[dogdots]

Ok---I have a Canon EF-70-300 IS USM lens. I bought it a few weeks ago (I know it hasn't been that long) and I like it alot. I'm learning on it. Maybe not to smart on my part. I have been looking at getting the Canon 17-85 to have as a walk around lens. Then I thought of the dollars involved in having both of these lenses verses maybe just forgetting having these two and just having the EF 24-105L. The combined cost of the first two lenses will equal the cost of the 24-105. I like taking pictures of everything I see of interest. I haven't honed in on a special type of photography--and I hope not to as I want to see everything. I'm going on a trip soon to Colorado and I know the right lens will really help. I have a Canon Rebel XTI. Someday I will get a better camera, but I have to wear this one out first

[Dabhand16]

Many people will think of the 18-200 lens being the ideal walk about lens that can do pretty much everything. They are now becomming available with stabilization too, so the inherent slowness of this type of lens can be offset a bit, with some claims of up to 4 stops leeway on the normal settings. Lots of members use them, and produce excellent pctures.

If you want to go for better quality and faster lenses, you will probably need 2. One to cover the bottom end - say 18-70 ish, and another for the 70-200.

It is very much a personal choice, but I would want to see 18 as the wide angle base rather than 24.

[stepheno]

I know the feeling I used to have the 70-300 IS and a cracking lens it is. I would probably have kept it but I needed an extra 100mm for sport so sold it and bought the 100-400. So that is the first question to ask yourself....how much do you need 300mm?

Secondly, I used to have the Tamron 18-200 which, as Dabhand correctly says, is an excellent walkabout range. But without IS it doesn't really cut the mustard in low light so, bearing in mind I was covered from 100mm+ I looked at the lower end for a walkabout. I bought the 24-105 L IS and it is superb.

If you use the top end of the 70-300 then keep it - if not then I would suggest that good glass is worth the investment and would recommend the 24-105 and then, maybe later on, something around 10-20 and then you would be really covered

[dogdots]

When you mention top end of the lens do you mean from 100 up or 200 and up on the 70-300? I have been looking at the 24-105....hummm. I would really love to have that lens.