All primes... But what zoom?

[Leopard Lupus]

Wow, thank you all for the input!

My two main reason for considering a zoom is: 1. the weight, an 2. A versatile lens I can use for personal work.
The camera body and mounted lens is fine, but having two heavy L primes + 580ex ll in my bag while shooting can be difficult. I like to "zoom with my feet" when it comes to primes, so I tend to find myself in awkward positions where I worry about the safety of my two unmounted lenses.
I am considering the 70-200 L at the moment, paired with my current 35 L.
If(when) the mk ll version of the 24-105 lens comes out, what all is there to improve on? As this isnt an urgent priority purchase, would it be worth the wait for the mk ll and NOT the 70-200?

(I have ordered a 70-200 L and 24-105 L rental as of today. Thank you all!)

[Ryusui]

The 24-105 is still kind of young.  I'm not all that convinced that it will be replaced anytime soon.  If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the 24-105 will still be current for another 2-3 years.  The lens is already pretty good, but I think CA could be improved on and maybe one more stop in IS, but not sure how physically feasible that is.  Sharpness, maybe; but it's plenty sharp as is.  It's possible there might be an update with the next 5D, but I'm not betting on it.

[neuroanatomist]

... the 24-105 is better, especially since the long end delivers pretty decent results as far as background blur goes - more or less a wash compared to f/2.8 at 70mm.

I think statements like this are a bit misleading. Yes, if you're at the same distance to your subject, 105mm f/4 actually gives shallower DoF.  Heck, at the same subject distance, my 100-400 at 400mm and stopped down to f/22 is shallower than the 85L at f/1.2. But it's not the same picture at all. A head/torso shot at 70mm becomes a tight head shot at 105mm, and as soon as you back up to match the framing at 70mm, you've negated the effect of the longer focal length on DoF with the opposing effect of greater subject distance.  So, for the same framing (with the same sensor size), it all comes down to aperture, and f/2.8 is wider than f/4.

Which means if you want shallow DoF, a fast prime will beat a zoom.  Since the OP already has the fast primes, and wants versatility, I think (personally) that the 24-105 is better for that.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I also have numerous primes, but for just walking around, a zoom can be useful.  I use a 24-105mmL like many others.  I also have a 70-200mm f/4L IS and a 100-400mmL.  The 70-200 used to be my most used lens, but now , it seldom gets used as the 100-400L covers most of the range, and is usually at 400mm.

I used to have a wide zoom, 17-40mm L, but I really have not been into wide images, so I bought a uised Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime and a used Canon 15mm FE for much less than I sold my 17-40mm L for.

Many photographers love to take wide vistas, its just me, I'm not one of them.

[katwil]

The often mentioned 24-105 is a good lens, but I’ve been disappointed in its performance at 24mm, especially with barrel distortion.  Regarding your comment about an update to that lens, most of the talk on CR recently has been around an update to the 24-70, not the 24-105.  One lens that I’ve been looking at, but don’t own yet, is the EF 28-300L IS.  I realize that you have a concern about weight, but if you’re going to capture the subjects you normally get with the 135, the 24-105 will require cropping.  As long as you’re test-driving lenses already, why not try that one?

[00Q]

I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have.

I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.

[vuilang]

I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have.

I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.

SHARPER??
at both wide open (2.8 vs 4.0)? or both at F4.0?
dont ridicule the image sharpness between the f4.0 n F2.8.. they cant compare

[Ryusui]

I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have.

I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.

What's nonsense are your blanket statements.

Yes, I recommended the 24-105 because it's what I have.  But I have also used the 24-70 quite extensively before purchasing my 5DII, and I spent a good amount of time trying to decide between the 5DII body + 24-70 and 5DII kit.  I went with the kit because, for my purposes, that difference between 70 and 105 would actually make a difference, despite it not being "too much."  And the IS noticably reduces my camera shake, especially from about 50mm or so out.  I also really enjoy having the IS for video - even if I don't use video that often.
Also, I can't speak for others, but I don't see myself ever owning the 24-70.  It would be a redundant lens in my kit considering everything else I have or will purchase.  Though I wouldn't be surprised to find many others out there who don't buy both lenses just because of Canon's "clever marketing strategy."

People most definitely are likely to recommend what they have.  But usually - not always, but usually - people have what they have for a reason.

[archangelrichard]

You have a lot of advice here but a few caveats:

YES, people are going to recommend / not recommend what they have instead of what is right - they haven't seen everything out there so take that as a grain of salt

NO you haven't fully described what you are using this lens for other than "walk around"

specifically - I would never consider "L" glass to be "walk around" - I have too many ducats tied up in that to be slogging it through the mud, banging it around on rocks, etc.. I would be protecting it to the point it would not be fast to get to; covered when it is rainy or foggy outside; etc.

Now if by "walk around" you mean dry spring / fall grassy fields (no dirt / mud / water / trees / rocks / etc.); that makes a difference in the recommendations

But do realize that many people who post on forums are "fanboys" - jerks who post that their opinions are the highest truths, and attack anyone who tries to look at things objectively.

What you need only you can know, people can give you suggestions to look at but they can not know what you are going to DO with that lens; what you mean by "walk around". For the money you might want to consider the idea of a "walk around" camera like the SX 40 HS - much much lighter, much wider zoom range and you aren't risking your 5D in questionable adventures; this could work out better for you in the long run

[elflord]

I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have.

I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.

Have you used either of them on a full frame ? That is dof/fov equivalent to 15mm-70mm f/2.5 on a crop.

The upper part of the range gives the camera some short tele range. On the crop, the 24mm-70mm has that, but on the full frame, the extra range is useful. It's not critical "reach" in the same sense as a long tele has "reach", but more for the change in perspective. That 70-105mm covers your classic portrait focal length range.  You won't get the same effect but moving closer to the subject with a wider angle.

[elflord]

My two main reason for considering a zoom is: 1. the weight, an 2. A versatile lens I can use for personal work.
The camera body and mounted lens is fine, but having two heavy L primes + 580ex ll in my bag while shooting can be difficult. I like to "zoom with my feet" when it comes to primes, so I tend to find myself in awkward positions where I worry about the safety of my two unmounted lenses.

Just an anecdote that might be interesting -- on a recent trip, I took a 5D Mark II and just the 50mm f/1.4. It was somewhat liberating to only have to worry about one lens. Sometimes it's better to pick one lens and leave your bag at home even if you have primes.

But if you want a lens that can cover a range of shooting scenarios -- wide angle, normal and some short tele capability, the 24mm-105mm seems like a pretty good choice. Constant aperture is a plus too even though it's "only" f/4. The 24-70 is only an all-rounder if it's paired with the 70-200 otherwise it's a wide to normal on ff or a normal to short tele on crop.

[Dave T]

You said your a prime kind of guy. Well be prime and be proud! (smiley face goes here)

Take the 35 or the 50 and walk around with them. Many great photographers have recorded wars, famines, floods and coronations with one of those two lenses. We of the prime world...don't need no stinkin' zoom lenses! (LOL)

Dave

[neuroanatomist]

One lens that I’ve been looking at, but don’t own yet, is the EF 28-300L IS.  I realize that you have a concern about weight, but if you’re going to capture the subjects you normally get with the 135, the 24-105 will require cropping.  As long as you’re test-driving lenses already, why not try that one?

I decided to do just that - try out the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS.  I think it will work well as a walkaround lens on my 5DII.  Not worried about weight - I'm used to carrying a gripped 7D + 100-400mm for hours on a Blackrapid strap, plus, it's lighter than my current 'walkaround' combo of the 24-105 and 70-200 II, and it means no lens changes.  I've got a trip coming up, planning to take the 28-300, 35L, either the 16-35L II or 135L, and a 430EX II. For me, that's packing light.

Personally, I don't believe in renting to try out a lens - I'd rather put that money toward ownership.  Instead, if I'm not certain a lens will meet my need (which is the case here - concerned about my satisfaction with IQ from a superzoom, even though this is arguably the best superzoom available), I buy it used.  I only buy from Craigslist, and won't pay more than 70% of the current new price.  I did that for the 28-300, and that's with the current rebate - tomorrow when the price goes back up, I'll have an extra margin.  This way, I can try the lens for an extended period, and if I decide not to keep it, even if I end up taking a small loss on the sale it would be less than the cost of a 4-day rental (and after having re-sold four of the five used lenses I bought previously, I've actually made a net profit).

[wickidwombat]

here are a couple of shots with the 28-300
i think 1 is with the kenko 1.4 TC attached and the other is without
should still have all the exif data

[melbournite]

I hate to say this, people who suggest the 24-105 are those who got them with the 5DMKII kit. And we all know people would usually promote what they have, hence you hear a lot of praise for this lens. It simply represents the fact that thats what people have.

I had both 24-70 and 24-105. I say that 70-105 isnt too much. You can walk forward a few feet. The 2.8 is much more important than the extra reach. And the extra IS? Thats useless and its canon's marketing strategy to get people to buy both lenses. The REAL PLUS of the 24-105 is that it is a sharp lens. sharper than the 24-70 by a bit. And that should be your main reason to consider the 24-105. Its the sharper image quality vs the f/2.8. Forget the reach and the IS, they are nonsense.

I must admit that I'm one of those that owns the 24-105 who has had it since the 5DI and was always using it as my main walk around lens.  That was until I purchased a 16-35II and the 70-200 2.8II and now hardly use the 24-105 for any purpose. 

Having said that, considering what Leopard has and is asking for, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the 24-105 - it's a great lens.

Having said that too, I am personally waiting for the 24-70II and it could be the perfect lens for Leopard (if he can wait....).

Leopard and I should swap lenses - I would love to try his primes.