17-55IS or 24-105L

[goatee]

Now, I know that the 17-55 is a stop faster, and the 24-105 is longer. But other than that, in terms of AF performance, and IQ, how do the two compare? I really love my 18-50, but the 24-105 would give me more reach, and the IS helps offset the loss of a stop of light. The 17-55 would give me great indoor performance, and the IS would mean I could get rid of my flash (which I don't use all that much anyway).

I wouldn't mind having 17mm at the wide end, but 24 is probably enough for me. I wouldn't mind having 105 at the long end, but 55 is probably enough. So basically, aside from the focal length, how does IQ and AF compare?

So. . . what do people reckon?

[RobKirkwood]

Pretty much the same. I don't notice any difference in the AF, and I can't tell them apart by just looking at the images (without reading the exif I mean). Build quality is better on the 24-105, but the 17-55 is far from bad. Disregarding the red band, the 24-105 is probably better value in the UK because they're around the same price here but you get the hood included (c £45 extra on the 17-55). We got the 17-55 from Mifsuds for £699 inc VAT and the 24-105 from Purdy for £679 inc VAT (but prices on this have since gone up again).

As to which is best - I wouldn't like to have to choose - my wife and I both shoot, and we keep the 17-55 on the 30D, the 24-105 on the 20D, and our 70-200 on the 350D.

Rob

[Neilyb]

The 24-105 is a stonking lens, excellent IQ, range and built quality is brick like. I have little need for 2.8 so it fits my purposes, I also have a 5D therefore it is a wide lens not sure I could manage on a crop body tho.

[goatee]

Thanks for the responses. Rob I see you're selling your 17-40 - I guess that's also testament to the IQ of the 17-55. If the build quality is the same as that of my 85mm f/1.8 then I'd be happy - sure my EX 18-50 (which is for sale) is better, but I look after my kit, so it isn't a must-have.

I'd be interested to see some decent shots from the 17-55 (yes I know I can search pbase, but searches on there bring up such crud, I'd rather a few select decent shots to look at) - especially to see how edge sharpness is.

[mrkgoo]

Much to my wallets chagrin, I picked up an EFS 17-55 Is, 2.8 today.

I'm in somewhat of buyers remorse, but NOT at teh EFS17-55 quality. Let me expain - it's jsut a really expensive piece of kit. I'm not talking relatively to other things, or for what it is, but simply that it costs as much as it does. I'm not rich.

I'm having issues with front focussing *i think* (I think it's the camera), so I'm struggling abit with this lens, but here are my initial impressions:

This lens is sharp. I think it is softer at 2.8, but maybe it's due to non-critical focussing.
The Light fall off at 2.8 is very real, and can affect your exposure.
This thing does flare a bit more than my other lenses, but I don't really mind it so far.

Contrast, resolution, and saturation is very nice.

The key thing is why one gets a lens- what they want it for. I wanted a wideangle solution, plus a low light solution. This lens fixes both my problems at once!

It is really superb. Build quality is fine, and the rings are smooth enough. If I can compensate for my FF (again, I think it's camera - my 50mm 1.8 can FF, but my 70-200 f4L is spot on - maybe it's back focussed to compensate!). But I can see the quality straight off. the Is is fanatastic - Im doing things witht his lens that is not possible - hand held ultra sharp at 1/10-1/20s (55mm).

I don't really have a choice in regards to keeping this (no such thing as areturn policy here), so maybe I have to like it regardless of its issues.

I might post some pics when I get a chance to take it for real spin (it's raining tomorrow).

[RobKirkwood]

Don't have an 85mm f1.8, but build quality of the 17-55 is on a par with our 50mm f1.4. Only thing that slightly bothers me is the front part where you fit the lenshood doesn't feel over-substantial ...what I mean is with L lenses you can just shove the hood on and know nothing's going to be damaged, but the 17-55 feels just a tad flimsy in this area, and I'm always scared of twisting the whole thing apart! ...having said that, we've never yet had any problems, and I must also admit we're using the wrong hood with it (EW83-D2 which we already had), so maybe the proper one (EW83-J) fits easier?

Rob

[goatee]

Much to my wallets chagrin, I picked up an EFS 17-55 Is, 2.8 today.

I'm in somewhat of buyers remorse, but NOT at teh EFS17-55 quality. Let me expain - it's jsut a really expensive piece of kit. I'm not talking relatively to other things, or for what it is, but simply that it costs as much as it does. I'm not rich.



Thanks for the input mrkgoo. I completely understand, and it's something I've felt on occasions myself (although I rarely spend money approaching anything like this).

[mrkgoo]

Seriously, this is a huge spend for me... and for just a hobby (one I have already spent thousands on in just the past few months)...so that is why I'm feeling the remorse. It wasn't really justified - I just get into a stubborn state, and when I do, I can do anything but think about it until I get it....it's an affliction. :/

[goatee]

I understand that the 50 and 85 are on a par build wise. I know what you mean regarding the hood - it feels a lot less substantial than the petal hood that came with my 18-50. Actually, that's one area where the Sigma is way ahead - it's a solid hood, and it fits really nicely - no faffing with those pinch things.

Don't have an 85mm f1.8, but build quality of the 17-55 is on a par with our 50mm f1.4. Only thing that slightly bothers me is the front part where you fit the lenshood doesn't feel over-substantial ...what I mean is with L lenses you can just shove the hood on and know nothing's going to be damaged, but the 17-55 feels just a tad flimsy in this area, and I'm always scared of twisting the whole thing apart! ...having said that, we've never yet had any problems, and I must also admit we're using the wrong hood with it (EW83-D2 which we already had), so maybe the proper one (EW83-J) fits easier?

Rob

[goatee]

Seriously, this is a huge spend for me... and for just a hobby (one I have already spent thousands on in just the past few months)...so that is why I'm feeling the remorse. It wasn't really justified - I just get into a stubborn state, and when I do, I can do anything but think about it until I get it....it's an affliction. :/

And one that I share! Seriously - what continent in the world are you? If you can't take it back to the shop, because there are so few secondhand ones around you should still get a decent resale value - shouldn't lose much by selling it.

[mrkgoo]

New Zealand...

Funnily enough, despite every lens being more expensive dollar-for-dollar wise to US, this lens is actually cheaper! I got it for about $1014 (US). which is really cheap considering the cheapest I could get a 17-40f4l was around US$845.

Anyway, a few more impression: I gvie this lens a new name!

The Magic Vacuum!

It's IQ is superb. Sharp, high contrast, and really nice colours. Of course, I'm not one to judge being a beginner, but here's a sample:

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/6537/img6359smnw6.jpg
55mm, f11, 1/160, iso100

Yeah, I'm not pushing the limits of the lens with f11, and these are small resizes, but just to show you the nice colours and contrast you can get - these are out of the camera, parameter 1, 350D. I'm just showing some 'real world' pics, like ones you'd actually try and take, as opposed to wandering around with IS, 2.8, or whatever.

But why Vacuum? Well, after one shoot outdoors, and there's dust under teh first element! Not just a speck, but a few noticeable ones. I'm pretty sure they were'nt there in the store. I'm not too annoyed, because they don't seem to affect picture quality at all, but it does seem the non-L weather build has this possibly serious consequence. I'm still fighting ever so slight front-focussing issue with 2.8, so I might dump all my gear on Canon and see if they can recalibrate my equipment - I just hope there's no risk involved, and I get everything back back-focussed...

[grego]

As long as you don't upgrade to 1 series or 5D, the 17-55 might fit you better, as it'll give you a wider end. The 24 will carry you on the longer end, but starting at f/4.

It comes down to what you like to shoot and whether you prefer the long end or the shorter end.

[ed rader]

I understand that the 50 and 85 are on a par build wise. I know what you mean regarding the hood - it feels a lot less substantial than the petal hood that came with my 18-50. Actually, that's one area where the Sigma is way ahead - it's a solid hood, and it fits really nicely - no faffing with those pinch things.

the 85 has a better build than the 50 1.4, imo.

the 17-55 is built like the 85. let's call it a good consumer build because L lenses are the best.

the 17-55 is about the same size and weight as the 24-105.

ed rader

[Incredirebelz]

It's mostly a question of how often u use the 'wide' along with the 'tele'.

to me, I find 24 sufficient for everyday /group photos and the 55-105 is invaluable as a walkaround. I dont like frequent lens changes.
at the same time, when i shoot city landscape, 17mm just doesnt cut it... not to my taste anyways (350D).
Low light wise, i find myself using the 580ex most of the time even when i had the 24-70 f2.8. Not that f2.8 cant do low light, I just didnt want iso noise and borderline shutterspeed. To that point, i think a prime >f1.8 is the way to go for low light without flash.

I dont really think there's an universal solution... u really have to play around with different combos and see what makes u smile.

IQ wise, i think both are good, with the L samples often show more vivid colours to my eyes.

[goatee]

Hmm, I don't think I'm going to miss the 18-24 range that much - for landscapes I can stitch, and for anything else, it suffers from barrel distortion. What's most attractive about the 17-55 is that a 2.8 aperture with IS means it gives me an extra 2 stops (if not 3), which is the same as a f/1.4 lens, and I can definitely wave byebye to flash. Then again, at least the f/4 with IS will let me operate in similar conditions to the 85mm f/1.8 - although, in reality, for many scenarious, I'd stick the 85mm lens on anyway.

Thanks for the build quality info ed - I would be uncomfortable with anything much less built than the 85 - the EX Sigma really is built well (between the 85mm and an L).

Hmm, my EXIF is telling me to go for the 24-105, some extra length would be really useful (I mainly shoot informal and candid portraits), but the desire to get rid of my flash is telling me to get the 17-55. Nah - I think the L including the hood and pouch makes the 17-55 quite a bit more expensive - and it's nice to know both my lenses will be FF compatible.

Now I just have to find a reasonably priced 24-105 - my WTB notice here didn't get any bites - will try FM as well. Now I just have my 10D (cos I got my 20D), EX 18-50, and MZ-3 to sell, to fund the 24-105 :D.

[Incredirebelz]

with all due respect, goatee,
here's something that I always find puzzling if not irritating... no personal offense tho...
a lot of people tend to combine IS-stops into an overall effective aperture... or so it seems. I have no clue how this is so.

the calculated shutterspeed on your camera will not change becuz IS is turned on.
it just means you can go slower without the effect of handshake. that's very different from using a lens set to an aperture of f1.4 when you actually achieve things that the turning on IS wont:
a faster shutterspeed to freeze motion,
a thinner DOF, which to me is also a very powerful tool.

I think it's more appropriate to just think of IS as an invisible tripod... it doesnt help aperture or shutterspeed.

I find that in my shooting, if i want to freeze actions in low light party, i still need the flash with F2.8. but with flash-use, F4.0 is no problem either.

Adding IS to F2.8 is good for a general purpose shooting imo... like if i let my fiancee handle the shooting, I'd give her a lens with IS... Dont forget the range is also an important concern for a general purpose...

my 2c.

[goatee]

No offense taken. You are of course correct. But. . . it gives me an invisible tripod (as you eloqeuntly put it). It means that I may not be able to get some shots that I would have been able to get with the 2.8, but generally, I have problems indoors because I can't quite handhold with a slow enough shutter speed - if it's more than borderline lighting, I stick on my lightsucker 85mm lens (although thinking of supplementing it with the Sigma 30 f/1.4, or Canon 50mm f/1.4.

I also know that I don't get the smaller depth of field that a wider aperture allows, but the 24-105 makes up for it with an increased focal length, so I can still achieve nice bokeh.

[mrkgoo]

I liek the Is for the fact that it can mean you can push the DOF in lowlight conditions. Sure, 2.8 and so forth is great for low light, but sometimes you just don't want that narrow a DOF. I like the options IS affords me, even on short focal lengths.