still get a nice OOF blur at 85mm?



You can test this yourself by setting the focal length and aperture on your 70-200mm. Basically you are correct -- it's a very slow lens, and it will be very difficult to get shallow depth of field, even at the tele end. It does do very well on resale (I sold mine because it was too slow for me), so no big loss if you had to sell it. If you care about shallow dof in your zoom lens, you are better off with the Tamron that you already have.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 29, 2012)

pwp said:


> If you never plan to go to FF, then why go past the stellar EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ?



- for the extra reach to do portraits


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 30, 2012)

The 24-105 is a great lens on a crop body. You will not be disappointed. We use it on the 7D's here all the time.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

I can vouch for the optical quality of the 15-85. I am a pixel peeper and this lens is quite sharp even in the corners if you leave it at 5.6 throughout the range (my copy anyway). 15mm makes a big difference from 18mm. Focusing is quick and build quality is good but not stellar. Lens feels solid, focus ring is small but smooth as L and zoom ring feels good but features annoying gravity zooming between 24 and 60mm if you are shooting almost straight up or down.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 14, 2012)

elflord said:


> The only reason to get the 24-105 would be for the extra telephoto reach and/or weather sealing (but the latter is not of much use unless the bodies are also weather sealed)



Concerning sealing, I sadly have to comment you're mistaken - while the system is not sealed, at least the lens is. The aperture on my 100 non-L non-sealed macro has broken down twice now due to (imho regular) outdoor use, and I've decided only to get sealed lenses in the future even with my 60d. The dust and moisture resistance is just better, and the ef-s lenses afaik are as sealed as my macro lens: not at all. But if you only shoot indoors that's not a problem of course.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 15, 2012)

personally i think the 24-105 f4L + canon 10-22 EF-S lens make a pretty nice combo
not that the 17-55 is bad or anything but the 24-105 is a really nice versitle lens and the 10-22 is pretty good for when you need to go really wide


----------



## RC (May 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> personally i think the 24-105 f4L + canon 10-22 EF-S lens make a pretty nice combo
> not that the 17-55 is bad or anything but the 24-105 is a really nice versitle lens and the 10-22 is pretty good for when you need to go really wide



Dido. I came very close going this route when I sold my 15-85. But because one of the reasons I decided to sell it was for a weather sealing, I went with the 16-35 and 24-105. I'll have to hold off on ultra wide shooting until I get a FF body.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 15, 2012)

RC said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > personally i think the 24-105 f4L + canon 10-22 EF-S lens make a pretty nice combo
> ...


you can always look at the 11-16 f2.8 tokina which is supposed to be pretty good


----------



## Act444 (May 17, 2012)

I use 24-105 as a walkaround on the 60D. Great range, but most importantly, it's constant aperture (I don't like variable aperture general zoom lenses) and it has weather sealing, also unlike the consumer zooms. Not to mention I think it's a better long-term investment as well. I don't think the 15-85 was out yet at the time I got mine, but if I had to choose between the two I would get the 24-105 again because of the above mentioned benefits. I find I use the long end much more frequently than the wide end, anyway- and the only time I find 24mm too long is in crowded indoor spaces. But I have the 17-55 for that.

I guess it depends on one's needs though. Photographers who do more landscape work may prefer the wide 15mm end of the 15-85. I happen to prefer the extra reach I get on the 85-105mm end and it's not often I wish I had something wider while walking about, but that's just my personal style.


----------



## AJ (May 17, 2012)

!Xabbu said:


> I will definitely have a look at the 15-85mm. I just have two concerns about it. I'm seeing myself possibly with a FF camera down the road and then the 15-85mm would be useless. The other thing is that f/5.6 is really slow. Do I still get a nice OOF blur at 85mm?


My suggestion is to choose a format and commit to it. Don't get caught halfway in-between trying to hedge your bets.

You just bought a 60D. So get the 15-85 now. You'll get lots of mileage out of it. You'll get your money's worth. In a few years you can re-evaluate and think about selling. Buying lenses is not like marriage, it's not a forever commitment.

Or else, bring back that 60D to the store and get a 5D with 24-105 kit lens now.

As for shallow dof with a standard zoom on a crop camera: neither the 17-50 nor the 15-85 will produce much selective focus except at close focusing distances (headshots and closer). So that's not really a consideration. If you want selective focus then you need a fast prime (e.g. 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 ). The reason for a f/2.8 zoom on crop is light-gathering capability. f/2.8 zooms are the way to go if you're shooting indoors a lot (with or without flash).


----------



## briansquibb (May 17, 2012)

AJ said:


> You just bought a 60D. So get the 15-85 now. You'll get lots of mileage out of it. You'll get your money's worth. In a few years you can re-evaluate and think about selling. Buying lenses is not like marriage, it's not a forever commitment.



There are good reasons why the OP should get the 24-105, little things like f/4 through the range and weatherproofing and probably better IQ to boot. If the OP wants more reach then that is a good option, if the OP wants very wide then the 15-85 is good.

Personally I would suggest the 10-22 and the 24-105 would make a very good pairing - both used.

Used 24-105 are plentiful and reasonable cheap


----------



## papa-razzi (May 17, 2012)

I have both the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and the EF 24-105 f/4 with a 7D

For indoors, I will put on the 17-55. It is a bit wider, and one stop faster. Most often I can get away without using a flash. Plenty wide enough as well.

For outdoors / walk-around, I use the 24-105. On the wide end I am never constrained (easy enough to take a step back if needed), and the longer reach is preferred for me.

Like Nero I would first recommend the 17-55, however, since you have the tammy in a similar range, I would definitely go with the 24-105L

Although the 15-85 is a very sharp and well made lens, I do not recommend it for a few reasons.
- Inside it is not very fast - unless you don't mind using a flash all the time (I had a friend that sold his after trying my 17-55 at an indoor event)
- outside I would rather have the reach on the long end vs a bit wider, and weather sealing.
- As you mentioned, an EF format lens will carry over to FF if you go that way


----------



## briansquibb (May 17, 2012)

It is all very well have a f/2.8 less or faster - however for head shots not straight on the at least f/4 is needed - so why pay for a faster lens.

Which is why of course the 24-105 is a favourite for wedding photographers


----------



## AJ (May 17, 2012)

Yes 24-105 paired with an ultrawide (10-22) makes a great combo. But in that case the OP is also investing in an EF-S lens, so upgrade thing does not go away.

I suppose it comes down to shooting preference. When I first switched to digital I had a 28-300 mm zoom (and a 20 mm prime). Having only 28 mm at the short end of the zoom drove me nuts. 24 mm is slightly better but it's no comparison to 15 mm.

In all, the 15-85 is the crop version of the 24-105. So if the OP is looking for a one-lens solution with very little compromise in the optics, then 15-85 is a good choice. 10-22 plus 24-105 is a good two lens solution, with wider range and slightly faster at the long end. But 24-105 on its own would not work well for my style of walk-around shooting.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 17, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> It is all very well have a f/2.8 less or faster - however for head shots not straight on the at least f/4 is needed - so why pay for a faster lens.



Answer: the af works at open aperture, and at lower light this could very well make a difference and produce less out of focus shots.

The af advantage is actually the only thing I can think of why I'd want to get a 70-200/2.8 over my 70-300L, the 60d's af has problems in bad light and of course raising iso doesn't help the af. Though I can think of very few shots where the dof of f2.8 would be adequate at tele range for the actual shot.


----------



## briansquibb (May 17, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > It is all very well have a f/2.8 less or faster - however for head shots not straight on the at least f/4 is needed - so why pay for a faster lens.
> ...



If the light is so low that the AF is being affected I would think the 60D would be struggling anyway


----------



## preppyak (May 17, 2012)

AJ said:


> So if the OP is looking for a one-lens solution with very little compromise in the optics, then 15-85 is a good choice.


Yeah, this would work if you want to give your wife one lens and let her use it without borrowing any of your gear. Otherwise, the compromises it makes (EF-S, stop less light at tele end, etc) probably aren't worth it.

While you probably won't be upgrading to full-frame anytime soon, with your current gear, you don't need a lens that goes ultra-wide, the Tokina covers that. I'd say 24-105 makes a lot of sense, since it complements your gear set well and sets you up perfectly if you do ever go full frame. And, it allows you two different walk-around lenses, rather than having multiple lenses with the exact same focal range (17-50ish).


----------



## dukeofprunes (May 17, 2012)

Used to have 10-22 and 24-105 on 50d but found myself switching back and forth between these lenses too often! It might sound good to cover the whole 10-105mm focal length range without too much overlap, but it didnt work for me. A key reason for me upgrading to FF was that the 24-105, which I love, would become much more useful (24mm was not wide enough for me on crop sensor).

I recommend the 24-105 if you're planning to upgrade to FF and can live with less wide angle on your crop camera for a while. You could also consider adding the 17-40 which is reasonably priced and takes care of the wide end on crop and it could later serve as an ultra wide on FF.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 17, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> If the light is so low that the AF is being affected I would think the 60D would be struggling anyway



No, this isn't the case - when using iso800 or maybe iso1600 with a lens with IS, the 60d works pretty well even in lower light with reasonable iso noise. It's just that focussing @f5.6 isn't very reliable in these conditions.

When using single-point af, I'm used to shoot 2-3 pictures and then dump the out of focus ones. It's better with multi-point af, but sadly there are too few af points spread too far apart. This is where the 7d should shine, but alas, it doesn't run magic lantern :-(


----------



## briansquibb (May 17, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > If the light is so low that the AF is being affected I would think the 60D would be struggling anyway
> ...



I was suggesting the 24-105 which is F/4 which I believe are as good as f/2.8 on the centre point?

I wouldn't suggest the 15-85 for a variety of reasons


----------



## Marsu42 (May 17, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I was suggesting the 24-105 which is F/4 which I believe are as good as f/2.8 on the centre point? I wouldn't suggest the 15-85 for a variety of reasons



I don't really know how large the difference between f4 and f2.8 is concerning af performance on the 60d, but I can say f4 is good on my 70-300L in non-optimal light. But if regularly shooting something you cannot take multiple shots of, I guess getting f2.8 like on the Tamron 24-70 for safety isn't a bad idea - for tele lenses, it's just that the 70-200/2.8 was too zoom-short, expensive, physically-large and heavy for me. And a good af like on the 5d3 should do better anyway.

Concerning 15-85 or 24-105, it's really a matter of "do you need the wide angle" or get another ef-s ultrawide, and if sealing is important for the environment the lens will be used in. And last not least, let's not forget the 15-85 is way cheaper than the L and should give comparable performance in most situations.


----------



## briansquibb (May 17, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> And last not least, let's not forget the 15-85 is way cheaper than the L and should give comparable performance in most situations.



Which is why I suggested buying used 24-105, there are plenty around


----------



## michi (May 18, 2012)

I use the 15-85 with my 7D and the 24-105 with my 5DII. Both work excellent for walk around purposes. Never even thought of using the 24-105 on the 7D. I do like my wide angle though. I would recommend the 15-85 for a crop camera.


----------



## madmailman (May 18, 2012)

I sold my 24-105 after getting the 17-55 f/2.8. I found it was just not wide enough on my 7D. The difference on the long end is not so noticeable as I also have a 70-200 in my bag, and the gap in focal length between the two lenses I have not had a problem with at all.


----------



## briansquibb (May 18, 2012)

madmailman said:


> I sold my 24-105 after getting the 17-55 f/2.8. I found it was just not wide enough on my 7D. The difference on the long end is not so noticeable as I also have a 70-200 in my bag, and the gap in focal length between the two lenses I have not had a problem with at all.



I find the 24-105 covers the portrait lengths on a crop whereas the 17-55 is too short and the 70-200 is too long (and visible for street work)


----------



## tomscott (May 18, 2012)

I see no reason to own the 24-70 or 24-105 on a crop body with the 17-55mm around. It is as sharp slightly lacking range but is fast and has IS. Only thing it misses is weather sealing, had mine in all sorts of conditions, soaked dry etc only thing is it does suffer a little with dust but chuck a UV filter on the front should reduce this.

Reason for my opinion is I did the same thing wanted to go FF in the future so got a 24-105mm and it was great on the long end but constantly switching lenses for the wide what do you combine it with? The equivalent focal length is 38.4-168mm, combining it with a 10-22 there is a huge gap. Buy a 17-40mm in between equivalent of 27.2-64mm Dont get me wrong the 24-70 and 24-105 are incredible lenses but the dedicated EF-s lenses are more suitable. so 3 lenses for a standard focal range... then you need a tele because 168 is ok but not that far so a 70-200mm equivalent of 110-320.

I decided to sell the 24-105mm got a 17-55mm had the 10-22 so that filled the standard zoom range. Also had the 70-200mm so there was a gap on the other end between the 55-110 but depends what you shoot I dont shoot portraits really apart from the odd wedding so filled that with a 50mm which is 80mm equivalent and I tend to shoot on the wider side.

Also the 17-55mm are high in demand, buying one and selling it you shouldn't loose too much money. Most are selling second hand in the UK for between £500-£650 depending on condition.

If your moving to FF then sell it and change up to the 24-105 or 24-70mm. I think that the only FF lenses worth having for a crop body are the teles 70-200 and everything above, the 100mm L or non L macro, TS because there is no crop equivalent For wide and standard the crop sector has it covered, the 17-55mm and the 10-22mm are a fantastic combination. The standard and even the wide full frame lenses are not wide and offer a strange focal length meaning you have to learn to shoot in an unfamiliar way.

My kit fills most of my need for crop, the obvious drawback is to sell the lenses which is an inconvenience not a deal breaker.

10-22mm
17-55mm
50mm = 80mm
100mm L macro
70-200mm

Suits my style but would be nice to have a medium tele in the range at events but they dont make a fixed aperture just the 15-85mm try to stay clear of vari aperture lenses.

If they made a 15-85mm 2.8 I would be all over it but they wont, im guessing because it would sacrifice all the other lens offerings although im sure the price would make your eyes water. Plus not many pros shoot crop for everything more for the tele end and reduced cost of lenses so less need I suppose.

Best case have a 7D for length 5D MKIII for everything else. 8)


----------



## dukeofprunes (May 18, 2012)

tomscott said:


> ...
> 
> Reason for my opinion is I did the same thing wanted to go FF in the future so got a 24-105mm and it was great on the long end but constantly switching lenses for the wide what do you combine it with? The equivalent focal length is 38.4-168mm, combining it with a 10-22 there is a huge gap. Buy a 17-40mm in between equivalent of 27.2-64mm
> 
> ...



The 1.6 crop factor also needs to be taken into account with EF-S lenses, e.g:

10-22mm corresponds to 16-35mm FF FOV
17-55mm corresponds to 27-88mm FF FOV

In other words, there is a negligible 2mm gap between the 10-22 and 24-105, and a small 15mm gap between 17-55 and 70-200 on crop cameras.


----------



## SteenerMe (May 18, 2012)

Ive used the 24-105 on my 7D for a couple years and lkve it as an all around lens...Def use a true wide for landscapes but thats not really a walkaround situation. Now on my 5D3 the lens is perfect. Well close, a 2.8f version would be killer, but then the 24-70 wouldnt be needed. Ultimately get it. Its a pro lens. You wont regret it.


----------



## Wiki Tango (May 18, 2012)

I used to have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 nonIS on my 40D and 'upgraded' to a 24-105L and have no regrets at all.

My lineup on the 7D is 12-24 Tokina, 24-105L as a walkaround, and a 70-300 as a Tele, I have the 24-105 for universal use, on a very rare occcasion as a portrait lens at ~105mm (nice OOF) but for dedicated portraits it does not beat the primes at 50mm or 85mm.

For the price the Tamron is a great deal, maybe you keep it for your wife's 450D,
the 24-105 may be useful on a future FF body, too.

Examples?
Tamron
http://www.ipernity.com/explore/keyword/842090
24-105L
http://www.ipernity.com/explore/keyword/294182


----------



## Invertalon (May 18, 2012)

I *loved* the 24-105 with my 7D... Was my main walk-around lens. Paired with a 10-22 or 12-24, there is NO problem with the 24mm widest FL. IQ was excellent from end to end, very happy with that combo.

On FF the lens gains a little more use on the wide end, but I do miss the reach of 105 with the 7D.


----------



## AmbientLight (May 18, 2012)

For a while I used the 17-40 and 24-105 on two crop bodies (7D and 50D) as my regular setup. Since purchasing the 14mm and 50mm L primes I have used both primes a lot, especially the 14mm. Since then I rarely use the 17-40, but the 24-105 I use quite often. Having some nice lens for wide angle complements the 24-105 quite nicely and indeed I am using it often at 105 as well, without feeling the need to switch to my 70-200 all too often.


----------



## briansquibb (May 18, 2012)

I am taking the 7D with 24-105 to shoot car racing tomorrow - perfect lens for it (have trackside dugout to use)


----------



## !Xabbu (May 19, 2012)

Wow, thanks for all the feedback. That's what I love this forum for - one get's lots of different opinions and can make an educated decision based on them.

As to 24mm not being wide enough - I used my Tamron for a day without going below 24mm and didn't feel like I missed the 17mm too much. If I want to go really wide, I'll put on the Tokina, which is a great lens.

As to buying used - it's not so easy here in Switzerland. Of course it's possible, but it's not like in the US where one just goes to Craigslist and finds what he needs.


----------



## briansquibb (May 19, 2012)

As promised, 24-105 on the 7D - panning, but still good IQ

Camera Model: Canon EOS 7D
Image Date: 2012-05-19 10:35:22 +0100
Focal Length: 105.0mm
Aperture: f/9.0
Exposure Time: 0.0050 s (1/200)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: +0.33 EV


----------

