Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM vs Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM

I have 17-55 and i am a happy user for 3 months now. Now i have opportunity to switch for a brand new 24-105. I am olso planning to buy 10-22.

What do you think... is it smart for me, to do switch?
I didnt need 2.8 so far, much and i use flash 430ex...

The 17-55 is a superb lens and I think is on par if not better than optical quality of 24-105. The latter has more reach and may be of more importance to your style of shooting but on a crop camera, I personally value the wide-end more.

For travel shots, I find 24mm too long in most cramped areas that you will find yourself. Also, 24-105 is f/4 so in low light or portraiture, it's not ideal.

ms1976 said:

I have 17-55 and i am a happy user for 3 months now. Now i have
opportunity to switch for a brand new 24-105. I am olso planning to
buy 10-22.

What do you think... is it smart for me, to do switch?
I didnt need 2.8 so far, much and i use flash 430ex...

Click to expand...

It can go either way. Not one is better over the other.

I have a 24-105L and 10-22 combo. It is the best (for me) doing events with a 2 camera setup. Weddings, funerals, birthdays, etc is just right with this combo. Next week, I plan to pick up a tamron 17-50 f2.8 di-2. It's not the f2.8, it's just that on a 1 body, I miss the 17-23mm in some situations. However, I also know that a 17-50, though seemingly good all around, can be lacking in wide, or lacking in reach. You can't really have it all.

Optically, I think the 17-55/50 f2.8 lenses are slightly sharper than the 24-105L. I still remember the sharpenss of the tamron 28-75 I had, so I miss that to some degree. I have a good copy of the 24-105L, so it's not that my copy is bad. but the 17-50/55 has that extra bite so I hope to have that back by next week.

Most people go for a 17-55/50 and a 70-200/300 solution, or maybe in a month's time a 55-250 IS solution. In that light, would a 10-22, 17-55 IS and a 70-300/200 or 55-250 IS fit into your needs? It's a 3 lens solution, but a more comprehensive one and has a better reach.

I have decided to get the tamron 17-50 f2.8 because it is cheaper in price, smaller, lighter, but optically on par with the 17-55 IS. So, maybe that can be another option on your part. Have a 10-22, 24-105 and a 17-50/55 f2.8 and adjust your sets accordingly. You can go 10-22 and 24-105L, or 10-22 and 17-50, or 17-50 and 24-105L as a 2 lens set when you go out. It depends on what you need to do. You have f2.8 when you need speed, or you have IS if you need steady your shot plus a the extra 56-105mm w/c the 17-55 doesn't have. The overlap is the least of your worries. It's the versatility of these 3 lens used in combination.

Remember, I am coming from a 10-22 and 24-105L combo w/c has worked well for 1.5 years. But I now need a smaller, lighter and better wide-to-midrange f2.8 lens that doesn't cost a lot. So maybe you can keep your 17-55 and not sell it.

--
--------------------

• Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

both lenses are great. what is your shooting style? For me, 55mm is right in the middle of my range, so I went with the 24-105L as it matches me perfect without lens swaps on my 20D. Take a look at a 17mm lens, I find that at 24mm I only have to take one step back to get the same angle as 17. I never found 24mm to be an issue, even from my latest Disney trip. I only took out my 12-24 Tokina once, when I wanted to capture a parade and my sons faces in the same frame.

its_ying said:

The 17-55 is a superb lens and I think is on par if not better than
optical quality of 24-105. The latter has more reach and may be of
more importance to your style of shooting

Click to expand...

Thats what i think.

I went from a 24-105L to a 17-55IS (via a Tamron 17-50f/2.8) and found it to be sharper than the 24-105L but i do miss having the extra reach the L gives.

I also use a 420EX at home so speed wasn't an issue but its nice to be able to blur the background.

--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com

I would get the 24-105.

For me the longer range is more useful. And you're planning on the 10-22 as well so you won't be losing out on the wide end.

It is not well suited on a crop body.

On my 400D it is a goofy, useless lens.

On my 5D it works wonders.

28-88 FF equiv is what you get with a 17-55, and most of my shots seem to be in the 35-85 MM range.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

Ominous said:

On my 400D it is a goofy, useless lens.

Click to expand...

I think the 24-105L is an excellent choice (even on a crop cam like the 30D or 300/350/400D)! I use it all the time and I think it's a great lens with a big range (and no issues at all). The IS is also a very nice feature (I don't always carry a tripod when I'm traveling).

Here are some shots with this lens from my last trip(s) (you can find more in my Pbase gallery):

http://www.pbase.com/tvw/image/70794976

http://www.pbase.com/tvw/image/70795203

http://www.pbase.com/tvw/image/72290761

http://www.pbase.com/tvw/image/70795211

http://www.pbase.com/tvw/image/70795238

http://www.pbase.com/tvw/image/70795263

http://www.pbase.com/tvw/image/79672228

http://www.pbase.com/tvw/image/79674246

http://www.pbase.com/tvw/image/79674857

http://www.pbase.com/tvw/image/79675984

--
http://www.pbase.com/tvw

At least in my experience, 24 MM on a crop camera is too limiting to be used indoors.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

Ominous said:

At least in my experience, 24 MM on a crop camera is too limiting to
be used indoors.

Click to expand...

It was in mine though. just adding another thought, not disagreeing.

I can quite happily live with 24mm (i did for ages). of course there would be some shots i might miss but i like to zoom in close and feel i do miss out having the longer end more.
YMMV

--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com

I myself have never used the 17-55 2.8L, but I do feel you will afterwards regret dearly changing to the 24-105 4L. I had it for a time, but was never satisfied with it. It´s IQ, colors and just about everything is a compromise of way too many things. If you haven´t yet used the 2.8 aperture it´s worth getting aquinted with its uses. You will probably be pleasantly surprised.

I myself sold my 24-105 and got the 24-70 2.8L instead. Shooting on a 1.6x I felt it was the best move to make at the time and it sure was! 70 mm is enough on a 1.6x crop for most uses. I did though have the 10-22 as well for the wide end, but didn´t really use it at all for cramped spaces or people (it was a specialty lens for landscapes).

So I think this:

As long as you shoot on a 1.6x crop keep on to the 17-55 2.8L. It´s like having two lenses in one. If only there were a 17-55 2.8L for the 1D series as well! It would be great! Even if you really need more reach. Keep even then the 17-55 2.8L and get a medium priced fixed focal lens, like the 85 1.8 or a 100/135 mm lens to accompanie it.

But if you decide to sell the 17-55 2.8L for some reason remember that road wont be cheap. Your choice of lenses would mean to get a WIDE (for 1.6x there is really only one good choice: the 10-22) and a NORMAL ZOOM lens (the 24-70 2.8L. If you decide against the 24-70 get instead of it two fixed focal lenses (35/50 + 85/100/135). As you see you might end up with 3 lenses instead of your 17-55!

Whatever your choice among these is I wouldn´t get myself involved with the 24-105. Maybe you will find out the 17-55 isn´t that bad of a range after all. Just my subjective feelings...

I can travel around the world w/two lens - the 24-105 and 10-22MM. I find the 24-105 works very well on a crop body for street photography where the mild telephoto works well. I rarely shoot "real" telephoto photos on vacation anyway, so from 16 to 160MM is a great total range.

Other points in the 24-105 favor is that it's the least conspicuous telephoto L lens, and it has one of the widest zoom ranges of any L lens. So overall, a great travel and city lens. Fits in a fanny pack, camera and other lens around your neck. Simple.