Well, Canon 24-105 it is. I Think.
 

Well, after deciding between the 17-55, 24-70 and the 24-105, I have decided
to go for the 24-105 for my 20D.

I rarely take photos below 24mm on the 20D as most of my shots are people
shots. So, any objections?

BTW, will be used in combination with my 70-200 2.8IS and 50mm 1.4 prime.
An extra stop of light would be nice, but 24-70 is a bit bulky, and the
17-55 is over-priced and is restricted to the type of body used. Also, I
like in-camera cropping, so longer focal lengths can be an advantage to me.

Well, Canon 24-105 it is. I Think.
 

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Well, after deciding between the 17-55, 24-70 and the 24-105, I have
decided to go for the 24-105 for my 20D.

I rarely take photos below 24mm on the 20D as most of my shots are people
shots. So, any objections?

You mean, a 38mm to 168mm, right? As long as you don't want something in
the background showing where they are, you should be fine.

Well, Canon 24-105 it is. I Think.
 

This old Bob wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message
...
Well, after deciding between the 17-55, 24-70 and the 24-105, I have
decided to go for the 24-105 for my 20D.

I rarely take photos below 24mm on the 20D as most of my shots are people
shots. So, any objections?

You mean, a 38mm to 168mm, right? As long as you don't want something in
the background showing where they are, you should be fine.

Well, not really! It's a 24-105, and yes, on the 20D the figs you quote
are useful. But it'll be its stated figs. in all respects on a ff camera.

It's a fine lens; I use it a lot.

--
john mcwilliams

Well, Canon 24-105 it is. I Think.
 

Peter wrote:
Well, after deciding between the 17-55, 24-70 and the 24-105, I have decided
to go for the 24-105 for my 20D.

So, any objections?


Good choice, you won't regret it ...

Well, Canon 24-105 it is. I Think.
 

Cheers Bill. Good to hear it from a long time poster.



"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
ps.com...
Peter wrote:
Well, after deciding between the 17-55, 24-70 and the 24-105, I have
decided
to go for the 24-105 for my 20D.

So, any objections?


Good choice, you won't regret it ...

Well, Canon 24-105 it is. I Think.
 

Yup, my figures were based on my previous shots on the 20D. Rarely I shoot
lower than 24mm, however I am also considering a 10-22 for certain shots I
just can't get with the 24-105. As I said, wide angle shots are rare for
me, however I do like certain wide angle shots as they can be great for
certain photos.


"This old Bob" wrote in message
...

You mean, a 38mm to 168mm, right? As long as you don't want something in
the background showing where they are, you should be fine.

Well, Canon 24-105 it is. I Think.
 

I've been using one on a 5D, and it's s wonderful lens. Kind of heavy, but
not too bad. Very sharp, great color and contrast, and superb build quality.
Zooming ring is a little heavy, but not too heavy (compared to other zooms,
like the 70-200 f4 L). Go for it, you won't regret it.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Well, after deciding between the 17-55, 24-70 and the 24-105, I have
decided to go for the 24-105 for my 20D.

I rarely take photos below 24mm on the 20D as most of my shots are people
shots. So, any objections?

BTW, will be used in combination with my 70-200 2.8IS and 50mm 1.4 prime.
An extra stop of light would be nice, but 24-70 is a bit bulky, and the
17-55 is over-priced and is restricted to the type of body used. Also, I
like in-camera cropping, so longer focal lengths can be an advantage to
me.

Well, Canon 24-105 it is. I Think.
 

Popular photography mag didn't seem to crazy about the 24-105 lens

Peter wrote:
Well, after deciding between the 17-55, 24-70 and the 24-105, I have decided
to go for the 24-105 for my 20D.

I rarely take photos below 24mm on the 20D as most of my shots are people
shots. So, any objections?

BTW, will be used in combination with my 70-200 2.8IS and 50mm 1.4 prime.
An extra stop of light would be nice, but 24-70 is a bit bulky, and the
17-55 is over-priced and is restricted to the type of body used. Also, I
like in-camera cropping, so longer focal lengths can be an advantage to me.

Well, Canon 24-105 it is. I Think.
 

"Peter" wrote in message
...
Well, after deciding between the 17-55, 24-70 and the 24-105, I have
decided to go for the 24-105 for my 20D.

I rarely take photos below 24mm on the 20D as most of my shots are people
shots. So, any objections?

BTW, will be used in combination with my 70-200 2.8IS and 50mm 1.4 prime.
An extra stop of light would be nice, but 24-70 is a bit bulky, and the
17-55 is over-priced and is restricted to the type of body used. Also, I
like in-camera cropping, so longer focal lengths can be an advantage to
me.

Good choice I think. It is a lovely lens.

I also have the 10-22 as I do landscape stuff too and they complement each
other well. The 24-105 really is great, good colour, sharpness and, although
L lens weight , that feels reassuringly robust. Quality!