Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #1
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
 
picturecrazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
Posts: 8,501
Default An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro use

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/versatility 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)


17-55 at tele:


24-70 at wide:


24-70 at wide:


24-70 mid zoom:


24-105 at tele:


24-105 at wide

Last edited by picturecrazy : 10th of December 2010 (Fri) at 09:32. Reason: fixing broken image links
picturecrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #2
darksparkz
Member
 
darksparkz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 214
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

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.
darksparkz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #3
arild8515
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 134
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

Excellent, wonderful comparing review. Thank you very much, good sir.
__________________
Leica M9, Summicron 28
20D, 18-55IS
1DsII, 1DII, Tamron 90 Macro
arild8515 is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #4
Concorde Rules
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England!
Posts: 310
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

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
__________________
| Concorde Photo Gallery | Concorde 202 G-BBDG Restoration Gallery |
| Canon EOS 7D | Canon EOS 40D | Canon BG-E2N Grip | Canon Speedlite 430EX |
| Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM | Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 USM IS | Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L IS |
| Wishlist: Canon 1.4x TC | 300mm F4 L IS |
Concorde Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #5
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
 
LightRules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,908
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

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

I probably agree with 99% of your comments.
LightRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #6
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
 
picturecrazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
Posts: 8,501
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

thanks guys. I hope it could be of some use to some people trying to decide.
picturecrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #7
Grentz
Goldmember
 
Grentz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Midwest, USA
Posts: 2,874
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

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
__________________
Search.TechIslands.com - Photography Shopping Search Engine

www.TechIslands.com - News and Reviews

My Gear List - 60D
Grentz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #8
junji98
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 142
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

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!
__________________
Ed In Toronto

junji98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #9
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 8,815
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

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!
timnosenzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #10
junzo13
Member
 
junzo13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Manila
Posts: 60
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

Quote:
Originally Posted by picturecrazy View Post
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).
__________________
http://janibalani.blogspot.com
junzo13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #11
-MasterChief-
- B E L I E V E -
 
-MasterChief-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Requiem
Posts: 3,319
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

thanks Lloyd! nice to know i can use the "brick" for self defense!
__________________
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:.
-MasterChief- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #12
ed rader
"I am not the final word"
 
ed rader's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: silicon valley
Posts: 21,927
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

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
__________________
Yellowstone September 2014 http://erader.zenfolio.com/p285251459

5D3, SL1, 16-35L f4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-300L, 100-400L, 35f2 IS, 15mm FE (sigma), 270ex II, gitzo, markins, benro
ed rader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #13
Tsmith
Formerly known as Bluedog_XT
 
Tsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South_the 601
Posts: 10,420
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

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.
__________________

Canon EOS 7D | Canon EF-S 10-22mm | Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS
Canon PowerShot S95
MY PBASE GALLERY
Tsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #14
Jason C
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Calabasas, CA
Posts: 3,923
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

Outstanding piece, thank you for your effort in this consise and valuable work.
__________________
Equipment & Feedback

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


Jason C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of April 2008 (Wed)   #15
Katzer1
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 535
Default Re: An opinion/review/comparison of the 17-55 / 24-70 / 24-105 after two years of pro

Those are wonderful samples which bring a lot of credit to your report.
Erez
__________________
Erez Katz, www.pbase.com/katzer
Katzer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
28-105/28-135/24-105 comparison MarkT8 Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 26 19th of May 2009 (Tue) 14:37
18-200 OS v 17-55 IS v 24-105 IS Comparison LightRules Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 5 9th of November 2007 (Fri) 16:06
Popphoto.com Comparison Review of XTi DizzyV6P Canon EOS Digital Cameras 0 28th of June 2007 (Thu) 16:14
Metallic Print Review/Comparison coreypolis RAW, Post Processing and Printing 7 1st of December 2006 (Fri) 22:57
Could see a bokeh comparison on the 24-70 2.8L and the 24-105 4L IS? Reptile Bob Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 15 28th of November 2006 (Tue) 20:31


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.