17-55 or 24-105?

Started May 24, 2006 | Discussions
Lee Baby Simms Contributing Member • Posts: 841
its listed

Don't recall his name - he's from Eastern Pennsylvania - has a family business (paper products I think) and shoots for fun (maybe some weddings, he appears to bit 'high church').

Who are any of these folks who review lenses on the web? The photozone guy? ... probably an engineer. Who's that crazy Nikon guy with the website? Isn't he a movie film rep for kodak or something?

At some point, you have to trust someone who's handled all these lenses and has shot with them ... at least a limited amount. Sorta like car reviews ... the folks doing the writing are rarely race car drivers, but they get to drive a lot of cars. When they tell me Honda builds the best manual transmission on the planet, I believe them.

 Lee Baby Simms's gear list:Lee Baby Simms's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM +7 more
Lee Baby Simms Contributing Member • Posts: 841
a little diappointing

The images are very sharp with decent color, but the build is disappointing.

My zoom ring was very stiff and the lens smelled of cat urine (4 other Canon items in the delivery did not). Less the 24 hours later, the smell is gone and a lot of zooming has eased the resistance.

In the end, it's the IQ that counts and it's got it - fast focus and the fun of IS. Can't have everything.

 Lee Baby Simms's gear list:Lee Baby Simms's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM +7 more
carlk Forum Pro • Posts: 15,940
Re: its listed

Of course because it's true. And they build the best 4 cylinder engine too.

Lee Baby Simms wrote:

When they tell me
Honda builds the best manual transmission on the planet, I believe
them.

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Nikon D800E Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 50D Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +6 more
nimnar Senior Member • Posts: 1,580
very satisfied with 10-22mm and 24-105mm

basically I shoot a lot at the long end and giving up the 55-105mm would be a sacrifice for me. I could see buying the 17-55mm as well for specific applications...like events, but for travelling I like having two top quality lenses to cover the range rather than three I'd need if I built on the 10-22mm and 17-55mm combo...and I need the 10mm for lots of shots as well so I can't give it up either.
--
Nimnar

 nimnar's gear list:nimnar's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100
caterpillar Veteran Member • Posts: 7,195
I have the 10-22, 24-105L

taomen wrote:

Great recommendation. Thanks. SO following your advice, with the
24-105 in the bag, is the 10-22mm the logical next for "coverage"?
I'm thinking so... Seems like the 24-105 would be the walk around
lens with the 10-22 in the bag for special shots... I'm about ready
to pull the trigger on the whole deal (Thinking 10-22, 24-105, and
50 1.4 for now, 70-xxx later.) What do you think?

Thanks a ton, the whole discussion is perfect for my current
situation.
B.

I have the 10-22, 24-105L, a 50mm f1.8 and the 100 f2 usm. Each one addresses specific needs that the other lens cannot. The primes are there for ultimate sharpness and low light where the IS cannot help. They are small and light enough, so they are not a bother. With a 1.4x TC, the 100 f2 also becomes a 140mm f2.8 usm.

But the 10-22 and 24-105L already will do 90% of the stuff I need to do without too much weight or bulk. Today, I am covering a wedding as a videographer. But guess what, the 20d and the 24-105L will be hanging on my neck and the 10-22 is on a pouch on my beltbag. I've done this 2x now and no problem for me. It just shows how versatile this 2 lens combo is and not so heavy or bulky.

I just sold my tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. I miss that lens, but it is not used that often anymore. I can always get one just in case. Or maybe I can opt for the 17-50 f2.8 Di-2. The option is always there. But not likely or at least not anytime soon.

You're idea of a 10-22, 24-105L , 50 f1.4, and a 70-xxx is normal. In fact it covers almost 95-97% of usage barring bird/wildlife or extreme sports situations, or macro applications. It's a good plan, and a doable one. I also have a 50-200 f3.5-4.5L, w/c is not as good as a 70-200L, but it's cheap and it has 50mm on the low end, and it is still an L and delivers performance above non-L lenses especially for a zoom. I wish they'd make a 50-135 f2.8 IS lens though. But that is another story.

Anyway, your plan is just fine. Use the primes for ultimate sharpness or low light of if you shoot often in those ranges. Or a macro prime for macro work.

Go for it.

-- hide signature --

  • Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

 caterpillar's gear list:caterpillar's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 +21 more
gullevek Regular Member • Posts: 447
Re: Switching lenses ..

Might be, I have not tried it nor have I seen a lot of pictures with this wonderful color. Plus the 17-55 is more a 24-70 comparison one.

-- hide signature --
 gullevek's gear list:gullevek's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM +7 more
Elan Remford Veteran Member • Posts: 3,716
Re: its listed

What does "high church" mean?

I just find the amount of unfounded skepticism that seems to exist to border on hilarity. I mean, the president of Nikon could issue a statement that the housing of the latest Canon lens was black in color, and there would still be a large contingent who'd cry conspiracy and immediately presume that Canon's "black" must actually not really be "black" after all.

Equally confounding to me is that they will even refute information that seems to withstand their own incredulity. For example, one of the reasons why I've always enjoyed the-digital-picture's reviews is that they have always closely followed my own (and most others') observations and findings about each reviewed lens. The industry may relentlessly praise a particular item, professionals may adopt it as the de facto standard in its class, it may establish never-before-seen sales, and competitors may admit they've been beaten, turn tail and quit the business, yet there are those who will turn their noses up at a particular review that reaffirms all of these this, even if based upon first-hand observations, in its entirety without first demanding a DNA sequence, FBI backgound check, and semen sampe, (with a 100% corner crop, of course, please).

The-digital-picture's reviews are always among the first places I steer those wanting a very good concise, broad comparison of the various options available for the EOS mount. They are free of unecessary hyperbole and clutter, yet not without insightful commentary based upon things that matter in actually general use. They also provide reasonable examples of their output that give good representations of each lens' "personality" without the tedium of pixel peeping a set of obscure 100% corner crops. After all, when I shoot something, even when pusing the rule of thirds to its limit, the important parts tend to be toward the center of the frame.

Also, the level of detail and precision that many seem to believe can only be truly experienced by the examination of individual pixels seems to be far more granular than the influence of other factors that might affect the shot, ranging from the individual camera's calibration, lens cleaning, lighting consistency, and other externals that make looking so closely pointless without first ensuring that the proverbial apples are indeed apples. But, I digress. In a phrase, kudos to the-digital-picture and those who have taken the time and trouble to provide resources like them. In terms of an overall review, I get the same information there in a matter of minutes that it would take me hours of sifting, sorting, and refining elsewhere, including here.

Lee Baby Simms wrote:

Don't recall his name - he's from Eastern Pennsylvania - has a
family business (paper products I think) and shoots for fun (maybe
some weddings, he appears to bit 'high church').

Who are any of these folks who review lenses on the web? The
photozone guy? ... probably an engineer. Who's that crazy Nikon guy
with the website? Isn't he a movie film rep for kodak or something?

At some point, you have to trust someone who's handled all these
lenses and has shot with them ... at least a limited amount. Sorta
like car reviews ... the folks doing the writing are rarely race
car drivers, but they get to drive a lot of cars. When they tell me
Honda builds the best manual transmission on the planet, I believe
them.

Elan Remford Veteran Member • Posts: 3,716
Re: 17-55 or 24-105?

Great recommendation. Thanks. SO following your advice, with the
24-105 in the bag, is the 10-22mm the logical next for "coverage"?
I'm thinking so... Seems like the 24-105 would be the walk around
lens with the 10-22 in the bag for special shots... I'm about ready
to pull the trigger on the whole deal (Thinking 10-22, 24-105, and
50 1.4 for now, 70-xxx later.) What do you think?

Thanks a ton, the whole discussion is perfect for my current
situation.
B.

You're welcome.

With the 24-105 as the cornerstone of any great lineup, the next widest option, depending on your mount type, would naturally be the 10-22 on the wide end for EF-S; and it's the best of breed by far. (However, I own a Sigma 12-24 because it is uniquely good in its range and works with both mount types, and I primarly shoot with a 5D). On a 5D, the 16-35 or 17-40 would generally be my wide zoom choice. The 50 f/1.4 is about as good a prme starting point as exists. So, yes, I think you're absolutely headed in the right direction, with the 70-300 IS next.

Best of luck,

E.

armedia New Member • Posts: 1
Re: 17-55 or 24-105?

17-55 great lens!

Lee Baby Simms Contributing Member • Posts: 841
yeah, it's great [nt]

nothing here

 Lee Baby Simms's gear list:Lee Baby Simms's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM +7 more
Hemants Contributing Member • Posts: 834
Focusing problems, soft pictures, etc.
amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,894
Re: Focusing problems, soft pictures, etc.

Hemants wrote:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=18613814

From the author of the referenced photos:

"Again, I think I didn't give it a fair shake because I insisted to keep my ISO's low and therefore ended up with correspondingly low shutter speeds. I believe that is the cause of the softness. I may have another chance to try again later this week, we'll see."

Hemants Contributing Member • Posts: 834
True enough.

As I said, early test shots from this lens seemed a bit dissappointing, but perhaps user error was the cause.

The pro reviews that have been coming out seem significantly better.

I'm still contemplating replacing my Sigma 18-50 EX DG with either this or the 24-105. I've been spoiled by my 70-200 F4!!!

Trust me, I WANT this lens to be a killer. It would fit me perfectly.

navarrosan Junior Member • Posts: 30
Re: 17-55 or 24-105?

Go to 24-105L is a L lens and in future no problem whith other full frame bodys an if you need angular Tokin 12-24.

David Tomic Regular Member • Posts: 214
Re: Focusing problems, soft pictures, etc.

Hemants wrote:

Focusing problems, soft pictures, etc.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/young_einstein/tags/efs1755/

What's that you say?

jrynash Veteran Member • Posts: 3,141
Re: True enough.

Hemants wrote:

Trust me, I WANT this lens to be a killer.

I'm not so sure.

Jim_K Regular Member • Posts: 138
Re: 17-55 or 24-105?

Where did you find the 24-105 for $950?

 Jim_K's gear list:Jim_K's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 30D Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads