I bought 24-105/4L and it is good. The 24-70 is probably better (I could not tell the difference in image quality though) and most importantly faster. BUT, 24-105 comes with an IS, so this is not really an issue for me.
What decided for me was: lighter (24-70 is heavy), cheaper, longer at the tele end. Miha > > For some reason, I have a 17-35/2.8L and a 70-200/2.8L (non > IS) but only > 50/1.8 Mk1 in between. I would like to fill the gap with a > "medium range" zoom. I am struggling between 24-105/4L IS and > 24-70/2.8L. I like the former's range, IS and "digital > readiness", I like the latter's 2.8. > What is your experience regarding these two? I will use it > mostly for travel, people and architecture kind of stuff. > Appreciate your thought on this. > SAMO NASLOVNIKU! / ONLY FOR THE INTENDED RECIPIENT! To elektronsko sporocilo in pripete datoteke se sme uporabljati v skladu s pogoji druzbe Mobitel, d. d. Glej: http://disclaimer.mobitel.si/ This e-mail and its attachments are subject to the Mobitel, d. d. disclaimer. See: http://disclaimer.mobitel.si/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
