Canon 24-105: Trying to decide whether to keep my 24-105 or sell it. It's a great walk around lens and I was using it a lot until I got my 24-70. Now I haven't used my 105 for several...

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

Trying to decide whether to keep my 24-105 or sell it. It's a great walk around lens and I was using it a lot until I got my 24-70. Now I haven't used my 105 for several months.

I want to get a 100-300 because I don't have a long lens for, well, long shots. Right now my 105 is a boat anchor. I guess it's a good back up.

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

gemlenz wrote:

Trying to decide whether to keep my 24-105 or sell it. It's a great walk around lens and I was using it a lot until I got my 24-70. Now I haven't used my 105 for several months.

I want to get a 100-300 because I don't have a long lens for, well, long shots. Right now my 105 is a boat anchor. I guess it's a good back up.

Canon? I keep my 24-105 f/4L IS USM on my 5D MK III as my walkaround lens. For the right price, I'd like to pick up a copy for my sister who shoots with a 50D. I also own Canons newest 70-300mm L series glass, which turns out to be one of my favorites for shooting RevolutionaryWar Reenactments.

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

Yeah, I meant the 70-300, not 100-300. I have a 70-200 2.8 so not sure 100mm is worth the extra cash. DO you have any experience with the 300mm L? That looks like it may be a better choice for telephoto shooting.

Bob Yankle wrote:

Canon? I keep my 24-105 f/4L IS USM on my 5D MK III as my walkaround lens. For the right price, I'd like to pick up a copy for my sister who shoots with a 50D. I also own Canons newest 70-300mm L series glass, which turns out to be one of my favorites for shooting RevolutionaryWar Reenactments.

Haydon

I own the 70-300L and my only complaint is the variable aperture. Otherwise it's sharp throughout the range, very compact (perfect travel zoom) and built like a tank. Still a little heavy but not like a 70-200 2.8 which can be testing. I'd hightly recommend this lens and the 24-105L is a redundancy when you have a 24-70.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

gemlenz wrote:

Trying to decide whether to keep my 24-105 or sell it. It's a great walk around lens and I was using it a lot until I got my 24-70. Now I haven't used my 105 for several months.

I want to get a 100-300 because I don't have a long lens for, well, long shots. Right now my 105 is a boat anchor. I guess it's a good back up.

Gem, get rid of it. If you have no need for it, and it doesn't fit into how/what you shoot, why just wait for it to depreciate?
Sell it and reinvest in something you can use.
People talk about their "lens collections". You collect stamps, not lenses. A lens collection will eventually be worth nothing!! :lol:
SS

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

Do you have any experience with the 300mm L f/4?It's the same rim size (77mm) so I can use the same filters I use for my 24-70 and 70-200.

Haydon wrote:

I own the 70-300L and my only complaint is the variable aperture. Otherwise it's sharp throughout the range, very compact (perfect travel zoom) and built like a tank. Still a little heavy but not like a 70-200 2.8 which can be testing. I'd hightly recommend this lens and the 24-105L is a redundancy when you have a 24-70.

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

The only complaint I have with the 70-300L is it really doesn't take TC's well. The 300 f4 is very adaptable with TC's. Yes filter size is 77mm.

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

good advice. Just trying to decide my next lens choice close to that price range.

SharpShooter wrote:

Gem, get rid of it. If you have no need for it, and it doesn't fit into how/what you shoot, why just wait for it to depreciate?
Sell it and reinvest in something you can use.
People talk about their "lens collections". You collect stamps, not lenses. A lens collection will eventually be worth nothing!! :lol:
SS

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

interesting. Do you use Canon 2x TC, or Kenko?

ptcanon3ti wrote:

The only complaint I have with the 70-300L is it really doesn't take TC's well. The 300 f4 is very adaptable with TC's

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

I have the 70-300, so I don't use a TC. But I know guys who use the Kenko with great results.

amehta Loc: Boston

gemlenz wrote:

Trying to decide whether to keep my 24-105 or sell it. It's a great walk around lens and I was using it a lot until I got my 24-70. Now I haven't used my 105 for several months.

I want to get a 100-300 because I don't have a long lens for, well, long shots. Right now my 105 is a boat anchor. I guess it's a good back up.

I would never use lenses with "good" image quality like the 24-105mm and 70-300mm when I have lenses with "great" IQ like the 24-70mm (f/2.8?) and 70-200mm f/2.8. Of course, 300mm is longer than 200mm, but is it going to make a significant difference in your photography? Or won't you really want 400mm? If that's not in your current budget, I think a Canon 1.4x TC is the best way to get to 300mm for now.

Haydon

gemlenz wrote:

Do you have any experience with the 300mm L f/4?It's the same rim size (77mm) so I can use the same filters I use for my 24-70 and 70-200.

Many people on this forum swear by the 300F4 and I would suspect it to be slightly sharper than the 70-300L.

It also handles a teleconverter well but I would advice using a 1.4x instead of a 2x because of the significant image quality loss.

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

my 24-70 is F/4 The 300 f/4 prime is lighter than the 70-200 and with a T/C on my 7D should give me good range. What brand T/C do you recommend?

amehta wrote:

I would never use lenses with "good" image quality like the 24-105mm and 70-300mm when I have lenses with "great" IQ like the 24-70mm (f/2.8?) and 70-200mm f/2.8. Of course, 300mm is longer than 200mm, but is it going to make a significant difference in your photography? Or won't you really want 400mm? If that's not in your current budget, I think a Canon 1.4x TC is the best way to get to 300mm for now.

Haydon

amehta wrote:

I would never use lenses with "good" image quality like the 24-105mm and 70-300mm when I have lenses with "great" IQ like the 24-70mm (f/2.8?) and 70-200mm f/2.8. Of course, 300mm is longer than 200mm, but is it going to make a significant difference in your photography? Or won't you really want 400mm? If that's not in your current budget, I think a Canon 1.4x TC is the best way to get to 300mm for now.

You're under estimating the 70-300L and I own the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L. It has excellent IQ and will keep you packing lighter. When I travel I leave the 70-200 2.8L and the 1.4x teleconverter at home.

gemlenz wrote:

my 24-70 is F/4 The 300 f/4 prime is lighter than the 70-200 and with a T/C on my 7D should give me good range. What brand T/C do you recommend?

I can't speak for 3rd party because I haven't owned them. I'm very satified with the V3 from Canon.

amehta Loc: Boston

gemlenz wrote:

my 24-70 is F/4 The 300 f/4 prime is lighter than the 70-200 and with a T/C on my 7D should give me good range. What brand T/C do you recommend?

With two Canon lenses (70-200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4), I would stick with the Canon 1.4x TC.

If weight is a factor when shooting, I strongly recommend a monopod. If I'm using a lens with a tripod foot, I almost always use a monopod.