Canon 17-55 f2.8 / Canon 24-70 f2.8 ii / Canon 27-105 f4

NorbR wrote:

Hi,

I've recently upgraded following the same path (650D to 6D) so I can share some observations here.

On the paper the 24-105 tick all the boxes, i've been trying to take photo in f4 with my lens and it works but I need increase the ISO, the longer reach for the 24-105 would be perfect to capture portrait without being noticed, but i've read that the vignetting was bad...

Compared to your 17-55 f/2.8 you'll need to increase the ISO one stop. My experience with these two cameras is that the noise advantage of the 6D is clearly larger than one stop. Closer to two, although it depends on which ISO level we're talking about. In any case, don't worry about increasing the ISO one stop, you'll end up with a cleaner image anyway.

Vignetting is bad ... well I don't know if it's particularly bad, but yes, moving to full frame, one realizes that vignetting exists and can be noticeable, something that is easily forgotten on APS-C. With the 24-105 I've only ever had significant vignetting issues at the wide end. But I rarely shoot it wide open anyway.

The 24-70 2.8 ii seems to be very similar than what i've got at the moment but much more expensive, am I wrong to think that both lenses will produce the similar images? also why not IS?

I don't have the 24-70 2.8 II so I will leave others comment for a detailed comparison. It sounds like you do a lot of low light photography, in which case the 24-70 2.8 is probably worth a serious look. Not only because it is 2.8, therefore one stop faster than the 24-105, but also because from what I've read the IQ is stellar even wide open, something that I would not say of the 24-105, no matter how much I enjoy it.

So you have to see what you favor most, IQ and low-light ability, versus range and IS (and money in your wallet).

On my 650D with a crop ratio of 1.6 my 17-55 would be like having a  27 - 88 on a full fram,  and if my understanding is correct 24-70 I will then loose reach or did I miss something ?

That sounds right. You lose reach but gain a few mm at the wide end. Overall not a major difference, I think. If the lack of reach between 70mm and 88mm really feels important to you, then that's another tick in the 'con' column for the 24-70.

Anyway it's a real dilemma, should I upgrade or not, would the difference be obvious once i've got the new kit?

Depends what you mean by 'the difference'. Some things (noise) will be immediately noticeable. It will open some doors (shallow DoF), close some others (reach). It won't magically make your pictures better (especially since you've already got a very good kit with the 650D and your current lens).

I'm happy with the upgrade and I'm not looking back. Naturally, YMMV.

Thanks for your reply, I guess i just have to made up my mind... so far my 17-55 it's all i ever needed and did a great job!