17-55 and 24-105- Too Much Overlap or?

Another Opinion · Jan 17, 2007

My ongoing quest for the ideal lens kit led me to the 24-105L which I love and has become my walkabout lens. There are times though when I miss the 2.8 speed of the 24-70 I sold to acquire the new lens with better range, IS and less weight.

I was considering the 17-55 as a second walkabout for those occasions when I need fast lens for low light and don't want to be jumping back and forth between lenses. The 17-55 offers enough range especially with the 1.6 crop factor to be a great second walkabout lens especially for indoor lowlight situations.

I know there's a lot of range overlap but I was thinking

10-22 for outdoor, architectural, and really wide fun stuff

17-55
24-105
70-200 f4 IS

1.4 extender

It really seems I'd be covered on all occasions. Any thoughts are appreciated.

btw- I don't anticipate FF in the foreseeable future and the resale on well kept Canon quality glass is a real commodity.
--
Respectfully submitted

boudro_ · Jan 17, 2007

I wouldn't do that. the 17-55 and the 24-105 are almost the same lens for different cameras.

why not just fill the gap with a prime if you need to?

Don_D · Jan 18, 2007

I see your reasoning and think it's valid. You could buy the 17-55 and see how it all works out over the next 6 months. If you find that you use either the 17-55 or the 24-105 to the exclusion of the other, you could always sell one and take a small loss.

I have the 10-22, 17-55, 70-200f/4 and I am considering buying the 24-105...coming at the same "problem" from another direction.

To be honest, I am having a hard time making the additional purchase, as it would be expensive and a real luxury. For the time being, I am going to live with what I have.

Another Opinion said:
My ongoing quest for the ideal lens kit led me to the 24-105L which
I love and has become my walkabout lens. There are times though
when I miss the 2.8 speed of the 24-70 I sold to acquire the new
lens with better range, IS and less weight.

I was considering the 17-55 as a second walkabout for those
occasions when I need fast lens for low light and don't want to be
jumping back and forth between lenses. The 17-55 offers enough
range especially with the 1.6 crop factor to be a great second
walkabout lens especially for indoor lowlight situations.

I know there's a lot of range overlap but I was thinking

10-22 for outdoor, architectural, and really wide fun stuff

17-55
24-105
70-200 f4 IS

1.4 extender

It really seems I'd be covered on all occasions. Any thoughts are
appreciated.

btw- I don't anticipate FF in the foreseeable future and the resale
on well kept Canon quality glass is a real commodity.
--
Respectfully submitted

--
Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

dave_bass5 · Jan 18, 2007

Im thinking of getting the 17-55 f/2.8 as well to compliment my 24-105L.

At the moment i have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and i do seem to use it quite a lot, more so than my 24-105L even though the 24-105L has an almost perfect FL for me. Its just that having the extra bit on the WA end and my Tamron is really sharp. I just fancy the IS and i guess the slightly better IQ that i will get from the 17-55.

Plus im off to DW next month and i know my 17-50 will be used a lot but for low light im more inclined to use the IS lens (not for people shots obviously) so i guess if i got the 17-55 i would get more shots with it. I have a 50mm f/1.4 for the real low light shots.

The thing is the 17-55 is a lot of money considering i have the Tamron already and im very happy with it, plus its smaller and lighter (and dust free;-).

I agree there is too much over lap but each lens has a different use for me. If im sight seeing then the 17-55 would be better to get buildings etc in shot but if im just out with the family the 24-105L covers everything.
Just thinking out loud
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com

argue · Jan 18, 2007

I started with the 24-105 and took advantage of a good opportunity to buy the 17-55. So I have both at the moment and the 24-105 is now rarely used. On a 1.6 crop the 24-105 not wide enough (for me) for a walk around lens. The gap between 17-55 and my 70-300 (on a second body) is not an issue.

(Moreover my copy of the 17-55 is slightly sharper then my copy of the 24-105. Please don't get this wrong: the 24-105 is a sharp lens.)

--
argue

Anthony de Vries · Jan 18, 2007

I consider the 17-55 an ideal walk-around lens. Wide enough for achitecture, long enough for portrait. And at f/2.8 it has good low-light and background blur capability.

Together with that 70-200 you allready have, you're pretty well covered, and probably wouldn't use the 24-105 that much...

Unless ofcourse, the 24-105 perfectly fits your shooting style... Which it probably doesn't enough, otherwise you wouldn't think about the 17-55.

ronh181975 · Jan 18, 2007

Have you thought about putting the money towards a 5D body and then thinking along the lines of a 70-200 for a second lens?

--
ronh
http://www.pbase.com/ronhole

netspots · Jan 18, 2007

ronh said:
Have you thought about putting the money towards a 5D body and then
thinking along the lines of a 70-200 for a second lens?

That's not a bad thought...

But for the 1.6 crop cameras, I'm starting to think that the 17-55 along with the 70-200 might just be the perfect 2-lens set.

Robert Deutsch · Jan 18, 2007

ronh said:
Have you thought about putting the money towards a 5D body

That's what I was going to suggest. The 24-105 range works well on a 1.6x body, but it's GREAT on a full-frame. If you then wanted an ultrawide, you could get a 17-40L, which is very wide on a full-frame. I went from a 20D to a 5D myself, and love it. However, if I didn't already have the 5D, I would wait now to see what Photokina brings. A replacement for the 5D is quite likely. When that comes, if money is an issue, you should be able to pick up a 5D at an excellent price.

Bob

zhr403 · Jan 18, 2007

I just recently received a 30D for Christmas gift. My wife was very kind to me, as she also got me a 70-200 2.8 IS canon lens to go with it (for my daughter's gymnastic meets). For next few weeks, I did an enormous amount of research on what walk-around lens I should get. It came down to the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-105 4.0 (both Canon lenses). I went with the 17-55 2.8.

I just back from a trip from Disney World with the kids and never took the 17-55 lens off the camera. You need the wide end on a 1.6 crop camera.

I was also concerned that the 17-55 would not be long enough as a walk-around, so I also purchased a Sigma 17-200. In short, I did not need it.

I am considering the Canon 10-22 to get a little more on the wide end.
If I only had 2 lenses it would be 17-55 and 70-200
If I only had 3 lenses it would be 10-22, 17-55, 70-200
I I only had 4 lenses it would be 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 and 24-105
--
Bobbert

netspots · Jan 18, 2007

zhr403 said:
I just back from a trip from Disney World with the kids and never took the 17-55 lens off the camera.

How did you feel about the size & weight of the 17-55 lens while walking around DW?

I'm wondering if it might be too big or heavy for that kind of trip.

zhr403 · Jan 18, 2007

I had no problem walking around with the 30D 17-55 combo in DW. This could be because I often use the 70-200 2.8 IS for my daughter's gymnastics events. This, by comparision, light.

As a side note, I did buy a Sigma 17-200 (which is considerably smaller than the Canon 17-55) with the idea that I might need the reach while in DW. I never even thought about putting this lense on the camera (even considering it's smaller size.
--
Bobbert

dave_bass5 · Jan 18, 2007

zhr403 said:
I just recently received a 30D for Christmas gift. My wife was
very kind to me, as she also got me a 70-200 2.8 IS canon lens to
go with it (for my daughter's gymnastic meets). For next few
weeks, I did an enormous amount of research on what walk-around
lens I should get. It came down to the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-105
4.0 (both Canon lenses). I went with the 17-55 2.8.

I just back from a trip from Disney World with the kids and never
took the 17-55 lens off the camera. You need the wide end on a 1.6
crop camera.

I was also concerned that the 17-55 would not be long enough as a
walk-around, so I also purchased a Sigma 17-200. In short, I did
not need it.

I am considering the Canon 10-22 to get a little more on the wide end.
If I only had 2 lenses it would be 17-55 and 70-200
If I only had 3 lenses it would be 10-22, 17-55, 70-200
I I only had 4 lenses it would be 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 and 24-105
--
Bobbert

Good advice there.
Do you have any shots from your DW trip with the 17-55IS?
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com

Another Opinion · Jan 18, 2007

I did the "if I only had 4" plus a bit. I sat a long time with 2 heavy lens' that most said were the best but really just sat in the box on a shelf: the 16-35 and the 24-70. Firstly the 16-35 was not that wide at 1.6 and too short a focal range. The 24-70 was very heavy and the range wasn't all that great either. I know many have spent hard earned cash and love those two lenses. A while back those were the predominant zooms spoken of on this forum, or was it before the lens forum even existed.

I'm still trying to justify my purchase but while playing around I got some incredibly sharp candid pictures of my daughter and her puppy with the 17-55 wide open at ISO 800. They could never be captured in the light I had with the 24-105. But the range of the 24-105 and the image quality are just hard to part with once you try it.

I may
--
Respectfully submitted

Greg Pavlov · Jan 18, 2007

I have both. The aperture difference is more significant to me than
the range overlap.

Another Opinion · Jan 18, 2007

Here Here! I just bought the 17-55 and 70-200f4IS. I already have the 10-22. This is the first time in years I've felt like I've got the complete kit without some crappy superzoom and primes I never use except for tripod studio work.

I know I'm not alone out there on this.
--
Respectfully submitted

ronh181975 · Jan 18, 2007

hmmm I wonder who has that setup

but..I will be moving to the 1dsN camera at some point soon and will certainly miss the 17-55...I'm not too sure I can carry (or afford) keeping a 1.6 as a second body just for that lens..I'm hoping there will be a 24-70 2.8 IS for full frame by then.

There are so many ways one can go...none of them inexpensive.

Ron

netspots said:
That's not a bad thought...
But for the 1.6 crop cameras, I'm starting to think that the 17-55
along with the 70-200 might just be the perfect 2-lens set.

--
ronh
http://www.pbase.com/ronhole

zhr403 · Jan 19, 2007

zhr403 · Jan 19, 2007

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic?id=b9d0ykOH9GwaCbe0GTOh-syRQKwcTntlXYAsv4xQp5Fd3Ig=&size=l
--
Bobbert

17-55 and 24-105- Too Much Overlap or?

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Senior Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Active member

Keyboard shortcuts