17-55/2.8 and 24-105/4L together?

Is there anyone out there that has both these lenses by design? I've got a 30D with 24-105L and a Sigma 30/1.4. I've started liking the Sigma because of the aperture and find that I shoot a lot at f/2 or f/2.8 - I've also found 24 on my 24-105 to be not wide enough for indoors (otherwise love the lens) at family events. Is it crazy that I'm considering buying a 17-55/2.8 to use as a dedicated indoor lens? Anyone do this? I love my 24-105 outside. I like the Sigma inside but it is obviously not wide enough for tight family functions/events. I've considered the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 18-50 as an option but I want the lens to be sharp at f/2.8 and preferrably have USM (IS is less of an issue). Any advice is appreciated - thanks!Any advice is appreciated - thanks!

I have ordered 17-55 and canon 40d and flash canon 580ex. I hope everything will be delivered this week. I have 24-105 and is not wide enought for group photos and landscape. I was going to buy 5d but finally i decided for 40D because has more features and new procesor, half price . And on 40D 17-55 is very good range. I have had sigma 30mm and i have exchanged for canon 35L. I have also 17-40L but is not sharp enought.
--
lepski

lepski said:

I have ordered 17-55 and canon 40d and flash canon 580ex. I hope
everything will be delivered this week. I have 24-105 and is not wide
enought for group photos and landscape. I was going to buy 5d but
finally i decided for 40D because has more features and new procesor,
half price . And on 40D 17-55 is very good range. I have had sigma
30mm and i have exchanged for canon 35L. I have also 17-40L but is
not sharp enought.
--
lepski

Click to expand...

how did you find the 24-105 for the average walk around lens? did you find the f/4.0 fast enough for every day shots? of course the 17-55 you can use for tighter shots and the 35L if you need a good sharp shot, but how did you find the 24-105 for the shots outside and most inside shots, in good and bad light? cause i am tossing up between the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-105 4.0.

any thoughts?

I absolutely love my 24-105 and it is more than fast enough outside. I shot my sister's college graduation with it and got some great long shots too. 24mm is just a little long inside and f/4 a little slow. That's why I was thinking of getting a 17-55 in addition to the 24-105 for use indoors. I wanted to see if anyone else has done the same thing.

That is a pair that I hope/will eventually have. I like the versatility of the 24-105mm outdoors. I want the 17-55mm for general purpose indoor use. I just find the dust issue a little disconcerting to pull the trigger.

TEJ PHATAK said:

I absolutely love my 24-105 and it is more than fast enough outside.
I shot my sister's college graduation with it and got some great long
shots too. 24mm is just a little long inside and f/4 a little
slow. That's why I was thinking of getting a 17-55 in addition to
the 24-105 for use indoors. I wanted to see if anyone else has done
the same thing.

Click to expand...

i have been thinking the same thing. is to maybe have the 17-55mm 2.8 to cover the quicker shots while the 24-105/4.0 for the general every day shots. i have a feeling they would compliment each other really well.

you shoot also on the smaller 1.6 crop body i see?

I have the 24-105 for my 40D and it seems to be a nice combination. I'm not sure what all the hype is all about with regards to the 17mm vs 24mm. Sure it's wider, but I find that I just need to step back a little bit to get the same view as the 17mm.

As for the faster 2.8, we're only talking one stop and with a camera such as the 40D, increasing the ISO a bit to get the faster shutter speed is not problem. Also, 2.8 may not always be desirable because of the shallow DOF (am I correct on this?). F4 seems to work fine and the IS really helps in low light. Sure the brokeh is not as nice, but at 105 from a distance, it can be very nice at f4.

The wide end at 24mm is about the same as my G9 and I've only come across one or two situations where I required an UW lens. The equivalent 38-168 focal range is awfully nice. After taking a look at my photos over the past year, my images were mostly taken in the 40-80mm range, so this lens, for me, makes an excellent single lens solution. If I had to get another lens, I would consider the 10-22 to complement the 24-105.

I can't see the point of having a 17-55 along with the 24-105 because of the overlap. It would think it should be one or the other. They both have excellent IQ.

--
Best regards,

Rusty

I think 10-22 + 24-105 or 17-55 + 70-200/4 will be better pairs. If 17mm is wide enough, I recommend the later.

I have 10-22, 17-85, 70-200/4 (and others too). If I have to cut one, I will let go the 10-22 since the 70-200 is good for both portrait and landscape.

Cheers!

I have the 30D and 24-105, and like you, I have found that the 24 is not wide enough for indoor family gatherings.

I have been considering the 17-55, but finally decided that the 2.8 at 17mm, at fairly close quarters would not be very good depth of field, so I would end up still using an external flash and a smaller aperature. So I am now getting ready to order the 17-40L, and the 85 f1.8. Theses two together are about the same price as the 17-55. I get the benefits of the wide angle, "L" build quality, and as a bonus get a (reputed) very good indoor low light portrait lens. I also have the ability to use both of these lenses on a "future(?)" full frame body. I think my lenses will outlive my 30D!

Good luck with your decision.

Kay