Canon 50D - 17-55mm f/2.8 or 24-105mm f/4?

Nuffles

Nuffles

Messages
177
Name
Jack
Edit My Images
Yes
Next month I will be in the position to pick up one of these lenses, but I'm still in two minds as to which one. The 24-105mm gives me weather sealing, metal construction and the EF mount, which would be good seeing as I want to upgrade to a 5Dmk3 (please) in a couple of years time. The 17-55mm gives me an extra stop of aperture, with combined with IS, gives me a stunningly hand holdable lens. On the downside, it's plastic and EF-S mount. That said, they seem to hold their value well so it wouldn't be too hard to sell it a few years down the line.

Many on here seem to see the 17-55 as the best walk-around lens for cropped sensors, but it seems a little wide to me. I shoot primarily with a 50mm f/1.8II and I find myself wanting more zoom more often than more wide angle. Ken Rockwell (always to be taken with a pinch of salt, I know) gives the 17-55 a pretty damning review, should he be taken seriously?

I'll be going on the trip of a lifetime to San Francisco with college a couple of weeks after buying this lens so I want to get it right first time round, for obvious reasons :D

I'm swinging towards the 24-105mm, and had my heart set on it for the last few weeks but I suddenly thought today, would I regret choosing extra tele length over the faster aperture of the 17-55mm?

Advice would be appreciated. Thanks guys.
 
Hi

What other lenses do you have?

Why do you shoot primarily with the 50mm - is that for aperture reasons, sharpness, weight?

Might help guide you better with those answers:thumbs:


Andy
 
I'm in the same situation, but am swinging toward the 24-105mm as I have a Sigma 10-20mm for the wide end and think the extra length will be used more often than not.

Interest in general opinion though as many rate the 17-55mm as highly as the L lenses.
 
AndyB1976 said:
Hi

What other lenses do you have?

Why do you shoot primarily with the 50mm - is that for aperture reasons, sharpness, weight?

Might help guide you better with those answers:thumbs:


Andy
Click to expand...

Mainly, I shoot with the 50mm because I find it the perfect focal length for the sort of photography I do, which is a bit of everything but mostly relaxed portraiture and candid stuff. Also because the only other AF lens I have is a frankly horrific Tamron 18-200mm which is so slow (AF wise) that my shot has gotten bored or wandered off by the time it's focused. It's also soft as hell and misfocuses a lot. I'm going into Photojournalism at uni next year so I figured I need a lens more serious and more versatile than the 50mm. I do love the low light abilities of the 50mm though :D

If I got the 17-55 I'd probably sell the 50mm as it's the same focal length and the IS would give it the same low light capabilities. I'd probably keep it if I got the 24-105mm because it's easily light enough to carry around with me for when the sun goes down at the end of the day.
 
just based on your trip it would have to be the 17-55 but why are you limiting yourself to only those two,ok it is way more than the other two but the 35L sounds perfect for your style.
 
Nuffles said:
would I regret choosing extra tele length over the faster aperture of the 17-55mm?
Click to expand...

i do

i bought my 24-105 for studio work HOWEVER being my only lens i use it for out and about aswell obviously and sometimes .. i wish i had 2.8 ..
 
if your ever planning on full frame dont touch efs lenses either
 
I also have the same dilema on the mid-zoom range.

I do favour that extra stop more than IS so I would maybe prefer the 17-55 which has both f2.8 and IS and is also sharper according to some reviews I've read.

I think a common lens for photojournalism is the Canon 24-70 f2.8. Now this might not be wide enough on a crop sensor but it is weatherproof like the 24-105f4 unlike the 17-55. I don't think your camera body is weatherproof so it is maybe not such deal breaker at the moment.

I've pondered the 3 lenses above and have narrowed it to either the 17-55 or 24-70 although I am also considering full frame maybe in a years time so leaning towards the 24-70.
 
If your siding towards the 24-105L but are concerned about f4 being slow - the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM might be worth considering.
 
Danny133 said:
if your ever planning on full frame dont touch efs lenses either
Click to expand...
I wouldn't take any notice of this if I were you. Buy good EF-S lenses - and the 17-55 is good, as is the 10-22 - and they'll hold their value fairly well if you do one day go full frame.


But anyway, I think you should decouple your trip-of-a-lifetime lens decision from your long-term-every-day lens decision. If you were going to Tanzania you wouldn't even contemplate a 24-105 as your main lens, so why does the fact that it's San Francisco instead change anything?

Your main interest might be portraits, but in San Francisco you are surely going to want to take some landscape / scenic / touristy shots, and 24mm just won't be wide enough. On the other hand you probably don't need an ultra-wide. Last time I went to SF, the widest lens I had was 18mm and that was mostly fine. I missed having something wider inside the cathedral, and at Alcatraz, but it wasn't that big a deal. On the other hand, if my main lens had been a 24-105 then something wider would have been essential.
 
Last edited:
I've thought about the 24-70mm f/2.8 but it's even heavier and I won't be able to scrape together the extra cost before my trip. The 17-55 is a bit cheaper which is in it's favour. The 50D has basic weatherproofing - ie drizzle/light rain but it's more of an emergency cover than something I would actively take out to shoot in the rain. I'm slowly being swung towards the 17-55, but that only means that they're equal now. I think I need to go into the camera shop and give both of them a try outside and see how I find the zoom ranges.

Having seen the last post by StewartR I think I will go for the 17-55mm. Mifsuds have one second hand for a very good price, and a new one priced well too. You can't buy second hand from their website though and I doubt it'll still be there by the weekend when I have the time to drive down there :( Looks like another month to save up for the price of a new one rather than buying now then :P
 
Last edited:
Ken Rockwell thinks the 17-55 is no better than the 'OLD' 18-55 ! The mans a buffoon or had a dodgy lens. I have owned the 18-55 (both versions) the 17-85 and still have my 28-135, trust me my 17-55 f2.8 blows them all out of the water and is rarely off my 50D (perfectly balanced).Optically its L glass but that designation is reserved only for EF series lenses. Glad to see your going to try before you buy though, always the sensible option.
 
Last edited:
Just to complicate matters: if I were going to SF now I'd take an EF-S 15-85mm. I'm very impressed with it as a walkaround lens. It's well built (feels more solid than the 17-55), it has a very useful range, and the IS is great. I haven't personally compared its optics to the 17-55; it's probably not quite as good, but it looks miles better than the 17-85. The only downside is the aperture, but I can live with that. On a walkaround lens I'd rather have 85mm available at f/5.6 than not available at all.
 
StewartR said:
Just to complicate matters: if I were going to SF now I'd take an EF-S 15-85mm. I'm very impressed with it as a walkaround lens. It's well built (feels more solid than the 17-55), it has a very useful range, and the IS is great. I haven't personally compared its optics to the 17-55; it's probably not quite as good, but it looks miles better than the 17-85. The only downside is the aperture, but I can live with that. On a walkaround lens I'd rather have 85mm available at f/5.6 than not available at all.
Click to expand...

I did consider this lens too, and I'll agree with you it is a really good looking lens and it costs a damn sight less but I read a couple of damning reviews which simply put it as an upgrade to the kit lens, and even with the IS I'd still like the faster aperture of the 17-55mm.

Thanks for all the help so far guys.
 
I have both and my 17-55 is sharper on the 7d @ f4 than the 24-105 on the 5d MkII @ f4. At f2.8 its still v.sharp, it's a stunning lens and unfortuantely on FF there is not equivalent (yet). Don't get me wrong I love my 24-105 but the only reason I'd go for the 24-105 is for extra reach, weather sealing and FF compatability if none of the above matters then 17-55 everytime.

The only bad points are the build quality not being up to L standards. The only way I'll let go of mine is if I go fully FF!
 
StewartR said:
I wouldn't take any notice of this if I were you. Buy good EF-S lenses - and the 17-55 is good, as is the 10-22 - and they'll hold their value fairly well if you do one day go full frame.
Click to expand...

+1

Buy for what you have now, not what you may or may not have in the future.
 
I have used the 17-55 and its untouchable (against anything of a similar focal range) in my opinion on a crop body, only thing was it was a little to pricey for myself as I bought the 10-22mm Canon (awsome also). So instead of the 17-55mm I bought the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 now its not as well built as the Canon but in terms of sharpness its not that far off. If you have the cash go for the 17-55mm you will not be dissappointed but you should also check ou the Tamron IMO.

Also dont worry about buying quality EF-S lenses espeically if your buying second hand, you will lose very little if any money wise if you buy wisely.
 
Donki said:
Also dont worry about buying quality EF-S lenses espeically if your buying second hand, you will lose very little if any money wise if you buy wisely.
Click to expand...

Fully agree with this.

I find the notion of not buying EF-S lenses just in case you go full frame uneducated! Good ones hold their value in the S/H market just as well as L lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top