IS on 17-55 f/2.8 vs. 24-105 f/4L

[enrixan]

Hi,

I've been around the forum for some time and just got my first dslr
for a few months now. I currently have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS (got it at
a very good price) and am considering swapping with a 24-105 f/4
because I feel like I like more reach.. I kinda like to take candid
shots of my friends. Anyway, I also have a tokina 12-24 so I got the
wide angle covered.

My question is, how's the IS on 24-105 compared to 17-55..
I haven't seen anyone ask this question yet so.. hopefully someone
can answer me for those that have experience with both
lenses.

Thank you for any response!
I appreciate your time.

[jwcdds]

I'm pretty sure the IS is decent on the 24-105L. The only thing you need to factor in is you're starting at f/4 instead of f/2.8. However, the 17-55 stops short at 55, so if it's longer you want, you're option is simply going w/ the 24-105L.

[braidkid]

I asked a similar queston here...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...76#post6993276

Sounds like the older IS system (24-105) is less prone to failure than the newer IS system (17-55). Doesn't make much sense to me. You would think the new IS would be just as reliable as the old version but I digress.

[Jeff81]

It works great. As mentioned previously, it is f/4, so shooting indoors/low light situations is a little more difficult compared to the 17-55. I actually made the opposite change from what you're considering because I wanted a wider walk-around lens. I decided to keep the 17-55 instead of selling it though. The 24-105 works great for candid shots of family/friends. Its a great lens, I think you'll be happy with it.

[enrixan]

Thanks for the advices guys.. I do find it weird that the old IS is better than the new one though.. I think i have much more skill to learn before I change my equipment, so probably I'm going to stick to m current setup until I really learn my style of shooting..

Before DSLR, I had a panasonic FZ50 and a canon S1IS, both super zoom P&S.. so as you can see, It's hard for me to live with mere 17-55!! lol..

[jwcdds]

If it's super zoom that you're used to, you can look at picking up:
- canon 18-200
- tamron 18-270
- sigma 18-200

[picturecrazy]

17-55 is very hard to beat. I find the image quality from the 17-55 is consistently better than the 24-105. The focus speed and accuracy is also better. The IS works well on both lenses, though the 17-55 IS motor is less reliable. Turn it on ONLY when you truly need it, and it should last forever. I would _NEVER_ trade in a 17-55 for a 24-105 if I only owned a 40D. I'd much rather buy a telephoto instead to go WITH the 17-55. 85 1.8, 100 F/2, 70-200.

[nicksan]

Both have up to 3 stops of I.S. so they FUNCTION the same.
As for reliability, you have to like the odds on the "L"...but on a 1.6x crop body the 17-55 IS is probably the first lens I would buy for it.

[showtm490]

Just curious, I'm looking to buying a 17-55 but I've heard a few people claiming they had to have the IS repaired. Is this common? If so I'm now nervous about buying a used one with no warranty.

[SoundsGood]

Originally Posted by showtm490

...I've heard a few people claiming they had to have the IS repaired. Is this common?

I'd like to know too... I've got one arriving in 2 days.

[Jeff81]

Originally Posted by showtm490

Just curious, I'm looking to buying a 17-55 but I've heard a few people claiming they had to have the IS repaired. Is this common? If so I'm now nervous about buying a used one with no warranty.

As far as I can tell its not super common but I have had a few people recommend keeping the IS on only when you need to use it so it lasts longer.

[braidkid]

If you do a search you'll find several people complain of IS failures on the 17-55. I believe it's documented enough to warrant concern. I recently bought a 17-55 and only use the IS when needed. The cost is around $100 for repair. I have heard of several months grace period after the year warranty in which Canon repaired free of charge.

Other than this issue and occasional flare, it's a wonderful lens.

[handyhaver]

I bought both at once to see which would suit my shooting needs. I sent the 17-55 back and have no regrets. I love my 24-105. Yes at time I wish I could go wider or faster without changing lenses, but most of my shooting is outdoors & the 24-105 shines. I love the extra reach when it's needed.

Mark

[enrixan]

Thanks for the tip about the IS. I'll keep that in mind. is the IS on 28-135 equally good?? I'm guessing not.. anyway, in general i like (LOVE) my UWA, so I don't think I can part away from it. However, once in a while I do like to take some candid shots with extra reach of at least 100mm zoom, which is why i think the 24-105 would make an excellent walk around. or the 28-135 as a much cheaper alternative..

Have you guys heard about the tokina 16.5-135? It's gonna be so interesting to see that come out!! i wish it had constant aperture of 4 though... currently I believe it's 3.5-5.6. It's like a 28-135 without IS and with wider angle.

[Oteck]

you may want to consider primes if you want to do candid like the 85 or 135.
an alternative is get the 70-200. I run this setup and i never miss the 55-70mm gap