I have to agree 100%. I have had the 24-105 f2.8 for about 4 months, and I haven't used any of my other lenses since. As a primarily headshot, half body and full body shooter in a small workplace, it's golden. I have the 100 2.8, 85 1.2, 70-200 2.8, 50mm 2.8 and the 35 1.8... Honestly, I would sell all of them but my 85 and 70- 200 and be fine with the 24- 105 f2.8 as my trinity. It's that good! I've waited forever to have a lens that does it all and the minute I could find one. I bought it.
You mentiond you shoot sports - i primarily shoot live music and events - would you say the extra focal length is worth skipping the 24-70 2.8? My trinity is the 70-200, and 16 mm 1.8. But i only have the 24-105 kit lens and nifty fifty available for mid range shots.
I have to agree 100%. I have had the 24-105 f2.8 for about 4 months, and I haven't used any of my other lenses since. As a primarily headshot, half body and full body shooter in a small workplace, it's golden. I have the 100 2.8, 85 1.2, 70-200 2.8, 50mm 2.8 and the 35 1.8... Honestly, I would sell all of them but my 85 and 70- 200 and be fine with the 24- 105 f2.8 as my trinity. It's that good! I've waited forever to have a lens that does it all and the minute I could find one. I bought it.
You mentiond you shoot sports - i primarily shoot live music and events - would you say the extra focal length is worth skipping the 24-70 2.8? My trinity is the 70-200, and 16 mm 1.8. But i only have the 24-105 kit lens and nifty fifty available for mid range shots.
Yes I’d say that 24-105 2.8 would be a monster so music events