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

Hi everyone,

I've been using a 650D with a Canon 17-55 2.8 for the last 6 month, and I'm very pleased with it. (tried the tamron before and I will never non canon lenses again)

I am now thinking of selling it and buy a 6D with 24-70 2.8 ii or 24-105 f4

I really enjoy low light and the 6D has a better autofocus  and I could get a wider angle which would be great and it's a full frame, if i buy more lenses, I will not have sell them in the future, while now my lens will not fit on a full frame.

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...

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?

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 ?

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

note. I only shoot in raw, don't use the built in flash and all my settings are manual.

Thx in advance for your help

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.

You have raised several issues which have been hashed to death, so I suggest searching the archives for similar threads.  But let me just give you my perspective.

- The 24-70II is a better lens than the 24-105, but significantly more expensive.  If you can afford it, go for it.  If not, don't.

- I was concerned about the lack of IS, but in practice it hasn't been much of an issue.  Keep the shutter speed high or use a tripod (or brace somehow).  It is a problem trying to take handheld shots in low light of static subjects, but if the subjects are moving, you will need higher shutter speed anyway to avoid motion blur.  I use a tripod for my better landscape shots anyway.

- I don't miss the 71-105 range at all.  I can't remember ever thinking it was a limitation while shooting with the 24-70II.  If I have a subject I need to zoom in on more, either do it with my feet, if they are close, or reach for my 70-200.  You can also crop.

- Will you see a difference over your 650 + 17-55?  You should, but it depends on your skills.  If you utilize the strengths of your FF camera, you should see a big difference.  The main strengths being subject isolation from thinner DOF, and lower noise in low light.  If you just take snapshots in bright sunlight, and post small jpegs to the web, you might not see any advantage over a cellphone.

I came from a 7D/17-55 combination and then went up to a 5D3/24-105 then finally sold the 24-105 and got the 24-70II.

No regrets whatsoever in going full frame AND in ending up with the 24-70II. I do not miss the extra reach of the 24-105 at all and the 24-70II is spectacular IQ wise. Since I had the 17-55 for over two years, the 24-70II does all the 17-55 does and more. Going full frame plus using a great lens for me was a quantum leap in terms of satisfaction. If you have the funds, I suggest not to wait. The enjoyment I get from my new set-up (and, I suspect, with the 6D/24-70II for you) is just on a different level.

Yes, I am am still trying to improve my technique and art of photography but even now, I no longer have this "there is still something missing" feeling, especially IQ-wise.

rnoooo wrote:

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

Will the difference be obvious?  The primary differences you'll see going full frame are that it will give you a wider angle of view for a given focal length, allow you shallower dof, and deliver cleaner files at higher ISOs.  When I went from my 7D to my current 5D3, I didn't see any "night and day" differences.  Nevertheless, for me at least, the cleaner files and shallower dof were enough to make the upgrade worthwhile.  The 5D3's better focusing system was also a big plus.

I struggled with the same decision when going full frame:  What general purpose zoom to buy?  The three options I considered were the 24-105L, 24-70L II and Tamron 24-70 (the 24-70 f/4 IS hadn't come out yet).  I ultimately went with the 24-70II for its sharp corners and edges, since my intention was to use this as my primary landscape lens, as well as my general purpose/walkaround lens.  And I have no regrets.  Sure, it's expensive, but the IQ really is exceptional.

rnoooo wrote:

Hi everyone,

I've been using a 650D with a Canon 17-55 2.8 for the last 6 month, and I'm very pleased with it.

Then why do you need to upgrade?