RV Loc: Chicago

My only suggestion would be to check out Cameta's return policy and if there is a restocking fee. Also that is is a USA model. Adorama, B&H, KEH, are also great resources and have a great track record.

Nicholas DeSciose

Canon: 24mm-70

scootersurfs Loc: Buckeye, Az

If you're interested, I have an almost new Canon 6dmk2 with battery grip, two batteries, charger, memory card, strap, box and receipt from B&H. 3500 shutter count approx. Mint; Paid $1300; selling for $1200. Fantastic camera. PM me if interested? Steve

(Download)

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

The 5D's and this lens is a great combo. Very versatile. You won't be disappointed.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I'd recommend Canon's 24-105 L zoom; great lens!

bwa

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Yes, you mentioned your Tokina but you didn't specify which "Canon L glass" you were referring to. That term covers several of the lenses that were being recommended to the OP. The OP quite possibly, as did I and probably others, think you were referring to the entire group.

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

I've used my neighbours 6D mkII with the 24-105 lens, seems like a good option - but from what I've seen the 'L' version is a serious step up and worth considering if the spondoolies will go that far.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

When I upgrade my full frame camera, I'll be getting the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM lenses to use with it.

Along with the 100-400mm IS USM II and 1.4X teleconverter I've already got, that will make a good kit for hiking.

One reason is that I figure I won't normally need to carry a macro lens, because of the unusually high magnification possible with the 24-70mm f/4 lens (0.70X... nearly 3X the magnification possible with the 24-105 or other 24-70mm lenses). The 100-400mm II is pretty good at close-ups, too (with up to 0.31X magnification). I always have some extension tubes with me anyway, if I need to push either lens to a little higher magnification.

Other reasons for my choices include that all three lenses use the same 77mm size filter. Plus the 16-35mm f/4 and 24-70mm f/4 are about 3/4 lb. lighter than the 16-35mm f/2.8 II and 24-105/4 II or 24-70/2.8 II. It's also nice that the 16-35/4 and 24-70/4 both also have IS.

ggab Loc: ?

I not only mentioned Tokina, I mentioned Tokina 24-70mm. "however consider the Tokina 24-70mm f/2.8".
I am sorry if you inferred that I was discussing the entire Canon L lens catalog.
I will endeavor to be more specific in the future.

fantom Loc: Colorado

As usual, good comments but i disagree about the focal length of the lens for the mountains. I frequently take pix in the Rockies and cannot cart a lot of lenses around with me, especially when hiking, rafting, on horse back etc. I use a full frame 28-300mm lens and rarely don't use both focal length extremes in the same day.

There are countless wildlife opportunities that you will want a long lens for, in addition to many other situations that you will want as much magnification as you can get. You also will be using wide angle frequently so I would not even think about a trip into the mountains without these lengths.

A person could happily shoot wild flowers all day long with a single lens or capture distant abandoned mines with a single lens but not both. Decide in advance what you will probably be shooting and select the lens accordingly----but it will probably something similar to what I use. The good news is that there are unlimited photo opportunities there, so have fun regardless of your lens.

My lens is a Tamron and I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the pictures.