EF-S 17-55 or EF 24-108L for 7D...

Started Aug 23, 2010 | Discussions
temery Forum Member • Posts: 53
EF-S 17-55 or EF 24-108L for 7D...

I am looking for a general purpose lens for my 7D and I am torn between these two. But the more I dwell on it the more I realize that the two lenses serve different purposes. Their biggest similarity may be that many people point to one of these two lenses as their general purpose lens. My question is for anybody that owns both. Is it worth it to own both?

The way I see it, the 17-55 would be great for low-light indoor shooting and the 24-105L would be great for, say, a trip to the zoo. The 17-55 would be better for landscapes and the 24-105, while not a real long telephoto, would be better for wildlife.

Does anybody own both? Would it be crazy to own both?

Thanks

Also, I know about the 15-85 and I know it might fulfill all the aforementioned needs but for some reason it just doesn't intrigue me. It isn't as fast as the 17-55 and it doesn't have the reach of the 24-105L.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks

goanna Contributing Member • Posts: 638
Just to complicate the answer....

Yes I have both and to choose from these two lenses its fairly easy from my point of view.
17-55IS

However it did frustrate me not having a little extra pull so I recently bought (4mths ago) the newish 15-85 IS and since then it hasn't been off me camera.

Sooooo, what do I recommend

If you are not interested in the 15-85IS then choose the 17-55 IS, its a great lens.

I am sort of holding onto the 24-105 for the day I buy a full frame which seems to be coming less and less likely with the types of photos I take and my complete satisfaction with my new 7D.

Maybe one day my wife will quit swiping my old cameras (40D last time) and I will be able to buy a full frame and not suffer the loss of a secondary cropped camera.

Good Luck
Goanna

 goanna's gear list:goanna's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +9 more
Indpho New Member • Posts: 24
Re: Just to complicate the answer....

Like Goanna I have all three of these lenses.
The first lens I got for my 7D was the 24-105, Great lens but not wide enough.
Then I got the 17-55, Another great lens but also range limited.

About a month ago I bought a 15-85 for a little extra reach. Wow, what a surprise!

Maybe I just got a very good copy of the 15-85 but it is sharper than the 17-55 and the 24-105. The 15-85 has not come off my camera since I got it.

I will keep the 17-55 for lower light applications and sell or trade-in the 24-105 for a
70-200 F4L IS.

To answer the original question , if I had to choose between the 17-55 or the 24-105 on a 7D I would take the 17-55 for the wide end. Maybe visit a camera store and
preview these lenses to see which one suits you.

goanna Contributing Member • Posts: 638
Re: Just to complicate the answer....

I could not agree more whole heartedly!

I would however rate the IQ from the 17-55 and the 24- 105 is equal to the 15-85

Cheers
Goanna

 goanna's gear list:goanna's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +9 more
OP temery Forum Member • Posts: 53
Re: Just to complicate the answer....

Maybe I am not giving the 15-85 it's proper respect...a lot of people seem to love it. Maybe I'll re-evaluate my thought process here.

Thanks

slartz
slartz Senior Member • Posts: 2,098
Re: Just to complicate the answer....

the 15-85, other than being slightly slow, is one hell of a lens. it's IQ is incredible for that range, and the flexibility of the range is great (better than the 24-105 on a fullframe).

Personally, with the 7D, I find the speed of the lens as a non issue really. As my 7D, RAW with DxO NR does about 2-3 stops better than my old 30D JPGs, I really don't mind shooting one ISO stop higher when I need some more speed, or switch to the 50/1.8 which I carry with me at ALL times (even my small bag has room for it).

And the extra range of 17-55 is incredible. The only real down side of the slow lens is the insufficient shallow DoF in certain situations, but again, that's where the 50mm comes in handy (and beats the 17-55 too :)).

Had I had extra money, I'd probably own both (17-55/2.8 and 15-85) and choose based on the expected situations, but I'd really rather get the 70-200 f/4L IS as my 2nd lens...

The 24-105, to me, is not appealing AT ALL for a crop body - it's wayyy to narrow on the wide end and is not optically better than the 15-85 or 17-55. BQ is somewhat better, but I hardly see it justifiable in 99% of the cases.

 slartz's gear list:slartz's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Lumix DC-GX9 Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH Panasonic 8-18mm F2.8-4 +9 more
marianco
marianco Senior Member • Posts: 1,128
Re: EF-S 17-55 or EF 24-108L for 7D...

temery wrote:

I am looking for a general purpose lens for my 7D and I am torn between these two. But the more I dwell on it the more I realize that the two lenses serve different purposes. Their biggest similarity may be that many people point to one of these two lenses as their general purpose lens. My question is for anybody that owns both. Is it worth it to own both?

The way I see it, the 17-55 would be great for low-light indoor shooting and the 24-105L would be great for, say, a trip to the zoo. The 17-55 would be better for landscapes and the 24-105, while not a real long telephoto, would be better for wildlife.

Does anybody own both? Would it be crazy to own both?

Thanks

Also, I know about the 15-85 and I know it might fulfill all the aforementioned needs but for some reason it just doesn't intrigue me. It isn't as fast as the 17-55 and it doesn't have the reach of the 24-105L.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks

I would say, get both if you can afford it. They each have their own purposes. And it depends on what type of photos you are creating.

For myself, since I primarily take portrait-style shots, the 24-105 L IS is perfect for nearly all of what I do.

However, some days, when doing street photography, the 24-100 L IS is too long when taking photos of buildings at close range and of people at very close range, particularly when I wanted whole body photos. In this case the 17-55 IS is useful. The 10-22 was even more useful for taking shots of whole buildings when nearby.

The 17-55 IS, for me, isn't as often on the camera because I take portraits. It isn't long enough for most of my photos.

For low-light indoor shooting, the 17-55 IS is good but generally not fast enough. Often, a flash is necessary.

For low-light indoor shooting, I prefer using primes: the 28 f1.8, the 50 f1.4, and the 85 f1.8. Many times, these can be used for available light photos.

haduguid
haduguid Regular Member • Posts: 123
Re: EF-S 17-55 or EF 24-108L for 7D...

I'll be interested in further comments; I have the Canon 70-300, 1:4-5.6 IS for zoo shots.

 haduguid's gear list:haduguid's gear list
Canon PowerShot G16
Moosemilk Forum Member • Posts: 75
Re: EF-S 17-55 or EF 24-108L for 7D...

I bought the 17-55mm because of the aperture, the IS and because I take most of my photos in that range. (That said, I might be encouraged to take more in the 56 to 85 range if I had the 15-85mm.) It's also received great reviews. Barrel distortion is pronounced at the wide end of the 17-55mm and CA can be an issue. Yes, it's easily solvable in pp..but the less time I have to spend in pp the better. I'm not sure how it compares to the 15-85mm or the 24-108L.

I owned a 24-70mm lens once and just found that it wasn't wide enough to be a general purpose lens on an APS sensor.

The only advantage I can see with the 24-108L is the weather-sealing...something I do miss not having on 17-55mm...and of course, not having to sell your lens if/when you go FF exclusively.

MM

Sonylover1 Regular Member • Posts: 459
Oboy - you got alternatives!

It depends on your budget and your style.
I myself settled for a 10-22 (great lens) and the 24-105 (also great).

My style is either very wide (citys, building, landscape) or Observatory (people, situations, details) These two match together.

If 17-55 is for lowlight I can assure you that it isnt a problem with 7D. How often do you really need 2.8? I think 17-55 is to narrow - you will miss the reach ( I had 17-85 ). Therefore I dont think 15-85 will satisfy you either.

Going to Zoo? 70-200/4 or 100-400.

Are you much wiser now?
No - its a living hell to decide between lenses.
A tip. Borrow first or try some cheapo lens with same range. Tamron 17-50/2.8.
--
Mike the Viking

Wayndom Senior Member • Posts: 1,933
Re: EF-S 17-55 or EF 24-108L for 7D...

The real question you should be asking yourself is, how do you shoot?

That is, do you tend to shoot more long than wide, or vice-versa?

I've always shot more wide than long, so a 24-105 would be frustrating and annoying to me. I'd never consider going out with a single lens that can't do wide... In fact, the only two lenses I own for my 50D are a 17-55 and a 10-22 (LOVE it!). I often use the 10-22 as my walking-around lens.

So, what focal lengths do you shoot more often than not? That's how you answer your question -- not by their apertures, especially now, with cameras capable of shooting at such high ISO's...

BTW, if I had it to do all over again, I'd get the 15-85, which is another outstanding performer. I wonder why you didn't mention it in the OP??
--
Canon since 1969

apersson850 Senior Member • Posts: 1,318
Re: EF-S 17-55 or EF 24-108L for 7D...

I have the predecessor, the EF-S 17-85 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM . It's more handy than the EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM or the EF 24-105 mm f/4L IS USM , but I can't carry around all I have, so I bring the 17-55 and the 24-105. By switching between them I get the best from both.
--
Anders

 apersson850's gear list:apersson850's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS-1D X Mark II +21 more
Nick5
Nick5 Contributing Member • Posts: 962
Re: EF-S 17-55 or EF 24-108L for 7D...

I have both the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 24-105 f/4 L IS.
Also have the 10-22 and 70-200 f/4 L IS.

No doubt the 24-105 is on my 7D the most. I love having the extra reach when needed while walking around.
The 17-55 while it has 2.8 is too short for me as my walk around.
The advantages of the 17-55 have been mentioned by others in the above posts.

Ideally it would be great if Canon made a 17-105 f/4 or f/2.8 but physics and cost cost would be an issue.

If money is there for both lenses, I do not see an issue of having both tools in the tool box.

I will not sell either one of the two lenses as they serve their purposes beautifully.

 Nick5's gear list:Nick5's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM +4 more
Rakumi Veteran Member • Posts: 6,234
You hit it on the nose...

They both have different uses. The 17-55 is better for landscape and indoor photos but is a bit weak in the area of zooming outdoors for like you said, the zoo. The 24-105 can do a bit of landscape (not as good though), and can do ok indoors if the light is decent (especially non moving subjects) but is strong as a general purpose outdoors when your unsure if you need to get a bit wide or zoom in close to a subject.

I find the 24-105 suits my needs a bit more. You must ask yourself which fits you most.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.

KariP
KariP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,845
If and if

I think 24-105 is in a way more versatile - for MY OWN style - and it is a good lens for 90% of subjects. But IF you can afford also a 10-22 wide angle these two lenses make a good pair when traveling and for town and indoor shots. Or for everything.

But IF you want to have just one lens with you on a walk , 17-55 is better or 15-85 even more.

Speed = f2.8 has no real meaning nowadays with 7D - high ISO capability is so good. I am anyway stopping down to f5.6-8 if it is not night or very shady - f 2,8 is not needed so very often...

If you need really shallow DOF for portraits (who really needs it ?) it is possible to buy a 50mm f 1,8 or 1,4.

-- hide signature --

Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, 40D since 2007, and now 7D !
60.21 N 24.86 E

 KariP's gear list:KariP's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot G1 X Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-T1 +18 more
Johnny420
Johnny420 Senior Member • Posts: 1,155
Re: EF-S 17-55 or EF 24-108L for 7D...

I would get the 17-55 for any crop body over the 24-105. The focal range is much better suited to the APS-C format, and It's a great lens that spends the vast majority of its time mounted on my 40D. Optics are outstanding as well.

temery wrote:

I am looking for a general purpose lens for my 7D and I am torn between these two. But the more I dwell on it the more I realize that the two lenses serve different purposes. Their biggest similarity may be that many people point to one of these two lenses as their general purpose lens. My question is for anybody that owns both. Is it worth it to own both?

The way I see it, the 17-55 would be great for low-light indoor shooting and the 24-105L would be great for, say, a trip to the zoo. The 17-55 would be better for landscapes and the 24-105, while not a real long telephoto, would be better for wildlife.

Does anybody own both? Would it be crazy to own both?

Thanks

Also, I know about the 15-85 and I know it might fulfill all the aforementioned needs but for some reason it just doesn't intrigue me. It isn't as fast as the 17-55 and it doesn't have the reach of the 24-105L.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks

 Johnny420's gear list:Johnny420's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM +4 more
Sonylover1 Regular Member • Posts: 459
10-22 and 24-105 is my choice.

Very good lenses.
--
Mike the Viking

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads