Another help me pick a lens yay...35L or 24-105L

[squarebox]

If you are going to be moving up to FF in the next year or so, then I would get the 16-35L.  It's a great zoom range on a crop and will be your landscape lens when you move to FF.  The only thing i would do is just wait till the end of this month to see if the 14-24 get announced.

[bdunbar79]

He asks the question, should I get the 35L (which I LOVE!) or the 24-105L?  Remember, he loves the 35L on his camera, which is APS-C.  Did anyone catch that point?

So, even though we're asking an A or B question, nobody chooses A or B.

NNNNNKay, that aside, why not answer his question.  For your camera, I'd get the 24-105L instead of the 35L.  See, that was easy.

For a guy who is just beginning to build his lens kit up, no way I'd buy a 16-35L over the 24-105L.  Too much money and too specific.  You always go general first, then specific.

[ScottyP]

If you are staying with APS-C for the foreseeable future keep in mind that the 24-105 becomes a 38-168mm zoom when you multiply by X1.6. The 24-105 is a great lens, but you'll appreciate its qualities more on a FF body.

If you have enjoyed your friend's 16-35, then really consider the equally brilliant EF-S 10-22 or the EF-S 17-55. These will re-sell easily if you move to FF eventually. Like other posters, I'd advise against the L35 simply because of it's limitations on an APS-C body.

PW

Yes to the 17-55 used.  If you buy it used, you are basically using it for free until you sell it later for the same price (assuming you don't damage it).  17mm is pretty wide, and the range is useful, and the IQ is great.  Wonderful lens.

Also, even if you go full-frame, you might keep a crop body too, just for the free 1.6x telephoto boost it gives you for sports or birds, or whatever. 

If/when you go full-frame, buying back the lost 1.6x telephoto length with (good) long glass is insanely expensive. 
If for example you have a 70-200 f/2.8, your crop body is giving you 320mm's AND it still at f/2.8.  No teleconverter will do that.  You lose 1 stop with the 1.4x TC (f/4) and you lose 2 stops (and significant IQ) with the 2x TC.
To get the latest 300mm lens at f/2.8 with a full-frame camera will cost you over $7,000.00, just to get back to (almost) the length you had before at f/2.8.  Ouch.

[Random Orbits]

He asks the question, should I get the 35L (which I LOVE!) or the 24-105L?  Remember, he loves the 35L on his camera, which is APS-C.  Did anyone catch that point?

So, even though we're asking an A or B question, nobody chooses A or B.

NNNNNKay, that aside, why not answer his question.  For your camera, I'd get the 24-105L instead of the 35L.  See, that was easy.

For a guy who is just beginning to build his lens kit up, no way I'd buy a 16-35L over the 24-105L.  Too much money and too specific.  You always go general first, then specific.

Hmmm... if you read his second post, he's also considering moving FF.  Why get the 24-105 outside of the kit?  That's usually a poorer value proposition.  The reason why you see so many recommendations is because you can't cover what he wants to do with one lens:  landscape, portraits and indoor events.  For indoor events, 24-105 may be too slow; for landscape 24-105 may be too long on a crop.  The 35L would be a great solution for low light, but he also already has the nifty fifty, so neither of his choices would get him very far for all three goals.

[robbymack]

Of the two options noted by the OP I'd say the 24-105 is the better option for your current set up. Although I would also strongly urge you to consider the 17-55 2.8, or 15-85 instead of either option. Both cover the wide to short tele range nicely on aps c and hold their value well. I wouldn't be too concerned about FF compatibility as I suspect with upgraded glass you'll find a new appreciation for your current body and will be able to hold off making that purchase for a little longer.

[bdunbar79]

He asks the question, should I get the 35L (which I LOVE!) or the 24-105L?  Remember, he loves the 35L on his camera, which is APS-C.  Did anyone catch that point?

So, even though we're asking an A or B question, nobody chooses A or B.

NNNNNKay, that aside, why not answer his question.  For your camera, I'd get the 24-105L instead of the 35L.  See, that was easy.

For a guy who is just beginning to build his lens kit up, no way I'd buy a 16-35L over the 24-105L.  Too much money and too specific.  You always go general first, then specific.

Hmmm... if you read his second post, he's also considering moving FF.  Why get the 24-105 outside of the kit?  That's usually a poorer value proposition.  The reason why you see so many recommendations is because you can't cover what he wants to do with one lens:  landscape, portraits and indoor events.  For indoor events, 24-105 may be too slow; for landscape 24-105 may be too long on a crop.  The 35L would be a great solution for low light, but he also already has the nifty fifty, so neither of his choices would get him very far for all three goals.

24-105L indoors is not too slow.  I've been shooting weddings and indoor events for a long time now with the 24-105L.  If you shoot wider than f/4, you have DOF issues.  Serious ones.  If he's shooting a ton of indoor stuff, then he will need a flash anyways.  The 24-105L is the most economical and best zoom lens for a beginner on a FF body.  Hands down.  If I were him I'd wait until I bought the FF camera and buy it with the kit lens.  Maybe he'll never actually end up going FF.  Then in that case of course get another lens, but we cannot all just start guessing these things and we have to hold the OP's comments and questions to face value.  Anybody who lists all the things he did regarding what he wants to shoot really has no idea what he wants to shoot.  He just wants a camera and some lenses.  My suggestion is go FF with the 24-105L kit lens, if FF is the direction he wants to go.  That's all.  Stay on APS-C, get the 17-55 no doubt.

[ambush]

Really good feedback, I've really grown to like the build quality and weatherproofing that comes with the L lenses.  I think I need to reconsider and take a serious look at the 17-55/2.8...much appreciated feedback from all!