Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS - $800

Just a few things about grey market.

If merchant is reliable, then grey market maybe good. The reason there is no warranty is because they are not authorized dealer.

That's good because canon controls prices for authorized dealers, so you'll likely rare/never get this price from them.

Quote from Coolchu : Pretty sweet deal... but I'm having a hard time deciding on this or go with the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC Tamron is f/2.8 and has a US warranty (But $400 more!). Both lenses appear to be pretty sharp at the same apertures. In some cases, the Tamron was shaper than the mk1 24-70mm L

Well, I'd say unless you need the 70-105 range, the Tamron would be the better option. Both are stabilized, but the Tamron is faster. The price obviously is a bit more, but it should come down in a few months, especially when they start adding it to their rebate program

Quote from buzzrk : 24mm is quite wide for me. It just depends on type of shots you like. Look at your collection and see how many shots you shot below 24mm.

Well, for full-frame its just fine, but, for APS-C you really are losing out on pretty much the whole wide-angle aspect. For example, Canon's L wide angles on full-frame (16-35, 17-40) end where this lens would start on APS-C (38.5).

Doesn't mean you can't make it work, but, if you do any landscape shooting, you'd need another lens that covers the 10-20 range.

I'm currently using this [amazon.com] Canon 18-200mm lens.

I rarely use the 105-200 range though. If I were to pick up this lens what would I be gaining for my investment? I'm not a professional. I typically take photos (mostly landscape type stuff) on vacations and have them wrapped to hang on the walls of our home. Would this be worth the upgrade?

Quote from Macarena : Just a few things about grey market. If merchant is reliable, then grey market maybe good. The reason there is no warranty is because they are not authorized dealer. That's good because canon controls prices for authorized dealers, so you'll likely rare/never get this price from them.

So how do they get their items? In this case it could have been pulled from a kit, but how are they buying from Canon then going directly against their agreement with them? Just seems odd.

However, if this lens were fine upon arrival, I'm sure it'd be fine and it is a really good price.

Quote from FreeBaGeL : I'm currently using this [amazon.com] Canon 18-200mm lens. I rarely use the 105-200 range though. If I were to pick up this lens what would I be gaining for my investment? I'm not a professional. I typically take photos (mostly landscape type stuff) on vacations and have them wrapped to hang on the walls of our home. Would this be worth the upgrade?

this lens is weather sealed, so would match with a 7D, 60D, 50D (weather sealed bodies). it would be sharper, and better colors. but that really only matters if you're doing big prints with good inks or you crop a lot.

I'm guessing you are just using canvas prints for those wall hangings?

I jumped on this deal last time around and I've had no problem with the lens. It came packaged in a white box with what looked like factory packaging. So far I've found it to be a great deal.

Quote from FreeBaGeL : I'm currently using this [amazon.com] Canon 18-200mm lens. I rarely use the 105-200 range though. If I were to pick up this lens what would I be gaining for my investment? I'm not a professional. I typically take photos (mostly landscape type stuff) on vacations and have them wrapped to hang on the walls of our home. Would this be worth the upgrade?

Yes and no. Having used the 18-200, pretty much anything would be an upgrade over that lens for landscapes...and the 24-105 is a nice lens...but, there are much better options for you.

For $800, you could have the Tokina 11-16, Canon 10-22, or the Canon 17-55 lens, each of which would be a better lens that you would get better pictures from. The first two would open up a whole new world of wide-angle shots for you (the difference between 18mm and 10/11mm is HUGE). The 17-55 would mean less distortion and more resolution across the frame.

I'd suggest buying an ultra-wide (there are many that cover the range from 10mm on), and keeping your 18-200 for when you need more normal shots.

Quote from fyu : this lens is weather sealed, so would match with a 7D, 60D, 50D (weather sealed bodies). it would be sharper, and better colors. but that really only matters if you're doing big prints with good inks or you crop a lot. I'm guessing you are just using canvas prints for those wall hangings?

Yep, mostly just canvas prints.

My camera body is a t2i so, at least for now the weather sealing wouldn't be useful.

Quote from preppyak : Yes and no. Having used the 18-200, pretty much anything would be an upgrade over that lens for landscapes...and the 24-105 is a nice lens...but, there are much better options for you. For $800, you could have the Tokina 11-16, Canon 10-22, or the Canon 17-55 lens, each of which would be a better lens that you would get better pictures from. The first two would open up a whole new world of wide-angle shots for you (the difference between 18mm and 10/11mm is HUGE). The 17-55 would mean less distortion and more resolution across the frame. I'd suggest buying an ultra-wide (there are many that cover the range from 10mm on), and keeping your 18-200 for when you need more normal shots.

What makes the 18-200 so bad for landscapes compared to, say, the 17-55?

I had no idea that the difference between 18mm and 10/11mm was that big. In that case, wouldn't upgrading to the 24-105 here be a bad idea compared to the 18mm I have now?

Quote from dude6156 : Is this an overkill for a T3i ? I am looking for a "better" lens than the one in the kit.

Canon's 24-105L is a fantastic lens for T3i. I am using it myself on T2i. For me it replaced Canon's 28-135, which is good lens by itself, but obviously no comparison to the L series. Since buying 24-105 I rarely switch to other lenses (I also have 17-40L and 70-300 as well as few others, including prime 50). I would definitely recommend this as a replacement for T3i kit lens.

Does SquareTrade warranties cover grey market items? Would I waste my money on buying a 3 year plan (including accidental damage)?

I've got this lens on a 50D. Love the quality of it. I find that I can just leave that lens on and use it for a variety of situations, where my previous 28-135 (that first came with my 30D) hardly got used.

Quote from FreeBaGeL : Yep, mostly just canvas prints. My camera body is a t2i so, at least for now the weather sealing wouldn't be useful. What makes the 18-200 so bad for landscapes compared to, say, the 17-55? I had no idea that the difference between 18mm and 10/11mm was that big. In that case, wouldn't upgrading to the 24-105 here be a bad idea compared to the 18mm I have now?

if you like wide angle, then going to the 24-105 without going full frame is not a good idea.
if you do landscapes the 10-22mm is good, for general use and portraits the 17-55mm is great.

with canvas prints you won't see any difference in image quality.
it's just the super wide angle lets you capture more. and the 2.8 on the 17-55mm gives you more bokeh, and better low light abilities.

Quote from preppyak : Yes and no. Having used the 18-200, pretty much anything would be an upgrade over that lens for landscapes...and the 24-105 is a nice lens...but, there are much better options for you. For $800, you could have the Tokina 11-16, Canon 10-22, or the Canon 17-55 lens, each of which would be a better lens that you would get better pictures from. The first two would open up a whole new world of wide-angle shots for you (the difference between 18mm and 10/11mm is HUGE). The 17-55 would mean less distortion and more resolution across the frame. I'd suggest buying an ultra-wide (there are many that cover the range from 10mm on), and keeping your 18-200 for when you need more normal shots.

Seconding the EF-S 10-22 for a wide angle crop lens, I have mine and it is on my camera 80% of the time! Pretty much only use it and my 70-200 f/4 L! I have a 17-50 Tamron 2.8 (non-vc) and a Sigma 30 as well but the 10-22 has given me my best shots on my 60D!

Quote from FreeBaGeL : What makes the 18-200 so bad for landscapes compared to, say, the 17-55?

Well, the 18-200 is what's known as a super-zoom. Its impressive, because it allows you to zoom the lens 10x from 18-200, while the 17-55 only does 3x, but, to do that they have to make sacrifices in the lens design. For example, the 18-200 has a lot of distortion on the wide end (from 18-25ish), and isn't very sharp on the tele end (from 150-200ish). The 17-55 on the other hand has less distortion, and is generally reviewed as being much sharper. The distortion might not bug you, but the sharpness can show up on canvas prints.

But, if you do a lot of landscapes, I'd say go for even wider than 17mm.

Quote : I had no idea that the difference between 18mm and 10/11mm was that big. In that case, wouldn't upgrading to the 24-105 here be a bad idea compared to the 18mm I have now?

Yeah, the difference between 10mm and 24mm is doubling the field of view. While the subject of this photo isn't good, it should give you some perspective on how big the difference is. In an outdoor scene, the difference is even bigger. And for a lens like the 10-22, you can still shoot in the 18-22 range, but you have the ability to go much, much wider when you need to to include everything.

http://www.pbase.com/image/71828237/large.jpg