Plum, I thought you said you have 24-70 and you wouldn't give up
the f/2.8 for 24-105. And your 24-70 is way better than 24-105.
Now you say you have 28-135 and it's so good that there is no need
for 24-105. . Seems everytime someone wants to compare 24-105 to
any other lenses you just come out "advise" people not to buy the
24-105. You just hate that 24-105 why don't you admit it?
I sure get tired of ppl nit picking everything I say then get mad
at me cuz I respond. I am not going to start an argument here, I
made a statement to the op and IMHO....this is the part of my posts
that you, glum, lee baby, and ED always....and I mean ALWAYS seem
to omit...AGAIN....
IMHO I stick by what I said to the OP. And
I DO have the 24-70 and it is the work horse of my lenses, what
does that have to do with anything I mentioned to the OP????
I do have the 28-135 and it is on my backup camera almost all the
time, it is used by my second shooter all the time...ok? Does that
work for you or do you want to argue about that????
Monte Zucker has a web site with a forum, why dont you go there and
give him grief cuz he uses the 28-135 instead of the 24-105????!!!
And once again, for the record, I could care less about who spends
1200 of their hard earned dollars on a 24-105...NO skin off my a$$,
however, if they post a question about it, I GIVE MY OPINION which
is what they ask for. I have NOT started a thread bashing the
24-105, I answer ppls questions and I get grief from a wholes who
have NO business doing so. If you dont agree with what I told the
OP...SO WHAT!!!!!! Look at my original post, it says on there the
letters IMHO do you know what that means??? It also says
YMMV....do you know what that means?
Plum
If you have 1.6x camera 24-105 + 10-22 is the best two general
purpose lens combination you can have imo. Unless you want to go
17-55, 70-200 IS route which will cost you quite more.
Believe me 28-135 was the first DSRL lens I ever owned. I was
pretty happy with it until I got my 10-22. Seeing the rich color
from 10-22 versus the kind of dull color from 28-135 made me
realize all the struggle on photoshop was unnecessary. Then I got
the 24-105 which did not disappoint me either. I'm not saying
28-135 is not good for its price. 24-105 is just better period.
Eddie, I agree with most posts here that the 24-105 is the better
of the two, but using just those two, I dont think the 24-105 is
that much better. Now, this is my opinion, I have owned the 24-105
and still own the 28-135.
I would like to point out, cuz some folks on here tend to want to
discredit the ability of others to know the difference between
lenses...the issue before last of Shutterbug mag, Monte Zucker
(yall can try to discredit him if you want) stated the lenses he
uses the most, and the 28-135 was on his camera the most, he did
not even mention the 24-105...and if you have never heard of him,
trust me, he can use ANY lens available in the world today that he
wants to, bar-nun.
The 28-135 IMHO is the best non L zoom canon makes, as I stated
earlier, I have had the 24-105, I STILL have the 28-135. I forget
if you stated the camera you use, if it's a crop camera, save the
money from the 24-105 and get the 28-135 and the 17-40L and take
the little lady out to dinner with whats left.
This post is just my .02 and YMMV
Plum
