17-55 IS or 24-105 L IS

Now that the 18-200 review was posted I can think about what will be my next move and I will need some help.
I actually have the following set
Canon 40D
Canon 10-22
Canon 17-85IS
Canon 75-300 IS
Canon 100mm Macro USM

I am considering the upgrade to a 50D and some lenses.

My thoughts are.

Option 1
Change my 17-85 and 75-300 to

A 17-55 IS and a 55-250 IS, but than, I have heard the 55-250 is not as good as my 75-300...
The other option.
Change my 17-85 to
24 105 IS L.

In this case I might very few times use my 75-300, so the major advantage is that I would basically use only two lenses, the 10-22 and the 24-105.

The only problem is that I will have to frequently change lenses, because I mainly take my images in the 17 to 50 mm zone and that the 24-105 is f4.0, the 17-55 is 2.8.

The advantage is that the 24-105 is a full frame lenses and has a stronger built (its an L lenses!).

In this case, I could both change my 75-300 to a new 70-300 IS which is said to be much better, but I cant find any review on the 75-300, so I cant really support that, or th 70-200 IS L, which is a little more expensive (not that much), bulkier, but that is deffinitely much better.

Any thoughts?

I like to take images of architecture, some macros and street images, basically on my traveling. I do carry a tripod many times, but would rather not to...

--
Alexandre F de Fagundes

I rolled mostly with the 10-22 and 17-55, I also had the 70-300. If it were me, i'd go for the 24-105. I think that 10-22 and 24-105 would be my travel kit (and plus, you get a good walk around for when you (eventually) got FF.

I think you might be right, with the 17-55, I would need very often a larger telephoto, so I would end up using the lousy 75-300 more often than I use today and my 17-85 is good at the large telephoto end.
--
Alexandre F de Fagundes

I am using 24-105mm f4 IS with 5D and 40D and it performs fantastic with both, although behaves different with each camera's crop/FF sensors. What makes the 24-105mm f4 IS different from EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS is reach and L built quality. IQ of each lens is subject to heated debate. Although 17-55mm is a superb lens but the built is flimsy and it's front element is prone to collecting dust and no HOOD for almost the same price. I know I am gonna draw some heat from 17-55mm fans but truth must be told O). If you add the 10-22mm WA along with 24-105mm f4, you'll be set for your traveling photog adventures, just as stated in previous post!

cheerz.

The problem with the 24-xx lenses on a 1.6 x body is that 24 is not wide enough. 55 may be on the short side but as you stated you primarily shoot in the 17-50 range. I think you would end up with more lens changes with a 24-xx than a 17-xx lens. I normally shoot with a 24-70 and find that I need more on the wide side than on the long side.
--
Randy

I think that the best combo is

10-22
17-55 and
either the Canon 18-200 IS or a third party in this range.
Telephone depending on budget.

Use the 1st two lenses when best possible IQ and wide angle needs arise.

Use the 3rd lens as a 'general workaround' compromising a bit of IQ and WA for more range.

In a crop body:

The 17-55 can do low light better than 24-105
It can do indoors better than the 17-55
It has better subject isolation

It is sharper, again debatable but that has been my experience after going through several copies of both.

If you can set aside the 'flimsyness' and 'potential dust' problems of the 17-55, this may be the better choice.

Mike

--
Best regards,
Eugene

If you can, I would keep the 40D, add the 50D - your lineup to me would be the 10-22, 24-105 & trade the 75-300 for the 70-300IS, & skip the 17-55. I prefer my 17-40L over the 17-55 any day.

Because I don't like to swap lenses all the time I usually use two cameras. I used the 24-105 and the Tokina 12-24. So I didn't have to change lenses, but cameras what is much faster and easier.

When the 17-55 IS came things changed: Now I use the 17-55 IS and the 70-300 IS on my cameras. This combo fits much better my needs. (If I expect that I need more wide angle the 12-24 comes along. The 24-105 is a kind of spare part when I travel for a longer time.)

17-55 vs. 25-105: Beside the obvious differences (speed, reach) the 17-55 (at least regarding my copies) is sharper and has less distortion. But a 17-55 warning: It's a dust collecter. I really have a lot of dust between the first and the second glass of the lens. That's really annoying. It seems not to have any impact on IQ until now - but I'm wondering when this will change since the amount of dust certainly will increase. No issues with the 24-105. It's sealed.

Hope this helps ... (If you want to get an impression of the kind of photos I take, check out my gallery - link below - for some samples.)

--
**********************************
http://picasaweb.google.de/jaegerdeslichts
**********************************

I see, a very complicated decision.
Nobody voted for me to keeping my 17-85, right?

Well, I had a trip where I took only my 10-22 and the 75-300 and find out that I need that middle range much more often than I thought I had to.
I find myself already changing very often between my 17-85 and 10-22 lenses.
--
Alexandre F de Fagundes

You can certainly keep the 17-85 IS but the other 2 lenses are better (17-55 &24-105)

Actually I am in the exact same situation as you, and I think I have finally come to a decision:
I will go 10-22 & 24-105 but will keep 2 bodies to avoid swapping lenses.

I use the 10-22 about 25% of the time which for me justified to keep the 2nd body.

--
Didier
http://www.pbase.com/didierv

I had a choice between 17-55 and 24-105 for 40D, to replace my kit 17-85 (while I already had 10-22 and 70-300).

I looked at my pictures previously made with 17-85 and made a conclusion that most of my pictures used 17-50 focal length.

With 17-55 I just would use one lens switching to 10-22 only when I need UWA or to 70-300 only when I need telephoto.

With 10-22 and 24-105 I would constantly have to flip between these two lenses in normal situations.

So I went with 17-55 which isone step brighter than 24-105 and has similar IQ. However 17-55 is not built as good as L's and cannot be usedl on FF's.

Being in your place I would go with 17-55 unless you are going to upgrade to FF soon, then 24-105 will be an obvious choice.

--
Cheers,
Zbyszek

I kept 17-85 for some time after I have already bought 17-55. But soon I realized that was only collecting dust on itself lying on the shelf (or just another useless weight in the bag). So I let it go...

10-22+17-55+70-300 fits all my needs on 40D.

--
Cheers,
Zbyszek

In case you missed this thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=29642352

--
Regards,
Roger

I was in the same position a month ago as I had the 10-22, 28-135 & 70-200 f4, and figured it was time to replace the 28-135 IS.

I did consider the 17-55 f2.8 as well, but figure the few MM in between the two lenses I miss I can sneaker-zoom, so I went with the 24-105 since about 80% of my shots are within the 24-105 range. Also I felt that going from 135 back down to 55mm was too much range to loose (for me)

When I go out to shoot I do not do any specific type of photography, so the 24-105 gives me a lot more options (range) while I am out while only carring 1 lens (or the 10-22 and 24-105).

covers a standard range on the 1.6x bodies. 24-105 doesn't, and it's slower.

pretty easy decision.

I totally agree. Everything is personal preference. For my shooting style 24-105+10-22 would be a headache while 10-22+17-55 is perfect (in my case focal lenght overlap in 17-22 range even more reduces frequency of lens changes).

For you 10-22+24-105 might be an excellent choice and 10-22+17-55 might be a problem !

--
Cheers,
Zbyszek

I do not think there is a good or bad solution, it depends on your priorities.

Both lenses are fine pieces of glass, and both have their advantages and drawbacks.

It is purely a matter of preference, as we have seen in this thread, it is pretty much a50/50 split between 2 good lenses.
--
Didier
http://www.pbase.com/didierv

Alexandre F de Fagundes wrote:
"Option 1
Change my 17-85 and 75-300 to

a 17-55 IS and a 55-250 IS, but than, I have heard the 55-250 is not as good as my 75-300..."

Alexandre F de Fagundes said:

In this case, I could both change my 75-300 to a new 70-300 IS which
is said to be much better, but I cant find any review on the 75-300,
so I cant really support that, or th 70-200 IS L, which is a little
more expensive (not that much), bulkier, but that is deffinitely much
better.

Click to expand...

I haven't owned a 1.6x crop body for a while, so can't really comment on the EF-S lenses, but I have owned the 75-300IS, the 70-300IS (for a short time) and do own the 70-200L f4IS. You WILL find a considerable IQ increase in going to either of the last 2 lenses from your 75-300. I recently looked at some motor racing (hillclimb) shots I took with my 10D and 75-300IS (before the IS unit died at 2 months old and I upgraded to a 100-400L) and, while they aren't too bad at all, aren't really in the same class as shots taken with either the 70-300IS or 70-200L IS. Now the merits of these 2 lenses are debated here numerous times every day, so I won't get involved in that other than to say that I ended up with the 70-200L. I have seen a lot of images from, and comments about, the 55-250IS, and I believe the image quality appears to be not far removed from the other 2 "modern" lenses and probably quite a bit better than the "old" 75-300IS, The IS systems on any of the newer lenses is way better than the first generation version on the 75-300IS (Canon's first IS lens?). Whatever you do at the wide end, I would certainly consider an upgrade at the long end if the budget will stretch that far,
--



No, it's true - he IS the U.S. President!

I've gone through the same analysis and currently own a 40D, 10-22, 18-55 IS, 17-85 IS, 17-55 IS, 70-200/4L IS. I borrow a 5D, 24-105L, and 70-200/2.8L IS whenever I need them.

Here's why I went 40D w/ 10-22 and 17-55 IS instead of a 5D w/ 24-105L when upgrading from a Rebel XT and 17-85 IS:

1. Want a travel combination of two lens (walk around w/ wide angle & telephoto) with a ultra wide angle lens as needed (thinking I'll be doing more indoor shots). I shoot at the 35mm equiv of 28mm a lot.

2. 40D had great features over the 5D and I can live with a 40D for at least two years before blowing $4k for the 5D w/ 24-105.

3. 40D has acceptable ISO performance (I'll use a flash and diffuser as often as I can) for now. Still lust over 5D ISO performance of course.

4. I'll probably always have a APS-C DSLR body in my collection --- smallest DSLR is Rebel w/ 18-55 and 17-85 IS is also decent when loaning out the XT; 1.6x crop with a telephoto works really well when you consider how much a 1.3x cropping 1D and/or really long telephoto lens costs.

I don't think that the 24-105L's build quality over a 17-55 IS build quality is a factor for me.

I actually don't swap my 17-55 with 10-22 all that often given what I've been taking. Handling the wide hood of the 10-22 is a pain (it doesn't fit in many smaller bags).

If you go full frame, you got to buy a 24-105L as a walk around. Very convenient.

So I suggest one of the following:

1. Dump everything and go 5D Mk II with 24-105L. Get a 70-200 at first opportunity. Awesome high ISO and no compromiss. You can then buy primes (doesn't always have to be L glass; $400 to $500 non-L might be good enough in combination with other glass), L glass telephotos, etc. Might have to deal with a DSLR sensor that can out resolve your glass though (no idea if that matters to you).

2. Buy the 17-55 IS. f/2.8 fast, excellent optics, and IS. I found that I can live with the 55mm on the long enough more often that I thought. Replace your 70-300 if you feel the need. Doing this means you embrace the idea you'll always have an APS-C DSLR body in your collection and the 17-55 IS is the best lens for it. Delay going full frame another year (i.e., another year means the $1000 price of the 17-55 IS means less to your buying power).

I don't recommend the 24-105 by itself. You've already stated your concerns about swapping a lot for wide angle. Also, a 5DII with 24-105 gives you a discount (re-enforcing the idea of waiting a few years). There will be lots of times when you want to go light with just the DSLR with one lens and if you find you want the want angle, the 24-105 might not be enough.

I'm not sure I'd go to a 50D from a 40D though. I'd rather get by with the 40D and save up for a 5DII.