time to upgrade

[Roosta]

Thanks for your opinion Roosta!

I wish the 24-70mm f4 was cheaper. For $2800 I could pick up 6d + 17-40mm f4 + 24-105mm f4 which i think is a wiser move. I won't have money for the 70-200mm this year so I'm going to look into hiring that for America. I still have to save up for my Lee filters aswell.

Personally, the 24-70 is a ripper lens and focal range. But the 24-105 may be a better bet for you with regard to overall general use. Both the 17-40 and the 24-105 don't have the IQ of the 24-70, but I feel it may not effect you that much, unless your getting very series with your photography. "William" Ap regular gets great results from his 24-105 as an idea of what it can do, see his posts in Sea - Landscapes.

Get the Lee's in the states, and save the transport costs.

You can always use the 24-70 in portrait mode and stitch several together to get a UWA look. Granted, A bit tricky when shooting seascapes, but that's where PP comes into it's own. LOL

[William W]

The Canon Tele Extenders are not suited for use with the EF 24 to 105F/4 IS USM.
IF any third party Tele Extenders will mount to the EF 24 to 105 F/4 IS USM: note that any x2.0 extender will most likely mean the loss of Auto Focus.

WW

[Roosta]

I use the 24-70 for work nearly every day and I've grown bored of it and am beginning to hate it. It's sharp, but it's not wide enough or tele enough to be exciting at either end, and I find it really struggles in low light.
Richard.

I guess any lens you use day in and day out would end up the same. I'm guessing a Sports Tog's last lens he/she wants to use is the 500/600mm when not at work.