17-55mm, 24-70mm, or 24-105mm?

Happy holidays everyone! With the new year comes new lens and I'm in the market for a replacement for my 18-55mm IS kit lens. I have an XTi which means I am open to EF-S lens, but I also want a lens that would last me for the next 5+ years. Here are my current choices for a new street zoom lens:

17-55mm f2.8 IS (EF-S)
24-70mm f2.8 L
24-105mm f4 IS L

I hear the 17-55mm is the sharpest street zoom outside of the L-lenses, but I see countless complaints about dust in the lens. Many people have said that keeping a UV/haze filter on it from day one reduces the chance that dust will get in from the front element, but doesn't say if it eliminates dust completely.

Does anyone have any experience with dust in their 17-55mm even with a filter on all the time?

The 24-70mm and 24-105mm are weather sealed, durable, and sharp, but lack in the 17-23mm wide angle focal lens. I guess I could take a few steps back to get a 17mm view at 24mm, but only if I'm not limited to space behind me. Getting one of these L-lenses would also future proof my gear if/when I move to a full frame body.

Any suggestions? I would like to take advantage of the Canon lens rebate before it ends on the 17th.

Shaun Wakumoto said:

Does anyone have any experience with dust in their 17-55mm even with
a filter on all the time?

Click to expand...

I'd read an article on the dust issue before I bought mine, and so I fitted
a filter and never took it off. No dust in mine.

dslr_shooter said:

The 24-70mm and 24-105mm are weather sealed, durable, and sharp, but
lack in the 17-23mm wide angle focal lens. I guess I could take a few
steps back to get a 17mm view at 24mm, but only if I'm not limited to
space behind me. Getting one of these L-lenses would also future
proof my gear if/when I move to a full frame body.

Click to expand...

There's a big difference between 17mm and 24mm (one is wide angle,
the other is not).

dslr_shooter said:

Any suggestions? I would like to take advantage of the Canon lens
rebate before it ends on the 17th.

Click to expand...

Get the 17-55.

Tough choice. I think the 17-55 is your best option. I own both the 24-105 and the 17-55. I owned the 24-105 first. I love it, but for me, I found the 24 end not to be wide enough for my needs and I wanted something faster than F4. I have the luxury of owning both, but if I had to choose only one, I would go with the 17-55. I slapped a filter on it the day I got it and have had no problems with dust.

I shoot full frame and use the 17-40 for landscape and some other similar subjects. However, if I shot a Canon cropped sensor camera I would pick up the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS in a heartbeat.

It has... optical quality that at least matches the 16-35 and 17-40 L lenses, a wider focal length range, f/2.8 AND image-stabilization.

Dan

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
IM: gdanmitchell
'Like you, I also own photography stuff.'

17-55 has it all.
--
One day I'll learn how to post photos. I am 62 & technically challenged.

I had the same question See the following thread - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=30539962 some really great answers.

Cheers,
Michal

I have the 17-55 f/2.8 is on a 40d and have never had a dust problem. I also shoot with a 1Dmk111 but only have a 70-200 f/2.8 on this for indoor sports. I have thought of purchasing a 24-70 or 24-105 for the 1D but not actually done it because the 17-55 is such a versatile lens. In fact I have kept my 40D just to keep the 17-55, f/2.8 with image stabiliser is excellent. I have just looked through a bunch of recent landscape photos and they are all around the 17-20mm.

The kit 18-55mm IS is not a bad lens.

I also have the kit 18-55mm IS and the 24-105mm IS.

I find that 55mm is not enough reach for me and getting the 17-55mm IS although a much better lens than the kit you are basically duplicating the same focal length.

My preference would be to buy the 24-105mm and use the kit when you need more wide angle.

I recently wanted a better wide angle than the kit lens and decided on the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. I only would need wider than the 24mm 3 or 4 times a year for indoor group friends and family photos. I don't need IS as I would be using a flash or tripod indoors.

Good luck.

--
Canon 40D & XSI, Fuji F100fd & 31fd

I had the lens for almost 3 years (to replace my 24-105). I don't use filter and there is still no dust. I think the dust issue is way overblown. Thousands of lenses being sold but the few who saw dust make the most noise and got the most attention. You can take a look at the old post below. Only small percentage of lenses have dust, not necessarily higher than any other lenses. None was shown to affect the IQ. Actually one of my L lens (300/4) has quite a bit visible dusts but it still takes sharp pictures.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=25120357

Then you have to consider this is the only lens that covers 17mm and has f2.8 and IS. Not to mention it is noticeably sharper than both of the L lenses especially when wide open.

Shaun Wakumoto said:

Happy holidays everyone! With the new year comes new lens and I'm in
the market for a replacement for my 18-55mm IS kit lens. I have an
XTi which means I am open to EF-S lens, but I also want a lens that
would last me for the next 5+ years. Here are my current choices for
a new street zoom lens:

17-55mm f2.8 IS (EF-S)
24-70mm f2.8 L
24-105mm f4 IS L

I hear the 17-55mm is the sharpest street zoom outside of the
L-lenses, but I see countless complaints about dust in the lens. Many
people have said that keeping a UV/haze filter on it from day one
reduces the chance that dust will get in from the front element, but
doesn't say if it eliminates dust completely.

Does anyone have any experience with dust in their 17-55mm even with
a filter on all the time?

The 24-70mm and 24-105mm are weather sealed, durable, and sharp, but
lack in the 17-23mm wide angle focal lens. I guess I could take a few
steps back to get a 17mm view at 24mm, but only if I'm not limited to
space behind me. Getting one of these L-lenses would also future
proof my gear if/when I move to a full frame body.

Any suggestions? I would like to take advantage of the Canon lens
rebate before it ends on the 17th.

Click to expand...

I just recently got a 5D MkII, but have been shooting with a Rebel and 17-55 since the lens came out and added the 24-105 last year. In real world shooting, I do not see a difference between the 17-55 and 24-105 optically. If I am going to be shooting more landscape/landmark type subjects or low light, the 17-55 is what is on my lens. If I am going to be shooting a little more on the long end then I go with the 24-105. If I could only have one of the two on a cropped sensor, I'd go with the 17-55. Thus, I think for most people, the 17-55 is a better focal range, but I could see where a small percent of people would find 24-105 to be more useful.

I have used a filter on my 17-55 since day one and havent scene any issues. YMMV.

You mention that you have want the lens to last you 5 years... Obviously, with full frame prices coming down, if you plan to upgrade in the next couple of years, I'd strongly consider going with the 24-105 and using the 18-55 for any wide angle needs.

I recently went through the same process you're experiencing now. I wanted to replace my 17-85 IS with better glass. I knew I might miss the telephoto end if I picked up the 17-55 2.8 IS, so I also considered the 24-105 L.

In the end, I looked through all my recent photos (going back about two years) to determine my most commonly used FL range. It soon became apparent that, FOR MY SHOOTING PERFERENCES, the 17 - 40mm range was utilized the most. Only 20% of my shooting was done outside of it. I bought the 17-55 2.8 IS.

BTW - Much of my shooting is done indoors, where the 17-85 had a difficult time due to the relatively slow lens speed. You might say there really should not have been any debate if I had really thought about it in the first place, but like you, when spending a good chunk of change, due diligence is required.

I am not saying that you should buy the 17-55. I AM saying that you should buy the lens that best addresses your needs.

Sidekicker

Like many here, I read of dust problems and installed a UV filter as soon as I got the lens. I have no dust problems. Is this because of the filter? I have no idea, but I’ll keep the filter on.

I got this lens to replace the Sigma 17-70, and the difference is amazing. The constant f2.8, the 4-stop IS, and the amazing sharpness all makes this my favorite lens for the 30D.

I got the 24-105 as the kit lens on my new 5D2. I’ve tried the 24-105 on the 30D (briefly), but I’m really dissatisfied with the wide-angle, or rather lack of it. In fact, about the ONLY complaint I have about the 5D2 is the lack of a 17-55/2.8 IS equivalent for full-frame, as I really miss the faster, more accurate focusing which is only available with f2.8 or wider lenses. I’d suspect a full-frame 24-70/2.8 L IS would be pretty pricey, but I’d start saving immediately if it were available. And I’ll hereby start a rumor that Canon will release such a lens in March at the PMA in Las Vegas, which I will be enthusiastically attending.

--
BJCP National

I'm in the same situation but with an opposite viewpoint - I now own both (since Christmas day). I really like both lenses, but I find that most of my photos are in the 50-100mm range, so I use the 24-105 more than the 17-55.

The f2.8 is nice. I still use a flash when I take pictures indoors at night. Even at f2.8 and ISO800, I find that 1/25 to 1/40 shutter speed is not fast enough for a 1 yr old and a 4 yr old.

catalyst81 said:

Tough choice. I think the 17-55 is your best option. I own both the
24-105 and the 17-55. I owned the 24-105 first. I love it, but for
me, I found the 24 end not to be wide enough for my needs and I
wanted something faster than F4. I have the luxury of owning both,
but if I had to choose only one, I would go with the 17-55. I
slapped a filter on it the day I got it and have had no problems with
dust.

Click to expand...

--
There, Their, They're. It's not that hard.

F2.8 is still nice even when you're using a flash. You can use just a little fill in flash instead of having to use higher flash power and getting the dark background p&s look.

Glenn_Law said:

The f2.8 is nice. I still use a flash when I take pictures indoors
at night. Even at f2.8 and ISO800, I find that 1/25 to 1/40 shutter
speed is not fast enough for a 1 yr old and a 4 yr old.

catalyst81 said:

Tough choice. I think the 17-55 is your best option. I own both the
24-105 and the 17-55. I owned the 24-105 first. I love it, but for
me, I found the 24 end not to be wide enough for my needs and I
wanted something faster than F4. I have the luxury of owning both,
but if I had to choose only one, I would go with the 17-55. I
slapped a filter on it the day I got it and have had no problems with
dust.

Click to expand...

--
There, Their, They're. It's not that hard.

Click to expand...

Glenn_Law said:

Even at f2.8 and ISO800, I find that 1/25 to 1/40 shutter
speed is not fast enough for a 1 yr old and a 4 yr old.

Click to expand...

Glenn,

Try putting your camera on "M", set the shutter to 1/125 and the aperture to f/5.6 then let the flash do the work. It will stop even the quickest child.

If you don't use manual "M" mode, your camera will expose for the available light and the flash will just be for fill.

Try it ... it works!

-howard

ps. remember to take it out of "M" mode when you are done!

I use the custom function to force 1/200 in AV mode. I was just trying to explain that even at f2.8, I still need a flash.

Thanks,
Glenn

hfg said:

Glenn_Law said:

Even at f2.8 and ISO800, I find that 1/25 to 1/40 shutter
speed is not fast enough for a 1 yr old and a 4 yr old.

Click to expand...

Glenn,

Try putting your camera on "M", set the shutter to 1/125 and the
aperture to f/5.6 then let the flash do the work. It will stop even
the quickest child.

If you don't use manual "M" mode, your camera will expose for the
available light and the flash will just be for fill.

Try it ... it works!

-howard

ps. remember to take it out of "M" mode when you are done!

Click to expand...

--
There, Their, They're. It's not that hard.

Glenn_Law said:

I use the custom function to force 1/200 in AV mode.
I was just trying to explain that even at f2.8, I still need a flash.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but what you DON’T need for a couple of active rug-rats is 2.8! When I’m chasing my granddaughter around the room, I set up as follows:
1) Camera to ‘M’ (30D or 5D2)

2) Flash to E-TTL, Master (580 or 580 II, and yes, I know I can do it from the 5D2 with the 589 II))
3) Shutter to 1/250 (30D) or 1/200 (5D2)
4) ISO to something reasonable (say 200-400 for 30D, 800-1600 for 5D2)

5) Aperture fairly narrow to get a good depth-of-field – f8 for 30D, f11 for 5D2. Not critical.
6) Aim flash at ceiling or wall, probably at 45° or 60 °.

7) Focus, compose, shoot. The camera and flash will calculate the amount of light needed. After looking at some of your shots, you may want to adjust the FEC up or down a little, but it’ll be pretty constant in any given room.

--
BJCP National

Right ... the key is to be in "M" mode, NOT one of the "AV" modes, and then set the camera for what YOU would like and let the flash (bounced off ceiling) make it happen. The flash will dump a LOT more light to really illuminate the room where otherwise it will just do a minimum flash pop to fill in the subjects.

Now you can set your shutter to stop the motion and set your aperture to get enough DOF and it will be the job of the flash to supply enough light to make it all work out. (You will have to be below the "full curtain open" shutter speed for your camera as the flash duration is very short ... usually 1/200 or below).

In any "AV" mode, your camera will shoot with settings appropriate for the available light without the full benefit of the flash (fill only) and your pictures will suffer.

The shutter and aperture settings really aren't critical at all until you start to reach the upper limit of your flash output (reduced by bouncing). In a typical low ceiling home environment that rarely happens. You can be creative however, by selecting settings which show a hint of motion in your subject, and use leading/following curtain sync to determine which way the "blur" goes from the sharp flash-lit image.

Excuse me if you already know all this, but I have found a lot of photographers who don't really understand the Canon digital flash system and describe their results much like the OP did.

-howard

If you do not plan to go to FF in near future (1 year) then 17-55/2.8IS is by far the best choice for APS-C camera. I think you can just sell the lens if you decide to move up. It covers the normal zoom range. There is no real dust issue with it. Your camera is not sealed anyways. However, the built is not L quality. I have mine since it was launched. I did get the IS fixed but it was still under warranty.

Here are a few of the 17-55/2.8IS on 40D.
Insadong, Seoul, Korea



Everland, Korea



--

What camera do I have? I rather you look at my photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

This is all correct except it is going to be way underexposed without flash. You will need a lot of flash power to make is up. The problem is even with diffuser and bounce it's still hard get a uniform coverage especially if you shoot outdoors or in a large room. It's still better to use a fast aperture like f2.8, you don't really need DOF deeper than that under this situation anyway, in M mode to underexpose 2 stops and use flash as a fill in only. You can get a very nicely illuminated object AND background. This is the technique people call drag the shutter and very popular among photo journalists and wedding photographers.

M_Edge said:

M_Edge said:

I use the custom function to force 1/200 in AV mode.
I was just trying to explain that even at f2.8, I still need a flash.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but what you DON’T need for a couple of active rug-rats
is 2.8! When I’m chasing my granddaughter around the room, I set up
as follows:
1) Camera to ‘M’ (30D or 5D2)
2) Flash to E-TTL, Master (580 or 580 II, and yes, I know I can do it
from the 5D2 with the 589 II))
3) Shutter to 1/250 (30D) or 1/200 (5D2)
4) ISO to something reasonable (say 200-400 for 30D, 800-1600 for 5D2)
5) Aperture fairly narrow to get a good depth-of-field – f8 for 30D,
f11 for 5D2. Not critical.
6) Aim flash at ceiling or wall, probably at 45° or 60 °.
7) Focus, compose, shoot. The camera and flash will calculate the
amount of light needed. After looking at some of your shots, you may
want to adjust the FEC up or down a little, but it’ll be pretty
constant in any given room.

--
BJCP National

Click to expand...