"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
: }I think the 24-70 f/4 will be a great kit lens for the 6D. I imagine
: }in the kit, the price will end up being effectively a few hundred less
: }than the $1500 they are quoting now for stand-alone price.
:
: I'm betting the 24-105 will still probably be the favoured "kit" lens by
: many for that camera.

Not if Bruce is right and they're about to discontinue it.

I bet many people hope not, it's the value lens of the bunch.


To me, the ideal kit lens for a FF camera is a 24-70 f/2.8.

To *you*, sure, to many others the extra expense and weight of a 2.8 lens is
unnecessary in these days of usable high ISO, and photoshopping.

It neatly spans
what we think of as the "normal" 50mm focal length, and it's useful both
indoors and outdoors. But Canon's absurdly expensive entry in that game
can
hardly be described as a "kit" lens.

Exactly, the 24-105 is far better value for many, with extra reach to boot.



The 24-105 f/4 is an ideal street photography lens, because you get the
additional range essentially for free, since you usually don't need the
extra
stop outdoors. The 24-70 f/4 lacks that advantage and costs half again as
much.

Exactly, it would want to be *very* good for the extra money.


: One thing that seems to be missed so far though is both f4 lenses are
IS,
: while the 24-70 f2.8 is not.

I started the thread, and I didn't miss it. But since both f/4's have IS,
it
doesn't affect the choice between the two.

It does affect your claim of the f2.8 being the best choice though. Given
the extra expense, extra size and weight, and lack of IS, it's not on my
list. I use faster primes when needed instead.

Trevor.