17-40 vs 24-105

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #12575138
I think most go for $350~ around a 100 bucks loss from original price. But mostly would recommend get used, cause that way you could sell it the same price you bought it for (unless it was damaged)

17-55 IS are still a thousand, I think I saw one yesterday on Craiglist for $960, while 17-40 F4 for 600ish I think. one of my friends is selling 24-105mm for $800 (Locally though), he got it from MKII package long time ago, so it costed him less than 800 to get 24-105mm.

Hence imo EF-S and EF lens hold value equally. While third party lens are good alternatives but users may bare other risks.

Thanks Calvin, but can you also address the IQ of the 17 50 vs the 17 55

Bianchi wrote in post #12575169
Thanks Calvin, but can you also address the IQ of the 17 50 vs the 17 55

I don't know a 17-55 IS 2.8, I can't take sample pictures with the lens and compare it to my tamron, but this is the chart.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

thestone11 wrote in post #12574917
I wouldn't consider the 17-55mm f/2.8, since it is an EF-S lens. If you have the thinking of going full frame later on, get a L lens for sure. You won't be able to use the EF-S on the full frame. Why spend over a $1000 for something that won't be able to use when you upgrade your body? Not to mention, L Lens hold its value better if you are thinking about reselling your gear later.

The 17-40 is usually for taking landscape photo, f/4 is really all its needed. I personally won't use the 17-40 for walk around lens, for that matter the 24-70mm f/2.8 will be the best IMO. Try to find a used copy if money is a matter. I don't mind the 24-70 has no IS, you don't really need IS on a fast lens like that, on 70-200mm is a different case. I really don't like the 24-105 myself, for a walk around lens, I don't think f/4 is enough, especially indoor. And I personally like shooting in your face photo with nice bokeh, the 24-105mm has worse closest focusing distance than the 24-70mm.

Forgive me for saying, but when I decided to get into photography as a habit over five years ago, I know that one day I will eventually go full frame. That huge step took me four years to take. Within that four year, I started out with the XTi, then to the 40D, and then 5DII. By the time I decided to stop beating around the bush and just get the 17-55/2.8 three years later, I ended up beating myself for not get this lens earlier. All those lost opportunities that I could have had if I just settle for this lens to begin with. Like most people, price was the biggest concern when purchasing a new lens, and the 17-55/2.8 pricing didn't make it any easier. Yes, the 17-55/2.8 may be a EF-S lens, and yes, that means its not compatible for a full frame body. If everybody thought that way, than why is the lens still selling so well, and why is it still valued at almost $1000 used, just a hundred or so dollars away from retail...The fact is, there is NO substitute for this lens, not even the 24-70/2.8. There are pros and cons, but so does all of Canons other lens. You just need to pick the one that is right for you and your current gear set up. The 24-70 on a crop is 38-112, as oppose to the 17-55 on a crop is 27-88. The 17-55 has a 3-stop IS which allows you to stop your shutter as far down as 1/6. Try doing that with the 24-70 without upping your ISO. Now, I'm not saying that those L lens mentioned are bad lenses, that's far from the truth. I'm simply saying that they may not be the best lens for your body. If you decide to go full frame today, tomorrow, or even a month from now, don't get the 17-55/2.8. But if you don't plan on upgrading to full frame till years from now, than why not consider EF-S lens, especially if they are made primarily for crop bodies. BTW, the 17-55/2.8 got a rating of 9.1 on FredM, that's L lens Territory.

Also on that note, the angle of view for EF-S lens, along with its respective hood is made to accommodate the crop bodies. EF lens are not, so you are more likely to flare your image.

FYI, IS is not really need for 70-200 when using it outdoors. Your shutter is usually above 1/300, which negates the uses of IS.

I strongly disagree with those comments about the 17-55. It has great image quality, but terrible build quality. I've had two of them and had problems with both. They get loose and collect dust, the IS seems to have issues and focus had to be repaired on both of mine. A lot of people think that is the must have lens for crop cameras and I've tried to make it work, but was terribly disappointed, mainly because of the price.

In my opinion the best lens in that range right now is the Sigma 17-50 OS (around $600). It is much better built than the canon and the image quality is just as good. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is built even worse than the Canon, even though it has a 7 year warranty, the service from Tamron was terrible!

I would only consider the Sigma 17-50 or the 17-40 L, both are great lenses and will last.

The 24-105 is a fantastic lens too. It really just depends on what your needs are, but you won't regret any of those 3 lenses.

SamuelYCWang wrote in post #12575395
FYI, IS is not really need for 70-200 when using it outdoors. Your shutter is usually above 1/300, which negates the uses of IS.

Totally disagree with this! You need IS on longer lenses, you can't always get your shutter speed up that high. I personally don't think you need IS on shorter lenses like 17-55.

ShotByTom wrote in post #12575526
Totally disagree with this! You need IS on longer lenses, you can't always get your shutter speed up that high. I personally don't think you need IS on shorter lenses like 17-55.

My apologies for making my comment a bit ambiguous. I was referring to those who use the 70-200 for outdoor sporting where your shutter it usually in the high 1/300. As for indoors, IS would be a big help. However, I may be wrong, but most owners of those lenses tent to be sports photographer. Also, short range lens might not need IS, but I rather have it and not have to up the ISO more than I desire.

ShotByTom wrote in post #12575507
I strongly disagree with those comments about the 17-55. It has great image quality, but terrible build quality. I've had two of them and had problems with both. They get loose and collect dust, the IS seems to have issues and focus had to be repaired on both of mine. A lot of people think that is the must have lens for crop cameras and I've tried to make it work, but was terribly disappointed, mainly because of the price.

In my opinion the best lens in that range right now is the Sigma 17-50 OS (around $600). It is much better built than the canon and the image quality is just as good. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is built even worse than the Canon, even though it has a 7 year warranty, the service from Tamron was terrible!

I would only consider the Sigma 17-50 or the 17-40 L, both are great lenses and will last.

The 24-105 is a fantastic lens too. It really just depends on what your needs are, but you won't regret any of those 3 lenses.

I can't say I disagree with you, cause its true. The IQ is up there with the L lenses, but the built certainly is not. As far as dust goes, I never really had such an issue, but I have heard complaints regarding it. On that note, the only real issue I had with my 17-55 was the creeping. But that comment in all non-L lenses.

I don't think its a must to own a EFS lens just because you own a crop body, I'm just saying, don't completely disregard there existence. The 17-55 is one of those lenses that really has no substitute and should be consider.

Right now I dont really want to get EF-S just because I have my 1D which I actually started to use more than my 40D. I also plan on eventually going full frame within the next year or so. I personally dont think 24mm is fine considering I dont really shoot much landscape.

I have both, but I agree with chomish:

chomish wrote in post #12573635
I would probably go with the 24-105. Its an excellent lens. Its very sharp and easy to find used as well since it comes packaged with combos. Some purchase the combo with the lens to then sell and make a few bucks. It also has IS which will allow you to shoot stationary objects indoors with no problem. I think 24-105 is a perfect do it all FL.

Julius

If you are shooting outdoors mostly the f4 would not be a problem on the 17-40. But the 24-105 will be wonderful for mostly any situation. I just love my 24-70, which isn't perfect, but is still my most used combo with the 5D2. For your budget, I think I'd save up another month or two and get the 17-55 because I have never heard anyone who has one of those regret getting it. I have FF, so the 24-70 is what I depend on. For my 40D, it's a little long. I never did get a 17-55 because I don't need it, but if I only had a 40D, I'd get it. Worth the investment. I hear a lot of L lens users dismiss the 17-55, not an L, doesn't have the same quality build, but ignore that and go with the results. That's the key.

Good call. I also try to stay away from EF-S lenses, no matter how good they are because to me, they are still limited. I have a crop body and a FF, if I buy a lens and can only use it on one camera I feel like I am really only getting half a lens.

Anyhow I have both the lenses you mentioned. I think optically, the 17-40 is a better lens. My 24-105 has pretty severe vignetting. On FF the 24-105 is a better range, but on a crop body it is definitely not wide enough. If I could only keep one, I'd keep the 17-40. I think it is the best value in Canon's L-lineup.

TheRealBoat wrote in post #12575951
Right now I dont really want to get EF-S just because I have my 1D which I actually started to use more than my 40D. I also plan on eventually going full frame within the next year or so. I personally dont think 24mm is fine considering I dont really shoot much landscape.

howiewu wrote in post #12581963
Good call. I also try to stay away from EF-S lenses, no matter how good they are because to me, they are still limited. I have a crop body and a FF, if I buy a lens and can only use it on one camera I feel like I am really only getting half a lens.

Anyhow I have both the lenses you mentioned. I think optically, the 17-40 is a better lens. My 24-105 has pretty severe vignetting. On FF the 24-105 is a better range, but on a crop body it is definitely not wide enough. If I could only keep one, I'd keep the 17-40. I think it is the best value in Canon's L-lineup.

Yes, you may be limited, but it works both ways because now your body is also limited. You will never be able to go any wider than 17mm.

Bottom line is if you plan to go FF, get the L. Whichever one you choose will work great. I just purchased a 17-40L today and I can't stop smiling at it's results. Just know how to use your gear and you will succeed.