DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,
I'm soon to buy an upgrade to my trusty 40D with a 6D. My 40D came with a kit lens which is not full frame, so I need to go for the camera and lens kit.

The 6D comes with 2 choices, the 24-105 or the 24-70, both F4.

I already have a 70-200 2.8 (non is) plus a 100mm macro 2.8 and a cheapy 1.8 50mm

The 24-105 could be useful as a general lens for an upcoming trip to Cambodia, but from past experience I don't want to spend around $1000 on a lens that's just ok.

I know the 24-70 F2.8 is a great lens but the buy on the new version is to high for me!

Does anyone have experience with either of these lenses and willing to share their experiences, good or bad.

Thanks
Ian

I chose the 24-105 as I thought it would be a better general purpose lens. I love it. Useful focal length range and great image quality.

I haven't used a 24-70, but I'm sure it's also a great lens.

I don't think you can go wrong with either.

Same here!

I've bought and sold more Canon "L" lens over the past 6-7 years than I can remember. One lens stays in my bag however, and that's the 24-105. It is my wedding and landscape workhorse. Indestructible and thoroughly recommended. (I did have to get mine calibrated by Canon, under warranty, and it came back a much better lens).

Ozi.

I also have the 24-105 as my walk around lens. Never tried the 24-70.

Ian, while I don't own a 24-105, I have used two different examples of it while reviewing Canon bodies, and I can only echo what everyone else here has said: it's truly a great lens. Both examples that I've used helped to turn out some wonderful images.

Were I to be making the purchase you're making, that would most definitely be my choice.