DSLRUsers.com

Hi Everyone,
I have recently been looking at upgrading my current lens (Tamron AF 18-200mm XR Di II) to the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens.

I had the opportunity today to actually try the lens on at the shop onto my 350D body (wow it seemed like a serious pro lens and it felt so good in my hands ).

There is a considerable size difference from my current lens and I am wondering if this would cause any issues? (I know it sounds like a silly question...)

Also does anyone have this combo that they are using? Hopefully sometime down the line, I will be upgrading to a better body (fingers crossed).

I have read heaps of reviews on this lens and I plan to mainly take portraits and landscape shots, so I thought this would be ideal lens.

Everyone's thoughts??

My opinion is that on the 350D, 24mm (38mm equivalent) is very restrictive for landscapes. I find that most of my landscapes are in the 16mm (26mm) range. I am not a potrait guy so I can't comment on that aspect of it. What focal lengths are you currently taking most of your landscape photos at?

At 670grams, weight won't be an issue for the camera itself (the sigma 120-300 f2.8 on my old 300D WAS an issue, but I digress), however it will be up to personal preference whether it is an issue for you.

Trieu, the weight of the lens will not be an issue, my 80-400 is far heavier than this lens and it is no problem on my 300D

I have a friend who uses that lens on a 20D and loves it a lot, so it's quite usable on a crop camera like the 350D. I've also played with a 350D on the back of my 70-200IS (which is substantially bigger than the 24-105) and it was fine. With the Sigma 12-24 (which is about the size of the 24-105) it felt quite natural and the 350D owner promptly disappeared for a week with that lens.

In your position I'd be looking at the lengths you use most often and possibly consider the 17-40 instead if you shoot a lot at the short end (it's half the price), of even maybe wait for the 17-50/2.8 IS EFS which will give you more range, faster aperture and of course not work on the 5D or other full frame cameras.

Alternatively if you have the $2500(ish?) to hand for the 24-105 you could match the $1300-ish 17-40L with Petal's 70-200/2.8L for another $1400 and have a very nice setup for not much more than the cost of the 24-105. ( http://dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=16449 ). But his is not the IS model, so you might want to wait and spend the extra $2000 to get IS later. Of course, you could probably resell the lens for about what you paid for it if you did decide to do that. Canon L's tend to hold their value quite well.

Thanks for the replies

At the moment I am shooting my landscape's at 18mm on the Tamron. I was abit concerned about the 24mm on the Canon, but thanks for extra bit of info, think I might need to re-consider.

Oh man... seems like I now have abit more to think about regarding having two lens.... not to mention the "saving my pennies" part.

Cheers for the info about the size, weight and len's

 BTW, I find the 70-200/2.8 very useful for candid portraits, and regularly shoot faster than f/4 for those. I'd be tempted in your position to buy the 50/1.8 because it's really cheap even though it's fixed length (I have the 50/1.4). Personally I find f/4 limiting for short lens portraits, and periodically think about the Sigma 30/1.4 to supplement my Sigma 18-50/2.8 (which I love) and 50/1.4. It depends how much you like changing lenses.

If you're not afraid of crop lenses and non-Canon brands, I find the Sigma 18-50/2.8 a very usable lens (it's my standard lens now). My copy gives Err99 on my 30D from time to time but I still use it everywhere because it's so much better than the alternatives. I haven't sent it off to be rechipped because I don't want to be without it. Something of a dilemma, that one. It works fine on my 300D and a friends 350D though, and I expect that rechipping will be simple. But will take a month (I bought it mailorder from the US so it has to be posted back there).