LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro use

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 09 Apr 2008 (Wednesday) 16:09   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
picturecrazy's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
8,504 posts
Alberta, CANADA
[MORE/SHARE]

As I own and use all three, I get MANY private messages on various forums asking about my thoughts between the three lenses. So I thought, if for nothing else, this post is just to have somewhere for me to point these people to in order to save me time.

If you have also OWNED and rigorously used ALL THREE lenses for at LEAST A YEAR, then it would be great to have your comments too. As exciting as it may be for someone to say "I've had my 24-70 for two weeks and so far and it's been great", it just doesn't help bring experienced opinions into the thread.

This is my very unscientific opinion of the three lenses. I don't take pictures of focus charts and signs and do technical tests. I turn to LightRules when I need to find good information of that type. No sense duplicating. What I *DO* concentrate on is their usability and performance when shooting... I like to get out there and use my gear to the fullest, and I expect it to keep up. Some characteristics of the lenses help me, some do not.

Also, bear in mind that I'm mainly speaking for 1.6 crop shooters. This should be obvious as the 17-55 doesn't fit on anything else.

Anyhow, these are my personal rankings for certain attributes I find important.
It is in this format: 1st place / 2nd place / 3rd place

Build Quality:
24-70 / 24-105 / 17-55

The 17-55 doesn't feel super cheap like the 18-55 or 50 1.8, but it definitely isn't as nice as the L's. The 24-105 feels solid, but the 24-70 feels like a tank... like you can almost use it as a car bumper.

Image quality:
17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105

The 17-55 is sharp in the centre through to the corners, at ALL apertures and at ALL focal lengths. There is NO optical weak spot on this lens in terms of sharpness. IT does flare more readily but it's easy to control, and even fun to use artisitcally. I find the other lenses show weaker sharpness at 24mm, and the 24-105 is weaker at 105mm. The 17-55 yields slightly cooler images. But in all honestly, ALL of the lenses deliver some stellar image quality. It should be the least of your concerns when choosing one of these lenses. There are some who say the bokeh isn't fantastic on the 24-105, to which I would agree, but it isn't absolutely beautiful on the other lenses either. On a non-bokeh friendly scene with lots of high contrast lines and jagged edges that are not TOO far off the DOF, none of them seem too particularly outstanding in comparison to good primes.

Useful Range on a 1.6 crop for GENERAL shooting:
17-55 / 24-105 / 24-70

Well this is obvious because only one was actually MADE for 1.6 crop as a no-compromise solution. 24mm on a 1.6 crop feels restrictive for indoor shooting, unless you are in an open concept mansion and have tons of room to back up. It loses out on the long end, but I find the 17-20 range very critical and used VERY often. In other words, I find I'm changing lenses a LOT more with a 10-22/24-70 combo over a 17-55/70-200 combo. I personally do not enjoy making many lens changes... it's cumbersome and annoying, and I always seem to miss great shots when fumbling with lens changes. (I wish I had 3 hands)

Flexibility/versatilit​y for GENERAL shooting
17-55 / 24-105 and 24-70

With 2.8 aperture and IS, it's ready for you in broad daylight, or the middle of the night. The 24-105 is slower but with IS can get you by in a pinch in the dark. The 24-70 is faster, but when it's really dark, it's really hard to get a 1/60 shutter speed without a tripod. But it also has an easier time focusing than the 24-105 in the dark. It's really a toss up for second between the 24-105 and 24-70 on this one, but the 17-55 is certainly on top. There is no other lens like it. Many people say you don't NEED IS at short focal lengths. Well, those people have likely never taken beautifully sharp 55mm shots handheld at 1/4 shutter, without leaning on anything. As a note, ALL of them provide nice portrait ability.

Quality Control:
24-105 / 24-70 / 17-55

Though plagued with a recall in the beginning, the 24-105 currently seems to have the lowest number of complainers, myself included. The 24-70 in the pro world is often hated for it's inaccurate focusing at the wide end. If you can get a good one then you're set. But there seems to be a significant number of bad ones. (Though certainly not in the majority I assume) Test it's focus accuracy at 24mm. Many reported the same issue... backfocusing at 24mm, which gradually improves through the focal range. By the time you get to 70mm, focus is usually spot on. So test that wide end!

The 17-55 has a weak IS motor and dies after hard use. You have to use it ONLY when needed, and it should last forever. Overuse it and it'll break. I was the first on POTN to report this back in 2006. Many identical cases have popped up since then. I have found a rather consistent way to tell if it's on the way out. Half-press the shutter so IS is activated, and slowly zoom from 17 to 55. If it's starting the dying process, you'll likely see a jump in the viewfinder between 28 and 35mm. If it isn't, then you're good. It's been mostly pros who've subjected the lens to rigorous use that have failed 17-55 IS motors, so the casual shooter may not need to worry. In any case, I suggest any 17-55 user ONLY turn on IS when you actually need it. So in other words, shooting under 1/50 with NO flash and no tripod.

Another issue with the 17-55 is dust. This can be avoided by using a UV or clear filter and threading it quite snugly. I believe it collects dust through the space between the front element and the body. If you put your hand infront of the front element and zoom back and forth, you can feel lots of air getting blown out and sucked in. Putting a filter on there really snug will prevent it from sucking dust through there. I am assuming that it now sucks air through somewhere else that may be filtered with felt or something because I am getting no dust.

Size/weight:
17-55 and 24-105 / 24-70

Both the 17-55 and 24-105 tied for this as they are almost the exact same weight and size. They are pleasant to use. The 24-70 is huge and heavy. Some people say only a wimp would complain about the 24-70 weight. Well, I challenge those tough guys to hold up a 30D/24-70/580 combo up for a 16 HOUR shoot. That's how I have to use it, so weight is an important factor. For me, the arms really get tired after the 12th hour passes.

Hood design:
24-70 / 17-55 / 24-105:

As the 24-70 uses a reversed zoom design, where it's fully extended at 24mm and retracted at 70mm, it allows the hood to be effective at ALL focal lengths. This is really nice, though it's huge and goofy looking imo, but a really cool design. The 24-105 hood is optimized for full frame and film, so it's less effective than it could be on a 1.6 or 1.3 crop. The 17-55 hood is totally optimized for 1.6, the only format the lens will fit on. I use the EW-83J hood from the 17-55, and put it on the 24-105 to get better control of stray light, without any vignetting on a 1.6 crop. It even works great on a 1.3, so I would suggest any crop camera/24-105 users give the EW-83J a shot.

Focusing Ability:
17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105

Under poor conditions, the 17-55 and 24-70 both seem to perform similarly. When one can't hit focus, the other can't seem to either. First place goes to the 17-55 due to the speed. It is MUCH faster than the 24-70. The 17-55 can go from infinity to min focus and back to infinity in the time it takes the 24-70 to go from infinity to min focus. Considering that the 17-55 pauses when it hits min focus before it's return trip to infinity, I'd guess the 17-55 rips through it's focusing range at LEAST three times faster than the 24-70 can, all with the same accuracy percentage.
The 24-105 on the other hand performs noticably worse than the other two in darker conditions. There is definitely a difference. That's not to say it's horrible though. The 580's AF assist lamp does WONDERS for it in dark places, so AF actually does reasonably well with it. So I would certainly not say the 24-105 cannot perform well in darker areas. Just have that flash handy. And watch out because the hood can block the AF assist light from reaching your focus points, which is why I often remove hoods when shooting in darker places.

Price:
All tied.

Really, they are all about the same price. All have their advantages that make them WORTH their price, so there is no particular standout in regards to bang for the buck. Do you want the ONLY F/2.8 normal range IS zoom in the world? Do you need extra zoom range and IS? Do you need a fast zoom lens that also works on your 1.3 or FF body? All have their merits and all are worth their price.

Ability to be used as a weapon in a fight:
24-70 / 24-105 and 17-55

Seeing as how the 24-70 is a lot heavier, it would likely perform noticably better than the other two when used as a projectile aimed at one's head. As the 17-55 and 24-105 are the same size and weight, they both tie for second place. Though personally I am more the type to try and get away before fighting, it is nice to know the 24-70 can perform well if backed into a corner with no way out. I would also pick the 24-70 over the other two when placed in a shoulder bag and used as an improvised mace and chain flail.


So that is my review on the three lenses. If I had to choose ONLY ONE it would definitely be the 17-55. But all of them are great lenses in their own right.

17-55 at wide: (colours subdued due to processing style)

IMAGE: http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/POTN/3lens/17-55a.jpg

17-55 at tele:
IMAGE: http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/POTN/3lens/17-55b.jpg

24-70 at wide:
IMAGE: http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/POTN/3lens/24-70a.jpg

24-70 at wide:
IMAGE: http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/POTN/3lens/24-70b.jpg

24-70 mid zoom:
IMAGE: http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/POTN/3lens/24-70c.jpg

24-105 at tele:
IMAGE: http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/POTN/3lens/24-105a.jpg

24-105 at wide
IMAGE: http://www.nightanddayphoto.ca/misc/forumpics/POTN/3lens/24-105b.jpg

Post #1, Apr 09, 2008 16:09:59


-Lloyd
BOUDOIR WEBSITE: The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photographyexternal link
Lifestyle Website: Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographersexternal link
Facebookexternal link | Twitterexternal link | Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
darksparkz
Senior Member
darksparkz's Avatar
Joined Jan 2008
214 posts
Chicago, IL
[MORE/SHARE]

Great review.

There's definitely a lot of subjective opinions on comparing the 24-70 and the 24-105, as well as the 17-55 too, even though it isn't an L glass.

The 24-105 is naturally going to be not as good as the other two in low lighting or at nighttime due to the f/4 on it.

The 17-55mm is what I'd agree on to be one of the best walkaround lenses, decent wide angles with some low end telephoto.

Post #2, Apr 09, 2008 16:22:20


Gear List
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
arild8515
Senior Member
Joined Jan 2008
134 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Excellent, wonderful comparing review. Thank you very much, good sir.

Post #3, Apr 09, 2008 16:25:06


Leica M9, Summicron 28
20D, 18-55IS
1DsII, 1DII, Tamron 90 Macro

LOG IN TO REPLY
Chambord
Senior Member
Joined May 2007
310 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Wow nice review.

Guess buying the 17-55 was a good plan! Although I have a nice big spec of dust in it already! *cries* Not that it matters yet, im sure i'll be able to giggle it free.

Im also in the debate of keeping the 10-22, my current one is borrowed off someone but I haven't used it since the 17-55 so im thinking to get a 70-200 instead...

Nice write up again :)

Post #4, Apr 09, 2008 16:34:48




LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
LightRules's Avatar
Joined Jun 2005
9,908 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Nice write-up, Weenie! :lol: [Seriously, you have started a very useful thread here.]

I probably agree with 99% of your comments.

Post #5, Apr 09, 2008 16:40:48 as a reply to Chambord's post 6 minutes earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
picturecrazy
THREAD ­ STARTER
soft-hearted weenie-boy
picturecrazy's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
8,504 posts
Alberta, CANADA
[MORE/SHARE]

thanks guys. I hope it could be of some use to some people trying to decide.

Post #6, Apr 09, 2008 20:49:54


-Lloyd
BOUDOIR WEBSITE: The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photographyexternal link
Lifestyle Website: Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographersexternal link
Facebookexternal link | Twitterexternal link | Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
Grentz
Goldmember
Grentz's Avatar
Joined Apr 2007
2,874 posts
Midwest, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Very nice take on these 3 HIGHLY debated lenses. Its amazing how popular/debated they are. No matter what you are making a trade off going with one over the others (which is why it is such a hard decision) so it really comes down to YOU for what YOU need as far as which one is good for you.

Me? I am a 24-105 kinda guy. But I would love f2.8 ;)

Post #7, Apr 09, 2008 20:56:56


Search.TechIslands.comexternal link - Photography Shopping Search Engine

www.TechIslands.comexternal link - News and Reviews

My Gear List - 60D

LOG IN TO REPLY
junji98
Senior Member
Joined Jan 2008
142 posts
Toronto, Canada
[MORE/SHARE]

it sure reinforced my inclination toward the 17-55. now for the difficult part of convincing the missis that 1000 dollars is a good amount to spend on a lens LOL!

Post #8, Apr 09, 2008 21:02:32


Ed In Toronto

LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
Joined Sep 2005
8,816 posts
CT
[MORE/SHARE]

Really nice write up! Thanks for putting it together. After owing the 24-70 for about 18 months and now the 24-105 for about a year, I definitely agree on your points with those two lenses. I haven't had the pleasure to use a 17-55 yet, but I'm tempted to pick one up just because everyone raves about it!

Post #9, Apr 09, 2008 21:03:36


connecticut wedding photographerexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
junzo13
Member
junzo13's Avatar
Joined Nov 2007
60 posts
Manila
[MORE/SHARE]

picturecrazy wrote in post #5294936external link
The 17-55 has a weak IS motor and dies after hard use. You have to use it ONLY when needed, and it should last forever. Overuse it and it'll break. I was the first on POTN to report this back in 2006. Many identical cases have popped up since then. I have found a rather consistent way to tell if it's on the way out. Half-press the shutter so IS is activated, and slowly zoom from 17 to 55. If it's starting the dying process, you'll likely see a jump in the viewfinder between 28 and 35mm. If it isn't, then you're good. It's been mostly pros who've subjected the lens to rigorous use that have failed 17-55 IS motors, so the casual shooter may not need to worry. In any case, I suggest any 17-55 user ONLY turn on IS when you actually need it. So in other words, shooting under 1/50 with NO flash and no tripod.

Thank you so much for this tip. I'm not a pro, but the 17-55 is sort of my walk around lens for a year now (although my 10-22 is seeing more action lately).

Post #10, Apr 09, 2008 21:29:22


http://janibalani.blog​spot.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
-MasterChief-
- B E L I E V E -
-MasterChief-'s Avatar
Joined Mar 2006
3,162 posts
Requiem
[MORE/SHARE]

thanks Lloyd! nice to know i can use the "brick" for self defense! :D :p

Post #11, Apr 09, 2008 21:34:28


beginners argue about bodies, pros argue about glass, seasoned veterans let the pictures argue for themselves.
.:EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 7D, 17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L 100 f/2.8L Macro, 70-200 f/2.8L IS:.
complete gearlist and feedback FACEBOOKexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
ed rader's Avatar
Joined May 2005
22,032 posts
silicon valley
[MORE/SHARE]

thanx Loyd -- i've owned all three lenses and i think your review was pretty accurate and your samples show that all three are capable of great images.

ed rader

Post #12, Apr 09, 2008 21:56:48 as a reply to -MasterChief-'s post 22 minutes earlier.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/external link
http://erader.zenfolio​.com/external link
5D3, SL1, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L, 35f2 IS, 24mm f2.8 ef-s, 15mm FE (sigma), 270ex II, gitzo, markins, benro

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tsmith
Formerly known as Bluedog_XT
Tsmith's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
10,420 posts
South_the 601
[MORE/SHARE]

Indeed good write up. The more I use my 24-105 the more I like the results with it. No wonder the FF guys like it so much.

Post #13, Apr 09, 2008 22:08:58 as a reply to ed rader's post 12 minutes earlier.



Canon EOS 7D | Canon EF-S 10-22mm | Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS
Canon PowerShot S95
MY PBASE GALLERYexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jason ­ C
Goldmember
Joined Dec 2007
3,988 posts
Calabasas, CA
[MORE/SHARE]

Outstanding piece, thank you for your effort in this consise and valuable work.

Post #14, Apr 09, 2008 22:11:42


Equipment & Feedback
"I am not interested in shooting new things-I am interested to see things new"--Ernst Haas

LOG IN TO REPLY
Katzer1
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2006
535 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Those are wonderful samples which bring a lot of credit to your report.
Erez

Post #15, Apr 09, 2008 22:20:24


Erez Katz, www.pbase.com/katzer

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
68,637 views & 0 likes for this thread
An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro use
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00083 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
741 guests, 542 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is LudeMurph

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.