Reading mode: Light Dark

40D with 17-70, 17-55 or 24-105???

Go to last post
A

Ade Hughes

Well-known member
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
Location
Manchester, US
Got my 40D zoom setup including Sigma 17-70 and Canon 70-200 F4L. It's spending-hard-earned-cash time so I've just bought a Canon 10-22 and am awaiting delivery. I am also contemplating trading in the Sigma for either a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS or a Canon 24-105L IS. (Or I could keep the Sigma and go for something else). I'm leaning towards the 24-105 as I do a lot of portraits and with the IS I reckon f4 is good enough. So I'm interested in opinions on both when coupled to the 40D. Thanks in advance
 
Hello,

I own both the 24-105 F4L IS and the 17-55 2.8 IS, and, like you, the 70-200 F4L IS.

Since I got the 17-55, the 24-105 collects dust. While it is true that the 24-105 is great for portraits, so is the 70-200. Besides, the 17-55 and the 70-200 make a perfect travel combo: ligthweight and the best picture quality you can possibly get from zooms in this range.

However, I like the 24-105 to take snapshots at parties and the like. But for traveling, it is too long on the wide end and too short on the long end.

In conclusion, the 17-55 is certainly a lens to get!

I consider the 10-22 to complement my collection. Can you recommend it according to your experience so far?

Matthias.

-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.nautigar.de
 
Hi Matthias - thanks for your advice. I am very tempted by the 17-55 because I use the 17-70 a lot but am looking for a step up in IQ.

As for the 10-22 I would love to give you my opinion but it is still en-route to me! Hopefully it will arrive tomorrow
 
It's a killer lens. I haven't once regretted purchasing this lens, and am constantly amazed at the IQ it provides.

Some recent (and hopefully fun) samples from an impromtu Bunny shoot with the 17-55mm lens on a Rebel XT. No processing other then converting the RAW files to jpeg in ACR, and then opening them up in PS for some cropping, and simple Matte and Framing actions (so basically these are straight out-of-the camera shots):





Good luck to you!

--
bryan
--------
Oak & Acorn
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakandacorns/sets/

Free Lightroom Presets Gallery:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakandacorns/sets/72157603997081572/

G9 ISO 3200 Gallery: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/p706413854/

New Zenfolio Gallery: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/

Canon G9 Gallery: http://bryanw.zenfolio.com/f836894562/

 
I use 17-55/2.8IS all the time. My travelling duo is that and the 70-200/2.8L IS. I find the 70-200 better for portrait as I like to get it close up.
--
See my photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz
 
I have the 40D and 17-55is + 70-200 f4is. Great!

I find that I make quite a lot use of the 17 focal length, a lot more than I expected. So I dont think I would have traded it in for a 24-70/105. The f2.8 + IS is quite nice for idoor photos! A 17-70 f2.8 L IS would be great! Untill then, I'd go for the 17-55IS.

Rune
 
Ive also got the 70-200 f/4 IS and 17-55IS and can only echo what others have said.

I used to have a 24-105L but found that once i got the 17-55IS i stopped using it and sold it. I do miss the longer reach though but out of the three lens's that was the softest.

I would much prefer to shoot over 55mm with the 70-200 than with the 24-105L. not that its not a good lens, just that its not as good as the other two i own.

Saying that i am thinking about getting another one as for me it would be a perfect walk around lens for me during the summer months. I would miss f/2.8 and so wouldn't use it for much more than just everyday shots.
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
The 17-55 is a larger step up in IQ than the 24-105 (not that the 24-105 isn't very good). Both do OK for portraits, but really you want a faster lens for that. Both lenses lack a bit of flare resistance too (if that matters to you).

The 17-55 is just about the perfect walkaround lens for APS-C. The 24-105 fills the same role for FF.

Regards,

Jon
Ade Hughes said:
Hi Matthias - thanks for your advice. I am very tempted by the 17-55
because I use the 17-70 a lot but am looking for a step up in IQ.

As for the 10-22 I would love to give you my opinion but it is still
en-route to me! Hopefully it will arrive tomorrow
--
Click to expand...
--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b
 
Ade Hughes said:
Got my 40D zoom setup including Sigma 17-70 and Canon 70-200 F4L.
It's spending-hard-earned-cash time so I've just bought a Canon 10-22
and am awaiting delivery. I am also contemplating trading in the
Sigma for either a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS or a Canon 24-105L IS. (Or I
could keep the Sigma and go for something else). I'm leaning towards
the 24-105 as I do a lot of portraits and with the IS I reckon f4 is
good enough. So I'm interested in opinions on both when coupled to
the 40D. Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
My own experience: The 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 is a wonderful lineup of lenses. I have them all and use the 17-55 most of the time on my 40D.

I also own the 24-105 but use it mainly when I carry two cameras....one with the 24-105 and the other with the 10-22.
For my needs I would pick the 17-55 over the 24-105 every time.

--
Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond
 
Ade Hughes said:
Thanks for all the great advice - I think I'm sold on the 17-55 :-)
Click to expand...
you wont be sorry.

Just remember to get a hood as you seem to need it more on this lens than a lot of other lens's.
I got mine off ebay for a lot less than in the shops (and it is a Canon one).
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
I have the 17-55, worked with this lens on 20D and 40D for the last year, it is the best lens I have. However, this is a low light and event lens, what kingdof shots do you do mostly? If mostly portraits, keep what you have and add a fast 85mm F1.8 prime, also your 70-200 and 10-22 are very good lens.

If you have all 3, 10-22, 17-55, 70-200 you will have very good zoom lens for all 3 ranges.

Ps - While I like the 17-55, you can get 3 fast primes for the same price, and would look at the Sigma 30mm, Canon 50mm and the 85mm F1.8
 
17-55 for sure. Since getting this lens, I have been absolutely blown away at the IQ it gives, time and time again. With the 40D's excellent low noise at ISOs up to 800, it gives fan-tas-tic photos, expecially when sauntering around a city like Hong Kong at night.

I have no reservations in recommending the 17-55... none.
 
LarryPhoto said:
I have the 17-55, worked with this lens on 20D and 40D for the last
year, it is the best lens I have. However, this is a low light and
event lens,
Click to expand...
Why do you say that?

In fact i would have said its too short for events and really f/2.8 isnt that fast.

The thing with having three primes is the time it can take to change over could mean you miss a shot IMO.

Primes are nice and sharper (i have a couple myself)but not as convenient as a zoom, again IMHO.
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
Hello,

I never have played with the EFS-17-55 IS but I went for the EF 17-40 L, EF 24-105 L IS en EF 100-400 L IS.
That is for now my lens trio.

Sometimes the EF 24-105 L IS is to long for landscape, so for that I use the 17-40 L.
Just change the Canon EOS 300D for a 40D so start over learning again.

Greetings,

Edwin Verweij
 
I have both the 17-55 2.8 is and the 24-105 f4 and if had to pick one (they are both excellent ) i would pick the 17-55 for all round versatility and the usable 2.8 on it.
 
eddepet said:
Hello,

I never have played with the EFS-17-55 IS but I went for the EF 17-40
L, EF 24-105 L IS en EF 100-400 L IS.
That is for now my lens trio.
Sometimes the EF 24-105 L IS is to long for landscape, so for that I
use the 17-40 L.
Just change the Canon EOS 300D for a 40D so start over learning again.

Greetings,

Edwin Verweij
Click to expand...
Nice lens's but all slow IMO. Adding something like a f/2.8 will make the lens a bit more versatile but i suppose its down to what you want to shoot (and if you need a red ring on everything ;-)
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
 
Ade Hughes said:
Got my 40D zoom setup including Sigma 17-70 and Canon 70-200 F4L.
It's spending-hard-earned-cash time so I've just bought a Canon 10-22
and am awaiting delivery. I am also contemplating trading in the
Sigma
Click to expand...
First get to know the 10-22. Don't rush into trades and purchases.
 
While the f2.8 is not fast compared to my F1.4 and F1.8 prime lens, the 17-55 has a very good IS system and you can hand hold very slow, plus this lens is very sharp at F2.8, while some F1.8 or F1.4 lens really need stopped down to be sharp.
dave_bass5 said:
LarryPhoto said:
I have the 17-55, worked with this lens on 20D and 40D for the last
year, it is the best lens I have. However, this is a low light and
event lens,
Click to expand...
Why do you say that?
In fact i would have said its too short for events and really f/2.8
isnt that fast.

The thing with having three primes is the time it can take to change
over could mean you miss a shot IMO.
Primes are nice and sharper (i have a couple myself)but not as
convenient as a zoom, again IMHO.
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
--

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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