Canon 24-70 f4, 24-105 f4, 17-55 f2.8 or what?

Kev M

Kev M

Messages
4,347
Name
You can call me Sir.
Edit My Images
Yes
afternoon folks,

I've currently got a 600D with 30 and 50mm primes. I have utter disdain for the 50mm, the image quality is awful compared to the other lens so I never use it, the problem is that occasionally 30mm just isn't wide enough and with the current cash back offers and interest free credit now seems like a good time to replace it.

The 24-70 f4l seems like a good option but I'm not sure if I'm going to notice the extra 6mm (9) or wish I'd gone wider.

The 17-55 is usm seems to get great reviews from what little I've read and possibly covers the required range but there are two things holding me back. It's comparatively a lot of money for a standard zoom lens that isn't an L and it isn't FF compatible. I can't see me going FF any time soon but then I couldn't see me spending £5-600 on a lens either until last week, so maybe it's best to hedge my bets for the future.

Then there's then 24-105 f4l, that's if 24mm is wide enough. It's probably more practice but I'm not sure I need the extra focal lengthnor the worthy to be honest.

So, opinions are greatly welcomed as are suggestions if I've overlooked a lens.
 
Kev M said:
The 17-55 is usm seems to get great reviews from what little I've read and possibly covers the required range but there are two things holding me back. It's comparatively a lot of money for a standard zoom lens that isn't an L
Click to expand...

It's about as close to an L as you get, without it actually have the red ring and an L on the lens. As far as I know, Canon don't do an EF-S L lens...
 
Kev M said:
Then there's then 24-105 f4l, that's if 24mm is wide enough. It's probably more practice but I'm not sure I need the extra focal lengthnor the worthy to be honest.
Click to expand...

Kev M said:
The 24-70 f4l seems like a good option but I'm not sure if I'm going to notice the extra 6mm (9) or wish I'd gone wider.
Click to expand...

You've got the same issue with both lenses at the 24mm range - I've used the 24-105 on my 40D and for me, it was a great focal length and the extra reach for me over the 24-70 was worth it...

How many times have you found 30mm not wide enough ?
 
Kev M said:
I can't see me going FF any time soon but then I couldn't see me spending £5-600 on a lens either until last week, so maybe it's best to hedge my bets for the future.
Click to expand...

Aah yes, the hmm should I upgrade to full frame question - if you think you might, then yes, the 24-??? would def be your better option, if not or you really don't think you would, then the 17-55 is def worth a look at and if you decided to sell on, you would't loose much, especially if bought 2nd hand...
 
Definitely the 17-55 on a crop or the tampon 17-50 us nearly as good for a lot less.
 
First get your 50mm fixed, it might be a bit mushy wide open but f2.8 and beyond it should be pin sharp and nicely contrasty!

Then buy the 17-50mm f2.8 second hand it is brilliant and you won't loose anything if you sell it on.
 
joel222 said:
The best lens that I've ever owned was a canon 15-85, why not take at look at those. It was sharper than L lenses I've had and Tamron 2.8 zooms. Only reason I no longer have it is that it's not compatible with full frame
Click to expand...

:plus1: 15-85 is fantastic on crop. If not 17-55. Forget 24-70 and 24-105.
 
andyred said:
It's about as close to an L as you get, without it actually have the red ring and an L on the lens. As far as I know, Canon don't do an EF-S L lens...
Click to expand...

That's kind of the point. Not so much that Canon don't make L lenses for crop bodies but that the price is nearly the same as the 24-70 F4L despite the lower build quality, lower IS spec and the restricted upgrade path.

andyred said:
How many times have you found 30mm not wide enough ?
Click to expand...

Only really when I'm taking photos indoors. It's not that often but it's a massive ball ache when it happens.

joel222 said:
The best lens that I've ever owned was a canon 15-85, why not take at look at those. It was sharper than L lenses I've had and Tamron 2.8 zooms. Only reason I no longer have it is that it's not compatible with full frame
Click to expand...

Thanks Joel, I should have been clear that one requirement is a fixed maximum aperture throughout the zoom range which rules the 15-85 out. Tamron build quality still seems a bit hit and miss for my liking.

mike_6480 said:
Definitely the 17-55 on a crop or the tampon 17-50 us nearly as good for a lot less.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike, although my photography is challenged enough with attaching sanitary products to the front of my camera

a1ex2001 said:
First get your 50mm fixed, it might be a bit mushy wide open but f2.8 and beyond it should be pin sharp and nicely contrasty!

Then buy the 17-50mm f2.8 second hand it is brilliant and you won't loose anything if you sell it on.
Click to expand...

Thanks but a 2nd hand 50mm lens isn't worth the repair cost in my opinion. Thanks for your recommendation on the other lens though.

T_J_G said:
17-55 2.8 second hand, then sell on for what you paid if you upgrade to FF. It's a lovely lens if your shooting crop...
Click to expand...

Thanks, but buying and selling is rarely better value than buying the right thing in the first place.

Jackwow said:
:plus1: 15-85 is fantastic on crop. If not 17-55. Forget 24-70 and 24-105.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Wayne Els said:
Yep 15-85 all the time. Fantastic lens. The extra couple of mm make a surprisingly big difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Canon will never make an EFS mount L, the range is geared towards "prosumer" where most of the bodies are full frame and need a higher lens iq and are not as forgiving especially regarding corner drop off.

Consider what you are going to be left with if you upgrade to ff though. The second hand 17-55 f2.8 plan is actually pretty good, they don't really depreciate and technically you would be buying the right lens for your current body. Appreciate it's not the right glass for the body you want to own, but horses for courses and all that.

And for what it's worth, 17-40 F4 L is an amazing, bright and sharp lens IMO. For £300ish used everyone should have one and its a lot more flexible then most give it credit for.
 
First off, define what your objectives and styles are.
What/how do you intend to shoot?
Take a look through your images and see the focal lengths and apertures that you predominantly shoot at to determine your style and your requirements in a lens.
If 30mm on a crop is definitely not wide enough then 6mm of a difference just isn't going to do it for you. Going to 18mm on the other hand or FF will create a significant adjustment. Whether or not its one you like and would choose to use is your decision.
Do you mainly shoot wide open at f2.8? If so then f4 bokeh or speed simply wont cut it and leave you frustrated.
Do you shoot in low light and struggle with insufficient ISO and large enough aperture? Then if its a stationary subject, IS will make the difference.
If you have a desired sharpness/contrast/pop then take your camera into a shop and try out the lenses & review the memory card at home to see which are suitable for you. Take a few in the same setting with known lenses that you have and like/dislike to gain a better comparison.
Lenses should last a very long time. Over several body upgrades. One of which could easily be FF. If you can appreciate the difference in quality that FF makes in certain circumstances, then it would seem logical to hedge your bets.
 
cw318is said:
And for what it's worth, 17-40 F4 L is an amazing, bright and sharp lens IMO. For £300ish used everyone should have one and its a lot more flexible then most give it credit for.
Click to expand...

I had looked at the 17-40 as an option but have been put off by the mixed reviews, particularly on here. Having said that I think some of the negatives would only be noticeable on a FF camera, so i wouldn't be affected by them for some time yet (if ever). Thing is it would probably be too wide on FF for me so I'd probably end up selling it.

Deadlock said:
First off, define what your objectives and styles are.
What/how do you intend to shoot?
Take a look through your images and see the focal lengths and apertures that you predominantly shoot at to determine your style and your requirements in a lens.
If 30mm on a crop is definitely not wide enough then 6mm of a difference just isn't going to do it for you. Going to 18mm on the other hand or FF will create a significant adjustment. Whether or not its one you like and would choose to use is your decision.
Do you mainly shoot wide open at f2.8? If so then f4 bokeh or speed simply wont cut it and leave you frustrated.
Do you shoot in low light and struggle with insufficient ISO and large enough aperture? Then if its a stationary subject, IS will make the difference.
If you have a desired sharpness/contrast/pop then take your camera into a shop and try out the lenses & review the memory card at home to see which are suitable for you. Take a few in the same setting with known lenses that you have and like/dislike to gain a better comparison.
Lenses should last a very long time. Over several body upgrades. One of which could easily be FF. If you can appreciate the difference in quality that FF makes in certain circumstances, then it would seem logical to hedge your bets.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, unfortunately the only camera shop around here is Jessops and they don't have any of the lenses I'm interested in shop stock to try. You're right about the max aperture thing, I don't shoot at 1.4 that often as the dof is almost unusable but it's nice to have an alternative option to bumping up the iso so I might appreciate f2.8 over f4 from time to time. A 24-70 2.8 is definitely out of the question though!
 
Kev M said:
I had looked at the 17-40 as an option but have been put off by the mixed reviews, particularly on here. Having said that I think some of the negatives would only be noticeable on a FF camera, so i wouldn't be affected by them for some time yet (if ever). Thing is it would probably be too wide on FF for me so I'd probably end up selling it.



Thanks for the advice, unfortunately the only camera shop around here is Jessops and they don't have any of the lenses I'm interested in shop stock to try. You're right about the max aperture thing, I don't shoot at 1.4 that often as the dof is almost unusable but it's nice to have an alternative option to bumping up the iso so I might appreciate f2.8 over f4 from time to time. A 24-70 2.8 is definitely out of the question though!
Click to expand...
The 17-40mm f4l is a horrible compromise on a crop if that is the range you want buy a second hand 17-50mm f2.8 it is infinitely better! From where I'm sat you seem to be suffering from L-itus a common complaint afflicting many canon togs. Ignore red rings and the like and buy the lens that best suits your needs now if you pick up a 17-50mm f2.8?second hand now you could sell it in a years time and loose about 10 quid which is a ridiculously cheap cost of ownership for one of the best lenses canon make!
 
I'm another that has had good experience with the 15-85mm. Mine is on the camera most of the time.
 
You'll appreciate wider lenses on the crop body - 17-55mm is a winner
 
a1ex2001 said:
The 17-40mm f4l is a horrible compromise on a crop if that is the range you want buy a second hand 17-50mm f2.8 it is infinitely better! From where I'm sat you seem to be suffering from L-itus a common complaint afflicting many canon togs. Ignore red rings and the like and buy the lens that best suits your needs now if you pick up a 17-50mm f2.8?second hand now you could sell it in a years time and loose about 10 quid which is a ridiculously cheap cost of ownership for one of the best lenses canon make!
Click to expand...

Not really L-itus, the only thing the 17-55 has in its favour is the extra stop of light.

Why do you say the 17-40 is so bad on a crop body? It's the same at the wide end as the 17-55 and is longer than the prime I use 99% of the time.
 
Kev M said:
Not really L-itus, the only thing the 17-55 has in its favour is the extra stop of light.

Why do you say the 17-40 is so bad on a crop body? It's the same at the wide end as the 17-55 and is longer than the prime I use 99% of the time.
Click to expand...
It's just a bit mediocre the 17-50mm is faster sharper and has IS to boot. The 17-40mm f4l is decent(ish) at what it was designed for ie an ultra wide zoom on full frame but it just doesn't make sense on a crop camera you should take advantage of the fact you can get a fast stabilised standard zoom so cheaply! The 17-50mm f2.8 clearly demonstrates what can be achieved in terms of size budget and performance if you remove the full frame requirements!
 
Last edited:
IS isn't the be all and end all though is it? I use one on a crop body and find it exceptional. Colours are great with it and such a clear image with no chromatic issues right into the corners. But that said, I've seen sharp Tamrons and soft Canons so even being manufactured in a controlled environment just goes to show that it pays to test the actual lens you are going to buy first.

a1ex2001 said:
17-50mm f2.8?second hand now you could sell it in a years time and loose about 10 quid which is a ridiculously cheap cost of ownership for one of the best lenses canon make!
Click to expand...
Are you sure? Canon don't actually make a 17-50 f2.8........
 
cw318is said:
IS isn't the be all and end all though is it? I use one on a crop body and find it exceptional. Colours are great with it and such a clear image with no chromatic issues right into the corners. But that said, I've seen sharp Tamrons and soft Canons so even being manufactured in a controlled environment just goes to show that it pays to test the actual lens you are going to buy first.


Are you sure? Canon don't actually make a 17-50 f2.8........
Click to expand...
I never said IS was the be all and end all but it is blooming nice to have! My point here is that on every count except a little bit of build quality and the presence of a red ring the 17-55mm is a better lens it's sharper, faster, has is and a longer zoom range!

Oh and thanks for the pedantic pointing out of the missing 5mm I forget it's only the third party guys that stop at 50mm on those lenses!
 
Last edited:
Forget the 24-105? Why? It's a superb lens with a constant aperture and a far more useful range.
 
I used to have the Tamron 17-50 on my 550D, but I upgraded to the Canon 17-55 which I find is sharper, faster and more accurate to focus. It hardly ever comes off the camera as the focal length range is so useful. I'd wholeheartedly recommend it, especially if you only use your prime lenses stopped down.
 
Thanks for the feedback folks, decided to opt for the 17-55 in the end, now I'm just waiting on delivery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top