I feel myself getting antsy again. lol And im starting to research a new walk around lens to replace my kit lens. Im considering of of these 2. I like the 27-105 bc of the 105mm reach and bc of the IS but its f/4. I also like the 24-70 bc its quicker at an f/2.8 but doesnt have IS nor the reach of the 105. Price is in teh range of $20 differance so no biggie. Can anyone give some suggestions or whatever...Thanx

 

Whats the weight difference between the two?

 

honestly...im not sure. I rented a 70-200 f/4 is and its heavy but not that bad. weight isnt really an issue

 

How many indoor or low light shots do you take? For me that would be the deciding factor.

I take a lot of indoor shots so I would get the 2.8. If you're usually not begging for more light, go for the reach.

 

50/50 but I tend to like taking photos at night better so maybe 60/40

 

Aperture is not only a factor of light speed through the barrel, but also a question of how much a photographer needs to isolate their primary subject from background or near-field objects which are distracting. Personally, I would get the F/2.8 and later mate it with a 70-200 F/2.8 USM IS L. It's a natural progression in L glass with no overlap in focal length. The extra 35 or so mm's you will never miss, but having the versatility at your fingertips to shoot in low light, AND be able to roll off the DOF quicker is more useful in my honest opinion.

With regards to IS, the longer the focal length, the more it is needed.

 

I replaced my Kit lens with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 I suggest you try it out. I really really like it, and it's a fraction of the price of the 24-70

You can really use that extra aperture with walk-around lenses... especially if you don't usually carry a flash. I find that when I shoot indoors with no flash, the extra aperture of the 2.8 really helps. I take my shots in raw, and they come out really nice after a bit of PP

 

I have the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens. It's my most used lens and I have quite a few (16-35 f/2.8L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2L, 135 f/2L, 200 f/2.8L). It's a little heavy, but once you get used to it it's not bad at all. You can see my pictures on my flickr site:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oliverjsmith/

A lot of the pictures on that site were taken with the 24-70.

The extra reach of the 105 would be nice, but being f/4 you won't be able to use it a lot in low light situations.

 

great photo's love the little boy and the mohawk lol how much PP was used? and what body?

 

24-70 f2.8 and then go to the 70-200
(oh wait Norman already said this)