canon 17-55 vs 24-105

existent

existent

Messages
1,417
Name
Esen
Edit My Images
Yes
I am planning on buying my next lens soon but having a hard time making a decision.

I take mostly landscape shots and rarely take off 10-22 from my 450D, but I want something to cover the longer FL. I have 60mm f2.8 as well as 55-250mm for long end.

I am torn between these two lenses. I was considering 24-105 because it has a longer reach but most threads/posts I read recommends 17-55 for crop.

I already have a 10-22 to cover the wide end, which overlaps quite a bit with 17-55, but it looks like 17-55 is sharper than 24-105, and f2.8 might come in handy for the occasional portraits. But then again, with a longer zoom, 105mm at f4 should have similar blur.

There isn't much difference in their price either (2nd hand).

so, what do you all think?
 
I have the 24-105 on my 40D and its great, never off the camera now.
 
Hi
I have a 24-105 and use it on my 1DS MKIII & MKI and it's got a good range. Great for Landscape and you really don't need 2.8. Good for Studio/Portrait at the other end so a good all rounder.
 
I just got the 17-55 second hand from this forum to complement the Sigma 10-20. Very very good lens, very sharp and 2.8 is most useful.
 
I have the 17-55 its lovely lens, esepcially as a replacement for the kit lens.

I find that the length is good for up close portrait and wider angle stuff (but you have the 10-22 anyway), but I find depending on what im shooting I have to use a zoom lens because it doesnt have that extra reach I occasionly want (where once again your covered).

Best technique ive ever been given is open lightroom or bridge, and get a summary of what lengths you shoot at a lot and what aperture as well. Will give you a good look on if you need the longer reach, or if you require the depth of field, or more light.

I hope that made some sense!
 
thanks for the tips so far.. keep them coming (y)


Crazy Dino said:
Best technique ive ever been given is open lightroom or bridge, and get a summary of what lengths you shoot at a lot and what aperture as well. Will give you a good look on if you need the longer reach, or if you require the depth of field, or more light.

I hope that made some sense!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for me, 90% of the shots will be in 10-22mm range :D
 
If Landscapes are going to be your main thing then 17-55 out of the two is your best bet.
 
I used the 24-105mm on my 40D. I thought it was a great lens but it was never quite wide enough for indoor and group shots so I upgraded to the 17-55 IS. The 24-105 had much better build quality, but the 17-55 is simply more practical and produces marginally better IQ.

As a single lens option the 17-55 is better, but seeing that you have a 10-22mm it makes it a tougher call. Saying that, you also have 55-250, so the extra 56-104mm will not be missed. Tough call, but I would still go with the 17-55. That extra stop will come in really handy in low light on a 450D.

edit: As 90% of your shots are "wide", the 17-55 is by far the best option.
 
24-105 feels really right, and you have 10-22 already for the wide stuff. Once again 24-105 is an excellent range on crop, and 24-70 doesn't come even close in that respect. f/2.8 is a different kind of animal for different reasons.
 
tjcroom said:
If Landscapes are going to be your main thing then 17-55 out of the two is your best bet.
Click to expand...

can you give a reasoning for that? is it mainly because it's wider?

Orville said:
I used the 24-105mm on my 40D. I thought it was a great lens but it was never quite wide enough for indoor and group shots so I upgraded to the 17-55 IS. The 24-105 had much better build quality, but the 17-55 is simply more practical and produces marginally better IQ.

As a single lens option the 17-55 is better, but seeing that you have a 10-22mm it makes it a tougher call. Saying that, you also have 55-250, so the extra 56-104mm will not be missed. Tough call, but I would still go with the 17-55. That extra stop will come in really handy in low light on a 450D.

edit: As 90% of your shots are "wide", the 17-55 is by far the best option.
Click to expand...

hmm.. 17-55 will compliment the 55-250 nicely but will overlap with 10-22 on wide end. I believe 17-55 is slightly sharper than 10-22.

24-105 will compliment the 10-22, but will overlap with 55-250 on the long end... 24-105 is definitely sharper than 55-250...


I agree with you that as a single lens option 17-55 is definitely better option. But I wonder if I get the 17-55, I will not be using 10-22 that much...:thinking:


If only the new 15-85 was a constant f4 lens...
 
I'm still wondering between the 17-55 and 24-70, the only thing that keeps swinging my mind to the left is that the 17-55 has IS and the 24-70 doesn't. Now I have my first IS lens (70-300) I see that it can make a big difference so wouldn't want to spend that much money on a lens without it! Also the f/2.8 is good for low light- but if taking low light pictures of people inside etc you may want some extra DOF which means stopping down a click or 2, which is when the IS will be your best friend. As I mentioned, that is the only reason I am probably going to end up with a 17-55 over the 24-70!

I hate these decisions, there never seems to be a clear winner!
 
topcatproduction said:
I'm still wondering between the 17-55 and 24-70, the only thing that keeps swinging my mind to the left is that the 17-55 has IS and the 24-70 doesn't. Now I have my first IS lens (70-300) I see that it can make a big difference so wouldn't want to spend that much money on a lens without it! Also the f/2.8 is good for low light- but if taking low light pictures of people inside etc you may want some extra DOF which means stopping down a click or 2, which is when the IS will be your best friend. As I mentioned, that is the only reason I am probably going to end up with a 17-55 over the 24-70!

I hate these decisions, there never seems to be a clear winner!
Click to expand...

between 17-55 and 24-70, I'd go for 17-55 for sure. Slightly smaller and lighter, and comes with IS (y)
 
On crop, go with the 17-55 over the 24-70. For comparison, I have found the 24-70 to be sharper and to render colour better, however I would find it too long at the wide end on a crop.
 
existent said:
between 17-55 and 24-70, I'd go for 17-55 for sure. Slightly smaller and lighter, and comes with IS (y)
Click to expand...

I probably will- but not as easy decision as stated for me due to the extra range- (wide end not a big prob with a UWA as well)- and of course that it is a tack sharp L and always will be, so better built and will last longer too! If it had IS it wouldn't be a decision for me :LOL:
 
I've got a 10-22 and although I also have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC, I was planning on selling the Tamron and getting the Canon 17-55.
However, I decided it would be silly and I have a Canon 24-105 on order with Kerso.
Even if I didn't have the Tamron I woul have still gone for the 28-105.
For me the Tamron is mainly used indoor when there is low lighting and I've not really used it much.
With a 10-22 and the choice between a 17-55 or a 24-105L, I would go for the L lens.
Just my tuppence worth.
 
hashcake said:
I don't think you can compare that lens to either the 17-55 or 24-105.
One is L quality but an EF-S and the other is an L lens.
Click to expand...

IQ seems to be pretty good but it is not constant aperture and moves down to 5.6 at 85mm...

I would have gone for that one if it was constant f4...
 
hashcake said:
I've got a 10-22 and although I also have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC, I was planning on selling the Tamron and getting the Canon 17-55.
However, I decided it would be silly and I have a Canon 24-105 on order with Kerso.
Even if I didn't have the Tamron I woul have still gone for the 28-105.
For me the Tamron is mainly used indoor when there is low lighting and I've not really used it much.
With a 10-22 and the choice between a 17-55 or a 24-105L, I would go for the L lens.
Just my tuppence worth.
Click to expand...

I quite liked the Tamron - if you dont use it thast much would you really get the benefit from a 17-55
 
Overexposed said:
I quite liked the Tamron - if you dont use it thast much would you really get the benefit from a 17-55
Click to expand...

Hence the reason I decided to stay with the Tamron and forget about the 17-55 :)
 
Personally I would go for the 17-55 every time on crop. I used to love mine when I had my 40D (along with the 10-22). I have the 24-105 now on FF but I would find the lack of DOF control and low light limitation of f/4 a limit on crop. Not a problem with the 5D2 as you have at least an extra stop or so of ISO performance and the DOF of f/4 on FF is roughly equivalent to f/2.8 on crop for a given equivalent focal length and focal distance.

I also found the slight overlap of the 10-22 and 17-55 cut down on the need to change lenses too. I know the lure of L glass is great but don't let the lack of red band put you off the 17-55. It is a great lens, performs well and holds its value well should you need to sell it on if you ever go FF.

Crazy Dino said:
Best technique ive ever been given is open lightroom or bridge, and get a summary of what lengths you shoot at a lot and what aperture as well. Will give you a good look on if you need the longer reach, or if you require the depth of field, or more light.

I hope that made some sense!
Click to expand...

The only thing to be wary with using this methodology is that it can reflect the way you shoot with the limitations of the lenses you currently have (as you have them) and not necessarily how you might shoot with a new lens.
 
Indeed you did Lol !
Sorry i didnt take the first bit of your post in!
Seriously I have a mate who has both the 17 55 and the Tamron and he reckons it can be difficult to distinguish the images apart the big difference though is build quality and the way it feels to use ( that and £450 difference in price)
 
Overexposed said:
Indeed you did Lol !
Sorry i didnt take the first bit of your post in!
Seriously I have a mate who has both the 17 55 and the Tamron and he reckons it can be difficult to distinguish the images apart the big difference though is build quality and the way it feels to use ( that and £450 difference in price)
Click to expand...

On the way to the 17-55 in the past I had the Tammy 17-50. Excellent lens for the money, well built (for the price) and I would agree the images from it are hard to distinguish from the 17-55 in the right conditions. What ultimately led me to upgrade was the lack of Full Time Manual Focus (facilitated by the USM focus on the Canon) and the tendency for the AF to hunt a lot in low light. Also, the missing 5mm (8mm with crop factor applied) of reach was a bit of a miss. The IS wasn't an issue to me when I upgraded but when I had it on the 17-55 I realised what I was missing. f/2.8 and the extra stops provided by the IS was very useful for flash free shots in low light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top