Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
ljfinger said:
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)
Click to expand...
Hi Lee Jay,

I read your posts before and most of them were very informative. I got a impression that Canon newer EF-S lenses seem to be sharper than their EF counter parts. For example, EF-S 60 mm has higher resolving power than EF 100 f2.8 macro. EF-S 17-55 seem to have have higher resolving power than EF 24-105 too (i.e. i have no clue yet). I'm guessing that current crop sensors have higher pixel density so Canon needs to make their EF-S lenses having higher resolving power to meet more demanding crop sensors. My assumption is that 24-105 may be less sharper than 17-55 but 5D sensor is less demanding than 30D sensor. The final result from 5D+24-105 might be better than 30D+17-55.

Comments?

Thanks,
dreamboy
 
Different strokes for different folks.

Upgrading from 1.6x crop 8 Megapixel camera to a Full Frame sensor with 12 Megapixels and all other features being the same, heck yeah, $1500 sounds like a bargain. I own a 10D and a 5D, and let me tell you, I like the 5D a lot better, and the full-frame sensor, larger viewfinder, and double the resolution have something to do with that.

Lets not get off topic here.... the OP asked if the image quality would be similar, and it definitely will be. Will the 30D be as a flexible as the 5D? No. Will it be 12 megapixels? No. Will it shoot great pictures and be flexible enough for 99% of the DSLR users out there? Yes.

Greg
 
DreamBoy said:
Comments?
Click to expand...
The 24-105 is very sharp, even on a 1.6 crop sensor with its higher pixel density. I can't believe there's an appreciable difference in lens resolving power between these two. They both out-resolve the 1.6 crop sensor by a significant amount (I can use a 1.4x TC on the 24-105 on the 20D when it's stopped down just a bit).

The 5D is indeed less demanding of lens sharpness and it has more pixels. The 24-105 will drastically out-resolve the 5D's sensor so it doesn't really matter how sharp the 17-55 is, all those extra pixels on the 5D combination will win easily.

That said, you'd have to be printing very large to see a real difference in the final image. For me, the extra few mm on the wide end are a huge difference and the extra croppability on the long end (about 50% more real resolving power) makes the 5D system way better as an overall walkaround. You need to get to about 82mm on a 1.6 crop camera before you have the same resolving power as 105mm on the 5D.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
You list your current spread as: "300D, 17-40, 28-135, 50 f1.8, 10-22, Tamron 28-75"

so presumably your options are actually "30d, 17-55, 28-135, 50 1.8, 10-22"
or "5d, 17-40, 24-105, ?? ?? ??"

Your 28-135 is going to feel much shorter and less sparky on the 5d, and the real jaw-droppyness of the 5d emerges with L primes; do you plan on upgrading other lenses too?

If not, (said as one who thinks the 5d is the best camera he's ever touched and wouldn't let it go for a thousand monkeys on a silver carriage), if you only change over to the relatively-slow 24-105, you may never really experience the camera's power, and be better off with the greater portability of the 30d.

Real factors to me aren't 1:1 lens comparison, they're lens suite comparisons, ISO comparison (5d rocks) and user-interface comparisons (love that massive viewfinder!).

--
Quack.
 
Sure the FF sensor on 5D is a huge advantage. The rest of the camera is really not significantly better than 30D. Actually a little lacking in certain areas – frame rate and build in flash. No mention losing the telephoto boost from the 1.6x camera.

With 17-55 (as compared to 24-105 on 5D) the gap has really been closed quite a bit-- in DOF control and low light capability and arguably even in resolution. The fact of matter is unless you print larger than 20x30 or pixel peeping you most likely will not see any differences between the two.

Now how are you going to justify the extra $1500 you pay for the 5D system beside the drawbacks it has. You can’t just wave the big flag and say it’s ff, it has more pixels, it’s more expensive and it got to be better. We are talking about how to buy the best system with the money spent.

If you’re going to spend $4000 for the following:
1. 5D +24-105
2. 30D +17-55+70-200 IS

You tell me which is the better and more useful system. We are talking about taking pictures and image quality right? Let the P&S owner to tell his brother in law how many pixel his camera has. You tell me under which one condition 5D system will produce better result I can tell you at least 3 the 30D system will be better.

I was exactly answering OP’s question and my answer is 30D +17-55 is money better spend. OP was not asking which camera is better he’s asking which system he should buy.

BTW double the pixel count is not double the resolution. Resolution is measured by linear pixel size. 12.8 to 8.2 MP is only 25% increase in resolution. We should be a little smarter than the P&S crowd. Also please note 5D may have a bigger and brighter viewfinder but you slap on the f4 lens then it won’t be that much brighter than 30D with f2.8 lens. Again we are answering the question about the system not the camera.

OP asked a very good question. The new 17-55 has really changed the landscape. I’ve been considering ff for quite a while but I just can’t find any reason to switch now. At least not with 5D. If in the future there is an ff camera with 1 series like AF and frame rate and 30D like pixel density then I might consider to pour my money in.
Greg Hammond said:
Different strokes for different folks.

Upgrading from 1.6x crop 8 Megapixel camera to a Full Frame sensor
with 12 Megapixels and all other features being the same, heck
yeah, $1500 sounds like a bargain. I own a 10D and a 5D, and let
me tell you, I like the 5D a lot better, and the full-frame sensor,
larger viewfinder, and double the resolution have something to do
with that.

Lets not get off topic here.... the OP asked if the image quality
would be similar, and it definitely will be. Will the 30D be as a
flexible as the 5D? No. Will it be 12 megapixels? No. Will it
shoot great pictures and be flexible enough for 99% of the DSLR
users out there? Yes.

Greg
Click to expand...
 
carlk said:
If you’re going to spend $4000 for the following:
1. 5D +24-105
2. 30D +17-55+70-200 IS
Click to expand...
And how do you get a fast wide prime on the 30D (like the 24/1.4L on the 5D)? The 17-55+30D is 3mm longer on the wide end and has 50% less reach on the long end compared to the 5D+24-105L. To cover what the 5D+24-105L covers, the 30D needs two more lenses (a wider one and a longer one). The 70-200/2.8L IS on the 30D is wonderful but, if you add a 1.4x TC to it, put it on a 5D and up the ISO by one stop, you have more reach at the long end and more FOV on the wide end at the same time, with just as good of optics.

This can go back and forth over and over. Each system has advantages and disadvantages. That's why I have one of each (20D and 5D). I still think the 5D+24-105L IS is a better system than the 30D+17-55, especially since I can use that 24-105 on my 20D for much longer-reach walkaround with IS for those times that is beneficial. Many of the compact cameras are 38-140 or so and the 24-105 is like 38-168 on a 20D - a perfectly suitable system for many situations in which 55mm on that camera is just too short. For example, I just used my 24-105 on the 20D at the lake with my cousins. It was plenty wide enough for shots on the beach and in the boat but still long enough for tight shots of people waterskiing at the end of a 17 foot rope. I also just finished a CD release party with the 5D+24-105 where 24 was just barely wide enough for the whole group but 105 was just barely long enough for an individual performer. The 17-55 on the 30D couldn't have done that job by itself.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Not disagreeing with you we can go back and forth but my point is only how are you going to justify the cost difference? We can argue the merit between 5D+24-105 and 30D +17-55 and I do agree the 5D system holds the advantage but not as huge as before we got the 17-55. However if you put the extra $1500 into the equation- may it be buying 70-200IS for 30D or something else than the balance really tilts toward the 30D system.

One of the most critical considerations for me to stay with 20D is the pixel density. I do use telephoto lenses and will take a big hit switch to 5D type of ff camera. Longer telephoto lenses are very costly. On the other hand I have yet to sort out how am I going to handle the two cameras and asorted lenses if I do buy a ff and keep my 1.6X.
ljfinger said:
carlk said:
If you’re going to spend $4000 for the following:
1. 5D +24-105
2. 30D +17-55+70-200 IS
Click to expand...
And how do you get a fast wide prime on the 30D (like the 24/1.4L
on the 5D)? The 17-55+30D is 3mm longer on the wide end and has
50% less reach on the long end compared to the 5D+24-105L. To
cover what the 5D+24-105L covers, the 30D needs two more lenses (a
wider one and a longer one). The 70-200/2.8L IS on the 30D is
wonderful but, if you add a 1.4x TC to it, put it on a 5D and up
the ISO by one stop, you have more reach at the long end and more
FOV on the wide end at the same time, with just as good of optics.

This can go back and forth over and over. Each system has
advantages and disadvantages. That's why I have one of each (20D
and 5D). I still think the 5D+24-105L IS is a better system than
the 30D+17-55, especially since I can use that 24-105 on my 20D for
much longer-reach walkaround with IS for those times that is
beneficial. Many of the compact cameras are 38-140 or so and the
24-105 is like 38-168 on a 20D - a perfectly suitable system for
many situations in which 55mm on that camera is just too short.
For example, I just used my 24-105 on the 20D at the lake with my
cousins. It was plenty wide enough for shots on the beach and in
the boat but still long enough for tight shots of people
waterskiing at the end of a 17 foot rope. I also just finished a
CD release party with the 5D+24-105 where 24 was just barely wide
enough for the whole group but 105 was just barely long enough for
an individual performer. The 17-55 on the 30D couldn't have done
that job by itself.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Click to expand...
 
carlk said:
Not disagreeing with you we can go back and forth but my point is
only how are you going to justify the cost difference? We can
argue the merit between 5D+24-105 and 30D +17-55 and I do agree the
5D system holds the advantage but not as huge as before we got the
17-55. However if you put the extra $1500 into the equation- may
it be buying 70-200IS for 30D or something else than the balance
really tilts toward the 30D system.
Click to expand...
The cost of a system means different things to different people so there's no direct way to quantify the value of extra performance. For me, a comparable system to what I have now would have been more costly if my other camera had been another 1.6 crop camera. Having two formats makes each lens perform as two lenses. For example, the 35/1.4L acts on my system like a 24/1.4L (really a 24/0.9) and 35/1.4L would on a 20D. So buying the 5D saved me buying a 24/1.4L. That's just an example and each lens has this idea applied to it.
carlk said:
One of the most critical considerations for me to stay with 20D is
the pixel density. I do use telephoto lenses and will take a big
hit switch to 5D type of ff camera. Longer telephoto lenses are
very costly. On the other hand I have yet to sort out how am I
going to handle the two cameras and asorted lenses if I do buy a ff
and keep my 1.6X.
Click to expand...
That's one reason I kept my 20D when I got my 5D. My 70-200/2.8L IS with stacked 1.4x TCs is my longest lens (400mm). The 20D makes it act like a 500mm lens would on the 5D - a lens I don't have. I can't just add another 1.4 (or stack a 2x with 1 1.4) to my existing lens because the 5D doesn't focus well with that combo.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Amin Sabet said:
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.
Click to expand...
High FF sensor cost is NOT artificial. The cost of CPU and memory drop because they can be built SMALLER in each generation. Building a FF sensor 2.56 times larger in area cost at least 4 times as much, depending on yield.

4 years ago I stated on this forum that economical FF sensor is an impossible dream. It still is.
Amin Sabet said:
gml said:
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.
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Amin

http://www.pbase.com/asabet/300d350d_favorites
http://www.pbase.com/asabet/f30_favorites
http://www.sabets.com (family site)
Click to expand...
--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok
 
Although the 17-55 has better resolution (in terms of lines per mm) than the 24-105, the 24-105 on a FF camera gives you larger areas, thus more lines. Besides, the 5D uses larger pixels that does not demands as much resolution from you lens. It just gives you more pixels.

But, do not expect the price of FF camera to drop. It will always be much more expensive.
--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok
 
DreamBoy,

Maybe I'm missing something. If you set the 17-55 to 17mm/f4 and the 24-105 at 28mm/f4 and compare the results . .
The 17-55 sure has far less CA than the 24-105.
Resolution is confusing due to scale changes on the comparision.

Doesn't seem like a glowing endorsement for FF. We are trying to figure out what to do as well.
Jack
http://www.pbase.com/jrs40
DreamBoy said:
Nice!! I think I will save money and bite the bullet to buy full
frame camera. I will use 17-40 as walk around lens for now.
Click to expand...
 
jack scholl said:
Resolution is confusing due to scale changes on the comparision.
Click to expand...
Both are 100% crops. The scale changes are because of the increased resolving power of the sensor with more pixels.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
jack scholl said:
I understand that, but it still makes comparisons difficult.
Click to expand...
I thought this was a system comparison. The OP asked about the 5D+24-105 versus the 30D+17-55. This is a little beyond that but around half of the size difference shown will appear with the 5D as well.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Hello Duck,

Do you have any primes below 28mm that you could recommend on the 5D?

FEBS
 
Febs said:
Hello Duck,

Do you have any primes below 28mm that you could recommend on the 5D?

FEBS
Click to expand...
i frequently deploy a 24 1.4L and sigma's 15mm fisheye.

the 24 vignettes wide-open, but is deliciously crispy otherwise, and can practically see in the dark at 3200 ISO. the fisheye is adequate.

the 16-35L also performs very well, as do good copies of the sigma 12-24 (the latter i've only used in-store, the former lives on my camera for PJ work wider than my 24-105L). no, not primes...but most of the widest primes are either comparable to the zooms (tokina 17) or worse (14mm's). so don't rule out the zooms altogether.

--
Quack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Too much overlap
Replies
8
Views
18K
Dave
Dave
M
A case for the Sigma 17-40
2
Replies
21
Views
34K
GMacF
G
C
A7CR vs A7C + A6700
Replies
15
Views
12K
unhappymeal
U
NowHearThis
Quick 20-60 vs 24-105 question.
2 3
Replies
43
Views
17K
Arthur85
A
IHMacy
My Sony/Canon dilemma
Replies
11
Views
16K
Nusratty
N

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top