24-105 is great for the full frame but may be just a bit too narrow for the crop body. Consider 17-40 as your second lens.
I have been using the 24-105 for 5D and find it is sufficient for walk about. Occassionally, I missed some shots as the lens is not wide enough. Finally I got the 17-40 to complete my travel collection.
Look carefully at the comparisons in Evoryware's post. 24 is just not wide enough in Europe - I don't even think the 17 is wide enough, but you'll get a lot more shots than with 24.
I suggest you look at a Sigma 10-20 to go with a 24-xxx lens. You will be surprised at the difference between 10 and 12 mm, never mind the difference between 17 and 24mm.
Look carefully at the comparisons in Evoryware's post. 24 is just not wide enough in Europe - I don't even think the 17 is wide enough, but you'll get a lot more shots than with 24.
I suggest you look at a Sigma 10-20 to go with a 24-xxx lens. You will be surprised at the difference between 10 and 12 mm, never mind the difference between 17 and 24mm.
I think this is good advice. I have the 24-105 lens and I'm really happy with it. But - I also have a 10-22mm. The combination of those two lenses is a winner for me.
Thank you all again so much for your advice. After considering all your advice, I've decided to go with the 24-70 and rent either a 10-22 or 17-55 for the trip because eventually I want to get the 1D so the 17-55 lens will not work with that so I don't want to spend the money for it. I hope the with a range from 10-200 or 17-22, everything will be covered! I only wish the 10-22 had a slightly faster f-stop but oh well. I'll go try both the 17-55 and 10-22 to decide which one to rent. Or perhaps I will get the 1D before my trip and will be able to just use the 24-70. Who knows! Thanks again!
I'm with the 17/55 crowd on this one, with the 24/105 a close second.
I have both these lenses, and they both produce superb colour, contrast, and IQ. Check them out at photozone.
The IS is something that has really helped in many situations (both lenses have it of course).
The only thing I would add if I were travelling would be my Tokina 12/24, because there will surely be locations (particularly in Europe) where the spaces are tight.
One comment that I often see is the concern about overlap on zooms. My take is that overlap is good for two reasons: It often results in fewer lens changes, and if one looks at the distortion charts of zoom lenses, they tend to be worse at the short end.
As photozone says about the 24/105 "at 24 mm, the lens exhibits very pronounced barrel distortions". Time to put on the 17/55!
"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey". John Ruskin 1819 - 1900
The 17-55 is an L in image quality, just a step down in build, ie, no magnesium body. For policy reasons, I'm sure, Canon has decided not to combine the L and EF-S line.
I owned the 17-55 (w/ my former 30D) and now have Shima's 24-105 on the 5D. I can say both are of comparable image quality and I consider the trade to be a lateral move. Whoever posted the shots of the 10-22, 17-55 and 24-70 on the wide end kind of said it best. For travel, you're going to want to get wider than an effective 38mm. You won't regret the 17-55mm—It's the perfect companion. Everybody who considers the 17-55 goes through the same thing you're going through, namely, that you want to know you're getting value for your thousand bucks, without the "L" cachet. A lot of us are telling you that you will. If I bought a 40D today, as a backup, I would not hesitate to buy another one.
Thank you all again so much for your advice. After considering all your advice, I've decided to go with the 24-70 and rent either a 10-22 or 17-55 for the trip because eventually I want to get the 1D so the 17-55 lens will not work with that so I don't want to spend the money for it. I hope the with a range from 10-200 or 17-22, everything will be covered! I only wish the 10-22 had a slightly faster f-stop but oh well. I'll go try both the 17-55 and 10-22 to decide which one to rent. Or perhaps I will get the 1D before my trip and will be able to just use the 24-70. Who knows! Thanks again!
Any way you shake it, either lens you chose would have given excellent results. the 24-70 is an excellent choice! Enjoy the lens and prepare yourself for its weight!
Comments
I have been using the 24-105 for 5D and find it is sufficient for walk about. Occassionally, I missed some shots as the lens is not wide enough. Finally I got the 17-40 to complete my travel collection.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
I suggest you look at a Sigma 10-20 to go with a 24-xxx lens. You will be surprised at the difference between 10 and 12 mm, never mind the difference between 17 and 24mm.
Bugs
Spiders
Flowers
--- Denise
Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
I have both these lenses, and they both produce superb colour, contrast, and IQ. Check them out at photozone.
The IS is something that has really helped in many situations (both lenses have it of course).
The only thing I would add if I were travelling would be my Tokina 12/24, because there will surely be locations (particularly in Europe) where the spaces are tight.
One comment that I often see is the concern about overlap on zooms. My take is that overlap is good for two reasons: It often results in fewer lens changes, and if one looks at the distortion charts of zoom lenses, they tend to be worse at the short end.
As photozone says about the 24/105 "at 24 mm, the lens exhibits very pronounced barrel distortions". Time to put on the 17/55!
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
Any way you shake it, either lens you chose would have given excellent results. the 24-70 is an excellent choice! Enjoy the lens and prepare yourself for its weight!
www.tednghiem.com