24-105+5D vs. 17-55+30D

[DreamBoy]

Hi,

I am wondering 24-105+5D or 17-55+30D produce sharper/better images. Currently, I have 300D, 17-40, 28-135, 50 f1.8, 10-22, Tamron 28-75 and sigma 18-125. I'm thinking to move to full frame when price drop to $1500. If 24-105+5D combo produce better images than 17-55+30D combo, I will just sit tight and wait for full frame body price drop.

Thanks,
dreamboy

 

[LarryT]

Why not just get the 24-105 now, use it and love it, then, when you are able, upgrade the body and you will still have a very good lens? The fact that you are even thinking about FF would seem to lead one to steer clear of the EFs lens. You can spend less money on another lens in the meantime to cover the wide end.

 

[carlk]

I would say 5D+24-105 will be pretty much the same as 30D + 17-55 in practically everything – IQ, DOF control, low light capability. Arguably 17-55 will have a slight edge in sharpness but of course 24-105 has better built. My opinion is there is really not much gain to spend the extra $1500 for 5D. If you have or plan to buy telephoto lenses then it turns to 5D’s disadvantage even without considering cost.

I heard a lot of people say 17-55 really diminished their need to go FF now. Of course you can go to 1 series camera but that’s a very expensive proposition.

 

[Max Savin]

you gain almost 5 million pixles. and that is worth the difference.
--
max

 

[carlk]

Well that's pretty expensive $300 per MP if that's all you are getting.

You also lost one full stop. The question was asked for the whole system.

you gain almost 5 million pixles. and that is worth the difference.
--
max

 

[Forrest41926]

Well that's pretty expensive $300 per MP if that's all you are
getting.

That's a little bit like saying the only thing you get going from a Honda Prelude to a Cessna is a couple more seats at $20,000 per chair. But I've never heard a Honda owner say anything like that...

 

[carlk]

I do drive a Honda Prelude.

What I meant was if all you are getting for the extra $1500 is from 8MP to 12MP then it not really worth it.

Well that's pretty expensive $300 per MP if that's all you are
getting.

That's a little bit like saying the only thing you get going from a
Honda Prelude to a Cessna is a couple more seats at $20,000 per
chair. But I've never heard a Honda owner say anything like that...

 

[jack scholl]

Still trying to analyze this issue as well. We have a 20D/17-85 and 70-300 DO. Not yet convinced the 17-85 is the final answer (can fix the CA on a 3rd copy lens that has been recalibrated by Canon and is much better) but still not "delighted". For the time being the DO is a keeper-we love this lens.
Options

1. Buy a 17-55 at $1100, sell the 17-85 at $500+ - and accept the range loss; net=$600.

2. Buy a 5D and 24-105 at $2800+$1100, sell the 17-85 and keep the 20D for the 70-300 we use a lot; net = $2400.

3. Buy the 17-55 and 350 at $1600, sell the 17-85 and have a small/light backup body with no lens swaps; net $1100.

Still trying to evaluate the options. And Canon is going to change the playing field in 23 days . . .while we leave for a Europe trip at the end of August. We are lucky to have the problems we have!!!

Jack
http://www.pbase.com/jrs40

Hi,

I am wondering 24-105+5D or 17-55+30D produce sharper/better
images. Currently, I have 300D, 17-40, 28-135, 50 f1.8, 10-22,
Tamron 28-75 and sigma 18-125. I'm thinking to move to full frame
when price drop to $1500. If 24-105+5D combo produce better images
than 17-55+30D combo, I will just sit tight and wait for full frame
body price drop.

Thanks,
dreamboy

 

[Homl]

and make up your own mind if you need that extra improvement in resolution?

What is your applications, family, sports, landscape, wild life, PJ, etc?

Don't forget that the 30D has some features that the 5D don't, like 5 fps, 1/250 flash sync, built-in flash, take both EFS and EF lenses and $1500 less expensive. You already have a few EFS lenses already, if that matters.

For a general purpose use, the 30D is more flexible. If you need the extra bit of resolution and IQ, the 5D package has more. Of course price and weight does matters too, otherwise you be asking about the 1Ds2 instead of the 5D.

I had a 300D, the image quality is quite good and still is compare to new DSLRs. The limiting functionality of the 300D was more reason for me to upgrade.

Hi,

I am wondering 24-105+5D or 17-55+30D produce sharper/better
images. Currently, I have 300D, 17-40, 28-135, 50 f1.8, 10-22,
Tamron 28-75 and sigma 18-125. I'm thinking to move to full frame
when price drop to $1500. If 24-105+5D combo produce better images
than 17-55+30D combo, I will just sit tight and wait for full frame
body price drop.

Thanks,
dreamboy

 

[gml]

The 24-105+5D combo will give you sharper images with more resolution. FF cameras, however, will not drop in price below $2000 in the next 5 years (if ever). Canon is using sensor size for market segmentation, so don’t expect them to start selling high end digital cameras for $1500 any time soon.

 

[benoa]

From my perspective, the 24-105 with 30D is not a good combination. For having used both on my 30D, I prefer the 17-55 a lot more !

--
http://www.benoa.net

 

[Another Brick]

unless you like being led by the nose.

This is one question you can answer for yourself simply by observing.

 

[Amin Sabet]

I will bet you that you are wrong here. Competitive forces will drive full frame below $2000 within 5 years for sure. Nothing digital can be artificially sustained in such a state.

The 24-105+5D combo will give you sharper images with more
resolution. FF cameras, however, will not drop in price below $2000
in the next 5 years (if ever). Canon is using sensor size for
market segmentation, so don’t expect them to start selling high end
digital cameras for $1500 any time soon.

--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)

 

[Robert Deutsch]

Why not just get the 24-105 now, use it and love it, then, when you
are able, upgrade the body and you will still have a very good
lens? The fact that you are even thinking about FF would seem to
lead one to steer clear of the EFs lens. You can spend less money
on another lens in the meantime to cover the wide end.

That's exactly what I did. The 24-105 worked well on the 20D, but now that I have the 5D (bought just two weeks ago), it has really come into its own, giving me great wide-angle coverage. Picture quality aside--which is very good with the 20D as well, the diffferences being apparent mostly in cropping and large prints, and in greater control of depth of field--the major advance of the 5D over the 20D is in the picture-taking experience: the big, bright viewfinder and the much quieter shutter. I bought the 5D in a store that has a no-questions-asked 14-day refund policy, but as soon as I started shooting with it I knew that there was no way I would be returning it to the store.

Bob

 

[DreamBoy]

Hi,

I am wondering 24-105+5D or 17-55+30D produce sharper/better
images. Currently, I have 300D, 17-40, 28-135, 50 f1.8, 10-22,
Tamron 28-75 and sigma 18-125. I'm thinking to move to full frame
when price drop to $1500. If 24-105+5D combo produce better images
than 17-55+30D combo, I will just sit tight and wait for full frame
body price drop.

Thanks,
dreamboy

Thanks to everyone who gives me comments. Has one seen 24-105+5D and 17-55+30D comparsion? I have seen someone did 17-40+5D vs. 10-22+20D before.

thanks,
dreamboy

 

[gml]

The 24-105+5D combo will give you sharper images with more
resolution. FF cameras, however, will not drop in price below $2000
in the next 5 years (if ever). Canon is using sensor size for
market segmentation, so don’t expect them to start selling high end
digital cameras for $1500 any time soon.

Like I said – this is about market segmentation, not manufacturing cost. Even if FF sensors become very cheap, Canon are still not going to offer a cheap FF camera. Look at the prices of current film cameras. B&H photo currently lists the EOS 3, the high end amateur film camera, at $874.95. And this camera is what – 10 years old?

I’m betting that when the dust settles in couple of years, the digital version of the EOS 3 will cost at least $1000 more that the current film version. That’s very close to $2000 and I’m betting that Canon will just not cross this line. You’ll have a $400 Rebel and a $900 xxD but their high end amateur digital will be at least $2000 (unless, of course, Nikon and Sony start selling FF cameras dirt cheap - quite unlikely, IMO).

 

[Amin Sabet]

I understood what you meant and simply disagree. Time will tell, but I predict Nikon and Canon will be driven to compete for the inexpensive full frame market as well, driving prices down.

--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)

 

[netgarden]

http://www.virtualtraveller.org/5dv20d/5dv20d.htm
20D + 17-85IS and the 5D with the 24-105IS
and some decent ones here:
[alas, none putting the 24-105 up against the 17-55]
http://www.acapixus.dk/photography/24_to_105/summary.htm
--



http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
DSC V1 Sony for Infrared, Canon 20D,
a few too many lenses...

 

[Rick Knepper]

Thanks to everyone who gives me comments. Has one seen 24-105+5D
and 17-55+30D comparsion? I have seen someone did 17-40+5D vs.
10-22+20D before.

Here's a handheld 24-105+5D pano:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=19411066

DPR also posted a 5D/20D comparison in the review of the 5D, and a 5D/30D comparison in the review of the 30D. DPR allowed both the 20D & 30Ds to use the extremely sharp 50 f1.4 (arguably sharper than the 17-55 at 50mm) and saddled the 5D with the 85 f1.8. To my eye, the 5D still beat both of them. I think you can extrapolate most of what you need to know from those images.

What you are going to have to do is hang out more over at the 1D/5D forum where top tier users of said systems tend to post more pics. This forum seems to be dominated by 20/30/300/350 users in terms of posting pix. Not saying the 1D/5D folks don't visit here & contribute but it seems they post their best images over there.

Good luck to you.

 

[Lee Jay]

The combination of more pixels and larger pixels will give the 5D the edge in sharpness. Both lenses are sharp, well-built, have effective IS and similar physical apertures. However, the 24-105 is both wider and longer on the 5D than the 17-55 is on the 30D and the 5D system will provide more resolving power for a given FOV.

This is a sample of the 70-200/2.8L IS on the 20D and 5D, both shots with the same FOV. The 20D shot has been upresed to the size of the 5D shot so that a fair comparison of detail can be made. These are 100% crops and, as you can see, the 5D shot easily has more detail.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)